Source: https://www.thinknamibia.org.na/environmental-law/chapter17
Timestamp: 2020-08-08 21:06:15
Document Index: 422344887

Matched Legal Cases: ['sui generis', 'sui generis', 'sui generis', 'sui generis', 'art 7', 'Art 27', 'sui generis']

Think NamibiaEnvironmental Law - Customary Law and the Environment
It was in this context that customary environmental law research begun. One first result was the publication of Without Chiefs, there would be no Game. Customary Law and Nature Conservation3 . Later, the internationally designed and conducted BIOTA project requested legal anthropological research on the potential of customary law for the protection of biodiversity. Biodiversity and the Ancestors: Challenges to Customary and Environmental Law. Case Studies from Namibia4 a first set of studies was accomplished within the BIOTA project in 2008.5 A second set appeared in a subsequent publication Knowledge Lives in the Lake. Case Studies in Environmental and Customary Law from Southern Africa .6 Certain aspects of the research done in the BIOTA project could be pursued further in another internationally conducted project: the TFO project.7 This project run from 2010 to 2015.
Although the wording of this provision is reminiscent of the wording of Article 95(l) of the Constitution, the legal status of Section 3(2)(c) of the Traditional Authorities Act reaches beyond the limits of Article 95(l) of the Constitution. Article 95 is part of Chapter 11 of the constitution, titled Principles of State Policy. which, as stipulated in Article 101, are not “of and by themselves enforceable by any Court”. Section 3(2)(c) of the Traditional Authorities Act is fully legally enforceable in a court of law, be it a traditional court (community court in terms of the Community Courts Act30 ) or a state court.
The collection of self-stated customary laws of the various Namibian communities in Customary Law Ascertained give an interesting in sight into the customary environmental law.32 The following quotes some examples from the first volume ofCustomary Law Ascertained, which contains the customary law of the Owambo, Kavango and Caprivi communities:33
The constitutions of conservancies are a very relevant source of the customary law of the various traditional communities. The constitutions of conservancies are striking examples for the potential of customary law to adopt statutory stipulations and to develop them in a creative manner. While the Nature Conservation Amendment Act provides for conservancies with respect to wildlife, many constitutions of conservancies go beyond wildlife and take note of other natural resources in their areas. Wildlife management, indeed, requires a comprehensive planning that includes the use of grass, water, forests etc.47 The conservancy concept reflected in provisions of this nature is a product of the living customary law: it is an amendment to the Nature Conservation Amendment Act.
Social visions were developed and implemented in the Nyae Nyae constitution in the benefit distribution scheme of the conservancy. In view of the sub-divisions of the area into districts and localities (n!oresi )52 possible income from various sources were allocated in percentages to the whole of the conservancy, the district and the holder of an!ore . 100% of the proceeds from subsistence hunting goes to then!ore , while income from the sale of live game and concessions for trophy hunting goes to the whole community. Fees for the use of resources and the use of tourist camps are shared between the three levels.53 This scheme of income distribution reflects the vicinity principle as it is known on customary law.54 Those closest to the income-generating activity are given the bigger share of it or may even have the right to the whole.
The customary law research in the TFO project added important aspects to the understanding of customary environmental law. So far, customary water law was hardly considered in customary law research.58 However, the research noted with interest that some Namibian communities found it worthwhile to self-state about the use of water in their customary law.59 Research done for a master’s dissertation in law60 revealed an unexpected picture on the ‘ownership’ of water:61 For a good majority of the interviewed people the state, although claiming ownership under general law,62 was not seen to be the owner. Owners were the community, God and a mythical entity with the name ofEkongoro . The customary law research in the TFO project took note of these findings and enquired in particular the reference toEkongoro . Of the interviews conducted within the framework of the TFO Project done between March 2011 and August 2015 in the Kavango Region, the adjacent part of the Caprivi Region and in the Kavango Delta, i.e in Ngamiland of Botswana, about 70 focused onEkongoro .63 This was done so because, the very first interest of the empirical research was to generate qualitative information on water, i.e. on the general perceptions of the people on water64 – water in the Kavango River as the main source of water, but also locally pumped water or water provided, in the case of Namibia, by NamWater65 .
Who or what isEkongoro ? What is the social meaning ofEkongoro ? Is there any legal relevance ofEkongoro ? Most probably “yes” when we take note of what stated a 70 years old Thimbukushu-speaking farmer living at the Chobe River in the Caprivi Region in an interview about customary water law: “Makongoro are the Hafumu of water– the Makongoro are the rulers of water - and we respect them”.66
So, who or what isEkongoro ?
Where do we findEkongoro ?
The same respondent is very precise in naming places where one should be able to findEkongoro :71
The stories told aboutEkongoro are stories heard along the Kavango River and in adjacent areas.74 They are obviously told from generation to generation and even appear in material used in schools.75 Incidents withEkongoro are remembered with details. Who was with whom whenEkongoro attacked is remembered and even the year in which incidents happened is recalled. The key-sentence “Makongoro are the Hafumu of water– the Makongoro are the rulers of water - and we respect them” found, indeed, support in a broad number of the interviews. It was not just the narrative of one respondent, who enjoyed to be interviewed and who allowed himself to be taken away by his imagination. The key-sentence finds support in the sense thatEkongoro is still seen as a powerful animated entity in the relationship between human beings and water.
The animated non-human parts of the environment appear as if they were human-like entities, i.e. entities which human beings can see, even have encounters with. Human beings can communicate with these entities. Despite their power over human beings, they are part of the world of human beings. How else would it have been possible that the grandfather in one of the quoted interviews becameEkongoro after his death? As ancestor, he could becomeEkongoro , as it is part a widely spread understanding in African traditional cultures that ancestors remain as the living-dead part of the human world, are able to communicate with the living-living, have influence on them, are even open to negotiate this influence.76 They may induce fear, but they also allow negotiations to avoid negative consequences.
The fact theEkongoro is calledFumu is also to be considered in this context. TheFumu is not only a respected personality, theFumu usually an offspring of a royal house, has special relations to the ancestors that allow him / her to communicate with them for the benefit of the community. The office of theFumu is religiously blessed, it is sacred, what does not exclude that the ruler acts wrongly and eventually against the aspirations of the community.77
Ekongoro is reported to attack canoes and human beings,Ekongoro is also said to kill people. This is one side, there is another side according to whichEkongoro saves water and natural resources and protects them, thatEkongoro provides for the growing of grass by holding water available. There is one voice which says thatEkongoro may swallow people, but will them always release alive.
To clarify the discrepant views, it will be helpful to refer here to the fact that, following other respondents, there are two sorts ofEkongoro or two mythical entities that live in the waters of the Kavango River: There isEkongoro andMbava , called the female side ofEkongoro , which has the same powers asEkongoro and is said to be the most dangerous being in the waters.
As much asEkongoro was part of the research interest from the beginning of the customary water law inquiry,Mbava came only late to the attention of the reported research. More information is, indeed, needed that would also require questions about the statement whyMbava is the female side toEkongoro .Ekongoro andMbawa which represent separately the quality of good and bad or we have the two qualities in one is eventually not very relevant. Relevant is that we have a dichotomy, a dichotomy of elements which are related to each other. There is the one, the animated force, let’s call itEkongoro that maintaining water as the source of life, for the availability of fish, it is the rainbow that shines over the earth after life-supporting rain. There is the other, let’s call itMbava , which is very dangerous to people and may cause harm to them. There is one side, which is good, there is another, which is bad.
The dichotomy ofEkongoro andMbava , or the dichotomy withinEkongoro itself, reminds of what is essential in the discourses on the animation of nature.78 This discourse deals with the concept of force, that is neutral on the surface, but can turn out to be good or depending on the case of employment. The power in the animated nature can, indeed, be supportive to humans, but also harmful. The power of nature can be good or bad as the power of human beings can be good and bad.
There are two important messages in the philosophy of the animated nature:79 The first is that otherwise unexplainable causes of events are explainable with reference to the execution of power by the animated non-human world: You are not ill because of an unexplainable illness, you are ill because somebody, a human or non-human force, made you ill.80 The second message is that the described power, despite its ambivalence, is not excluded from human influence. Influence can be negotiated.81Ekongoro expresses a network of relationships that reach from human connotations (you communicate withEkongoro ) to humanised non-human and even supra-human connotations (Ekongoro , theFumu of water; our grandfather isEkongoro ). The complex conceptualisation ofEkongoro reflects the complexity of the traditional world order. In ethno-philosophical terms and having customary law as the rules of this world order in mind, one could say thatEkongoro is the manifestation of some kind of a customary lawGrundnorm , which, in focusing on power, sets rules and governs the behaviour of human beings.
Radical revisionism, on the other hand, rejects the view, held by many that “tribal peoples lived generally in great harmony, health, and happiness and in balance with their stable environment.”89 “Primitive polluters” is the title of a publication by the anthropologist Rambo.90 Its message is to demonstrate “the essential functional similarity of the environmental interactions of primitive and civilised societies.”91
In a brief, but empirically founded response to the debate on Headland’s revisionism,92 the hypothesis was submitted that people in traditional societies do conserve, but do so only in respect of natural resources whose “depletion they can envisage”.93 The author of the hypothesis, Dye, adds that such societies must “rely on very limited data to ascertain whether a particular resource is being seriously depleted.”94 In his research among a group of rain forest people in Papua New Guinea, Dye saw how crocodiles that had gathered in a small lake – the only bit of water available in an extraordinary dry season – were harvested to extinction. This occurred alongside the community’s refusal to use long gill-nets for fishing in the lake, because they “would fish out the lake”.95
The Swakopmund Protocol deserves a special place in the debate about the protection of traditional knowledge, the question about what traditional knowledge is and why it is relevant to protect it will be discussed. It responds to questions of this nature by linking them in a special way to customary law and traditional authorities. This is the reason why the following, after an inquiry about approaches that have been explored to provide legal protection of traditional knowledge, focuses on the Swakopmund Protocol.112
While the fact-finding mission of WIPO still follows a very broad understanding of traditional knowledge, other discussions (including discussions in WIPO) distinguish between traditional knowledge and expressions of folklore. One can assume that the reason behind this distinction can be found in the different practical relevance of traditional knowledge in the narrower understanding and the expressions of folklore.118 Traditional knowledge about plants, in particular their medicinal facilities, holds extreme societal values and is, above this, in high demand by manufacturers of industrially produced pharmaceuticals. More than half of the world population relies on traditional medicine. In some countries, more than 70% of the people depend on traditional medicine. More than 80% of the medicines used worldwide are of plant origin. ARIPO maintains that “a significant part of the global economy is based on the appropriation of traditional knowledge”.119 However, the same statement concludes that in spite of the important role traditional knowledge plays in sustainable development, it continues to be largely disregarded in development planning. It currently plays only a marginal role in biodiversity management and its contribution to the society in general is neglected. Furthermore, traditional knowledge is being lost under the impact of modernisation and of on-going globalisation processes.120
How to provide legal protection to traditional knowledge? At the very beginning of the debate about the protection of traditional knowledge (understood to include expressions of folklore) is the statement that intellectual property law, as it stands in international treaties, domestic legislation and decided cases, is unable to protect traditional knowledge. As a rule, intellectual property law aims at unknown knowledge generated by an individual.121 Hence, the main purpose of such law is to protect the knowledge of the mentioned individual against the unauthorised trading of this knowledge. The need to create so-calledsui generis protection for traditional knowledge was, therefore, seen to be a logical consequence.122
In other words: the manifestation ofsui generis -approaches are called upon for the more appropriate protection of traditional knowledge. When looking at what was developed as sui generis -approaches, one notes attempts to provide protection to traditional knowledge by placing it into the wider framework that seeks the recognition of rights of indigenous communities in terms of relevant parts of international law that distinguishes indigenous communities from other traditional communities.130 The Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples of 1993 illustrates this in a very significant manner.131 The preamble of the declaration refers to the much-debated right to self-determination of indigenous peoples132 and has as its first recommendation to indigenous communities that a definition of their own intellectual and cultural property be formulated.133 Thomas Cottier relates demands of this nature to claims “for new human rights, especially protecting the habitat and lifestyles of traditional indigenous and local communities and their intellectual property rights”.134 Accordingly, so Cottier, the “holistic concept of Traditional resource Rights” emerged, grounded on very (“largely unclear”) principles and rights.
The Earth Summit of 1992 and its overarching policy instrument – Agenda 21 – is still the most prominent and internationally agreed upon document, laying the groundwork for thesui generis treatment of all matters related to traditional knowledge. It recognises that traditional rule and customary law are grounded in their specific local knowledge and wisdom. Local wisdom governs practice in many instances. Taking note of the potential of traditional governance and customary law and the need to acknowledge this in development strategies, the way forward demands specific attention to what Chapter 26 of Agenda 21 states in its first paragraph:
The Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992, in force since 4 June 1993, translated important parts of the Agenda 21 into a binding international treaty. The Convention contains a variety of obligations for actions by its members to protect biological diversity found in the member countries. Particularly noteworthy is that the Convention refers repeatedly to traditional knowledge. Article 8(j) of the Convention is a kind of constitutionalGrundnorm with respect to traditional knowledge. The Article expects that the members of the Convention
5 BIOTA stands for Biodiversity Transect Africa. The aim of the project (it started in 2000 and ended in 2010) was to monitor the state of affairs of biodiversity and to develop strategic options for political interventions in favour of the sustainability of biodiversity. Cf. Hinz / Ruppel (2008b:59ff.); Falk (2008), but in particular the comprehensive account of the project in Jürgens / Schmiedel / Hoffman (2010) and in this: Hinz / Ruppel (2010); Hinz / Mapaure (2010); Pröpperet al . (2010).
7 TFO stands for The Future Okavango. “The task of the TFO project was to assess important ecosystem functions and services and their valuation within the Okavango basin.” (Juergens (2013:7)). Cf. further Pröpperet al . (2015). The sub-unit directed by the author of this paper looked at relevant legal aspects,inter alia the customary water law in the Kavango basin. Cf. here Hinz (2013b; 2013d and 2014).
8 Part 7, the section on traditional knowledge and customary law extends the relatively short references to traditional knowledge in the introduction toBiodiversity and the Ancestors . (Cf. Hinz / Ruppel (2008b:17f.) An earlier version of this part on traditional knowledge was published in Vol. 3(1) of theNamibia Law Journal ; Hinz (2011a).
11 Many concerns about problem animals were raised to the author when he did fieldwork for Hinz (2003), Cf. Hinz (2003:2). See alsoThe Namibian of 24 November 2010, which reports that the Ministry of Environment and Tourism compensated each conservancy in Namibia with N$60,000 for losses caused by wild animals.
56 As documented in Hinz / Ruppel (2008) and Hinzet al . (2012).
59 See Section 15 of the Laws of Uukwambi in Hinz (2010a:270ff.). This section has seven, quite detailed sub-sections. I quote the first two: “15.1 Water is life. Therefore water shall be conserved because it is important to people, animals and plants for survival. 15.2 The Traditional Authority shall have the responsibility of protecting water, together with other Traditional Authorities. The Traditional Authority shall not allow water to be misused, including fishing with nets adiishongo [Fishing equipment made of buckets or reeds]. Anyone who is found misusing water shall be prosecuted. If the Headman or people from the household misuse water, the matter shall be reported to the Traditional Authority.”
66 Cf. interview 069. Makongoro i s the plural ofEkongoro .Fumu (sing. toHafumu ) means king / queen or ruler. (The transcripts of all quoted interviews are on file with the Centre of African and Migration Studies, University of Bremen.)
67Ekongoro (pl.Makongoro ) is Rukwangali;Likongoro (pl.Makongoro ) is Rumanyo (Rushambyu and Rugciriku);Dikongoro (pl.Makongoro ) is Thimbukushu. Quoting from interviews, the language is the language used by the interviewee. In references of the author, the Rukwangali language is used.
74 There was no opportunity to investigate aboutEkongoro in Angola. The fact that the same people live on the Angolan side where the river is the border between the two countries allows the conclusion thatEkongoro is present there as it in Namibia.
75 Helgard Patemann thankfully drew the attention of the author to a textbook for standard 2 in Thimbukushu that contains a chapter onEkongoro . After referring to Shadikongoro as the place whereEkongoro “lived in this place long ago”, the text requests the learner to consult with their grandfathers or elders to tell them “rightfully” aboutEkongoro ; Kloppers / Majavero (1991:25f.). It would certainly enrich the understanding ofEkongoro to learn to what extent learners have made use of the request to contact their grandfathers aboutEkongoro and also to what extent the school-supported inquiries contributed to the story-telling onEkongoro !
77 Cf. e.g. the description of ‘Royal prerogatives and duties’ of the Kwangari Hompa in McGurk / Gibson (1981:68ff.). According to this the Hompa is “the source and repository of wealth, dispenser of gifts, leader in war, officiant in religious ceremonies, and in some situations a medicine man. ... the chief or another member of the royal family is the ‘rainmaker for all the tribes’ and as such is the keeper of the hereditary rain-making medicine.” Similar notations can be found for the other traditional communities in the Kavango Region; see Gibsonet al . (1981).
79 Which go beyond the interpretation by Fisch who, at (1979:43), holds against a religious or ethical qualification of theEkongoro and the stories aboutEkongoro .
86 Headland’s (1997) article was published inCurrent Anthropology . Ten scholars reviewed his article, with Headland responding. See also Vol. 101 ofThe American Anthropologist .
102 The Constitutional Court of South Africa held that it would be more convincing for certain parts of the South African population to argue against the death penalty by referring toubuntu than to international and national human rights discourses. Cf.S v Makwanyane 1995 (6) BCLR 665 (CC).
106 Cf. the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights of 1995 and its Art 27 2, which accepts the possibility ofsui generis regimes for certain intellectual property rights, albeit within certain limits set by the agreement in general terms.
111 The ratification of the Protocol by the Republic of Zambia in August 2015 brings the number of member states party to the Protocol to seven. See more at: http://www.aripo.org/news-events-publications/news/item/79-zambia-ratifies-the-swakopmund-protocol#sthash.99dOWmOZ.dpuf ; accessed 14 October 2015.
121 Cf. on this Matsushita et al . (2006:695f.) and also Oguanaman (2006).
123 See the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) of 20 December 1996 atwww.wipo.int/treaties; accessed 13 November 2010.
124 Cf. e.g. Normannet al . (1996).
127 Contralesa on RSA’s Traditional Knowledge Bill,afro-ip 2 September 2010; afro-ip.blogspot.com/2010/09/contralesa-on-rsas-traditional.php; accessed on 17 October 2010.
128Business Day 20 May 2010. Allafrica.com/stories/201005200070/html; accessed 17 October 2010.
129 Cf. http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/02/19/south-african-traditional-knowledge-protection-bill-amends-ip-laws/ ; accessed 20 September 2015.
135 Retrieved fromwww.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21; accessed on 20 November 2010.