The species is nationally listed as protected under NEM:BA (National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act No. 10 of 2004, TOPs Regulations of 2007).
Hoodia is protected in five on the nine Provinces in South Africa, namely the Western Cape, Free State, North West, Northern Cape and Kwazulu Natal Provinces.
Threats/Pressures impacting the conservation of the species
Habitat loss/degradation (human induced), invasive alien species (directly affecting the species), harvesting (illegal gathering), accidental mortality (e.g. bycatch), natural die-back and climatic events appear to be important threats.
Of all the threats listed, illegal gathering is regarded the most impor- tant, followed by agricultural activities.
Population Trend
Unknown/not recorded
Sub-national Level
Formal sub-national protection in place
Name
Emma Hemmerlé
Scientific Name
Hoodia gordonii
Common Name(s)
Bushman's hat
Type of Use
Extractive (i.e., the entire organism or parts of the organism are removed from its environment)
If extractive, for the target species, is this use
Lethal
Does this use involve take/extraction of
The whole entire organism
Details of parts/products taken
No harvesting prescripts are given to cultivated material collection as they mostly harvest the entire plant anyway.
Are specific characteristics/traits being targeted?
Unknown/not recorded
Purpose of Use
Basic subsistence (meeting day to day essential needs)
Largescale commercial exploitation for trade
Additional Details (if available)
Traditionally it was used by the San while hunting to suppress appetite, thirst and to maintain their energy levels. They ate portions of the fresh stems of about 180-250g per day. The commercial uses are similar, with dieting and energy boosting (cyclists) being the major consumer markets (300-400mg per day, three times per day). Interestingly, the Patent actually includes anti-diabetic and prevention of aspirin induced gastric damage characteristics.
Limited cultural and traditional use still continuous today.
What is the main end use for any living organisms, parts or products taken/extracted?
Provide Details of resource rights regime where relevant
From 2005 until March 2008 a total of 15.7 tonnes of dry illegal mate- rial have been confiscated. Anecdotal data indicate that it could be more (more than 41 tonnes dry weight), but it is unconfirmed. It is suggested that only 10-15% of illegal trade is reported and/or caught. Legal harvesting peaked in 2007 at 45-50 tonnes of dry material being collected (2005 until March 2008 adds to 70-75 tonnes dry weight). (Exports and CITES records are being double checked).
Local people (e.g., individuals, communities, co-operatives)
National / local private sector
International private sector
If more than one box ticked, please provide more details
Most exports from the Northern Cape were to the UK (Phytopharm) and the Western Cape Province of South Africa. Others include the USA, US Texas and North America.
Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?
Unknown/not recorded
Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE
Unknown/not recorded
Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?
Unknown/not recorded
Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?
Unknown/not reported
Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species
Unknown/not recorded
Unknown/not recorded
Details of assessment carried out
Legal wild harvesting appears not to be a local threat at this stage as harvested sites have not died-back, and harvested plants are sprouting again.
Lack of cooperation between provinces prevents proper management and monitoring of material/permits, enabling illegal trade via ‘less- strict’ provinces.
Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded