Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
Africa, Namibia and Botswana are effectively organized - and all important pol-
icy decisions are taken by the General Assembly, a meeting of representatives
from San communities in all three countries. Implementing cooperative gov-
ernance is a major challenge to the egalitarian San. Community meetings have
been documented (Hitchcock and Biesele
2002
: 14) at which literally hundreds
of people have participated and attempted to employ the traditional consensus
style of decision-making. As Ariel Salleh has pointed out, 'indigenous people
who now enjoy the privilege of sitting on deliberative committees are expected
to obey ostensibly universal - but really Eurocentric - terms of reference' (Salleh
2009: 10).
The contrast is particularly obvious when employees from large corporations or
research institutes negotiate with indigenous representatives.
28
In corporate hierar-
chies, decision-making usually involves a few individuals and does not entail a
wider consultation of stakeholders. Decisions are routinely made by highly edu-
cated personnel in positions of power who are well versed in the legalities and
implications of their decisions. By contrast, decision-making in traditional indige-
nous communities such as those of the San often involves many community mem-
bers, typically with little knowledge of the technicalities and legal implications of
their decisions. Discussions are seldom limited to a single event, but rather unfold
over time in conversations among friends, relatives and neighbours. In the case of
the San, decisions are taken by consensus, which is reached when significant
opposition no longer exists. When these decisions are taken to a boardroom table
during benefit-sharing negotiations, the decision-making abilities of indigenous
negotiators are compromized by both time frames - for example, the CSIR needed
an urgent resolution to satisfy Pfizer, the main licensee at the time - and a relative
lack of experience and knowledge on the part of their rural constituency.
There is no obvious solution to this dilemma. Investors are unlikely to allow years
for community consultation processes to run their course, and are more likely to
drop a particular research lead than compromise their own processes. On the other
hand, the imposition on traditional communities of the rapid decision-making pro-
cesses favoured by industries is both ethically unacceptable and impracticable, as the
process has to be led by highly-trained professionals. In the San case, the tensions
about time frames were further aggravated by the insufficiency of financial resources
to fund meetings, obtain additional advice and hone negotiating skills, all vital ele-
ments of effective decision-making under such circumstances.
One could ask who is responsible for securing these components. In the San
case, the CSIR invested in facilitating San representation and decision-making
capability. This was necessary for the San to reach the negotiating table in the first
place and then to achieve an agreement, which was essential for the CSIR.
However, potential commercial partners cannot routinely be expected to invest
considerable amounts of time and money in sustained capacity-building to enable
community representatives to become equal partners in negotiations, a process
28
This paragraph and the next draw on Wynberg, Schroeder, Williams and Vermeylen (
2009
).
