Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
benefi t-sharing agreements entail. After attending a workshop about the
pros and cons of benefi t-sharing agreements (which was organized by
academics), people involved in the Hoodia Trust Fund argued that they
have made crucial mistakes and that neither the San nor their representa-
tives knew about alternative nonmonetary benefi ts. High-profi le leaders
in the community complained that the agreement was closed under con-
ditions set out by non-San peoples and that the San's opinion was neither
respected nor even sought. Procedural defi ciencies were in this way
accompanied by more fundamental processes of misrecognition.
Doubts must be raised as to whether either the outcome of, or the
process behind, the benefi t-sharing agreement has respected one of
the prevailing ethical norms in the San society, namely, egalitarianism.
The San's society has been described by anthropologists as one that func-
tions free of hierarchy and power structures and without formal political
institutions (Lee 2003; Guenther 1999; Woodburn 1982). Decisions are
made through a process of intensive talking and lively discussions or, in
other words, through consensus. The idea is that all members of the
community should have the chance to contribute to the debate before a
decision is made. This guarantees that all people have had access to
information and each and everyone can contribute to the formation of
this information (Guenther 1999).
Looking at the situation in the fi eld, both in Namibia and South
Africa, a schism can be identifi ed between “ordinary” community
members and “elite” community members. In their struggle for the
recognition of their basic human rights, the San were pressured by
NGOs, donors, and governments to organize themselves and appoint
leaders. Increasingly, it is expected that the San speak with one voice.
During the fi eldtrips in Namibia numerous San have complained about
their leaders. Their behavior in community meetings provided visible
evidence of their higher status. Meetings were partially conducted in
Afrikaans, while outside the meetings people communicated in their
native language. It has been reported that using Afrikaans, the language
of the whites and the outside world, signifi es a certain status.
Similar observations can be made for the Hoodia benefi t-sharing agree-
ment. One of the CSIR's prerequisites for starting the negotiations about
the benefi t-sharing agreement was that the San had to organize themselves
in such a way that it was easier for the CSIR to deal with them (e.g., by
setting up a Board of Trustees). They expected that the San would speak
with one voice and a few people should represent the entire community.
The San's identity is highly diversifi ed and consequently opinions about
