Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
intellectual property rights and benefi t sharing tend to differ widely across
communities (see Vermeylen 2008). It may be practically impossible to
negotiate with a group of more than 100,000 people, but enforcing a
managerial style that sits uncomfortably with their traditional values has
led to tensions among the San. A society that was previously characterized
by egalitarianism and avoidance of prestige is now faced with a new sort
of San “elite” who are visibly better off (houses, cattle) and consider
themselves superior to other community members. Furthermore, the dif-
ference between the “elite” San and the “ordinary” San has been aggra-
vated through the lack of communication between the two groups.
Concerns must be voiced that this process of acculturation will be further
fed by the Hoodia benefi t-sharing agreement. People who were inter-
viewed also expressed their worries that once the money from the Hoodia
benefi t sharing is distributed to the communities through the trust funds,
tension will erupt in the community. In short, the way the Hoodia benefi t-
sharing agreement came into being shows that it mainly regulates an
economic relationship; the main concern was redistribution of money and
no attention was given to the social impacts of the agreement.
In hunter-gatherer societies such as the San, a high priority is accorded
to the avoidance of confl icts, and dispute resolution is believed to be far
superior to that used in Western societies (Ury 1990, 1995). Resolution
of disputes was essential for small seminomadic groups that needed each
other's cooperation in order to survive in nature.
Silberbauer (1982) and Lee (2003) note several characteristics that
can be distilled in the San's decision-making process. Decisions that affect
the band as a whole always come into being as the result of a process
in which everyone in the community participates. Discussions seldom
take place in a single event, but rather emerge over days during ordinary
conversations among friends, relatives, and neighbors. If more serious
decisions have to be made and factions emerge, the San will involve a
wider audience and include those members of the community who are
not taking part in the initial discussion. In this way the different factions
can test how the wider community responds to the issues they are dis-
cussing and, possibly, may infl uence members' opinions. Direct confron-
tation with the opposition is avoided and their inclusion is frowned on.
However, the opposition party can use the same technique.
Decisions in band societies
4
such as the San are made by consensus.
This does not mean unanimity of decision or opinion, just as egalitarian
does not mean equality. As Silberbauer (1982) argues, it is important to
understand that consensus is not a synonym for democracy. Democracy,
