Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
were able, in March 2007, to negotiate a new benefi t-sharing agreement
specifi cally with the Hoodia farmers who were organized in the Southern
African Hoodia Growers Association. While, initially, the agreement
entitles the San to a modest £2 per dried kilogram of Hoodia exported,
at the moment it seems that the Hoodia
growers'
benefi t-sharing agree-
ment might potentially be—in all its modesty—more “lucrative” than
the initial benefi t-sharing agreement, but with proceeds distributed just
to the farmers rather than to the San as a wider community.
A second issue relates to the notions of value embodied in an agree-
ment conceived in terms of a fi nancial outcome. The San who were
interviewed were less interested in monetary benefi ts than in receiving
nonmonetary benefi ts like schools, hospitals, access to land, agricultural
projects, and housing. They argued that distributing money was prob-
lematic for several reasons. First, they were worried that the money
would not be used for the right purposes and would be mainly wasted
on alcohol. Second, they were also worried that even when the money
was managed through a trust fund, this could raise problems because
the management of the trust fund was so far nontransparent. Third, there
was a general consensus that the CSIR, or any other company or third
party for that matter, could not be trusted. Especially the San in Andries-
vale argued that in the past they were promised a better economic life
by the South African government when some of their land was returned.
They now complained that these were “empty” preelection promises; in
reality, the economic situation was not further improved and they were
still dependent on government aid and were not able to start their own
“development projects.” Furthermore, they argued that in the long term,
nonmonetary benefi ts would be more benefi cial than monetary benefi ts
because the improvements with nonmonetary benefi ts would be more
sustainable and less dependent on issues like trust and dependency. This
shows that those interviewed have a different conceptualization of dis-
tributive justice than just monetary benefi ts alone. For example, ques-
tions were asked why they were not more closely involved in the scientifi c
work of the CSIR. Some of the participants in the research showed a
keen interest to learn from the Hoodia project and wanted to understand
the scientifi c and chemical process behind the P57 compound. Ultimately,
they wanted, in due time, to have San researchers working with their
own traditional medicinal plants either with or without the support of
the CSIR. So far they were disappointed in the level of cooperation
between the CSIR and the San community members; they felt they had
been left behind by the CSIR.
