Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
In addition to questions about the level and type of benefi ts, there are
questions about the benefi ciaries. Who are the “community” to whom
justice needs to be done and how is this to be defi ned? Some anthropolo-
gists (e.g., Widlok 1999) claim that the current botanical knowledge of
the San does not surpass that of neighboring agriculturalists. Further-
more, the Hoodia grows in Namibia only in areas currently not inhabited
by the San and fi eldwork observations confi rmed that it is no longer
known to or used by the San. The Nama and Damara in Namibia,
on the other hand, are still using the Hoodia. While the San are clearly
the oldest surviving indigenous group of Southern Africa, botanical
knowledge that would have been exclusively theirs has since passed to
other groups of more recent ancestry or arrival. Some of these groups
have interacted with the various San groups to the extent that they are
ethnically (Nama) or linguistically (Nama and Damara) linked. It should
be clear that controlling the appropriation of knowledge through
allocating exclusive property rights on the basis of ethnicity is neither
practicable (ultimately requiring DNA tests) nor desirable because it
can increase racial animosity and tension with the offi cial, nonethnic
policies of postapartheid states. As publicity around the Hoodia benefi t-
sharing agreement has gathered momentum, increasingly other groups
such as the Nama (supported by the Namibian government) have
raised their voice and in the most recent stakeholder meeting (January
2009), Nama community leaders were invited to explore a San-Nama
agreement (personal communication, February 2009). While this sym-
bolic reaching out to the Namas must be applauded, the fact is that the
Damaras—whose use of
Hoodia currorii
was reported as early as 1907
by Vedder and Schultze (see Barnard 1992)—might further aggravate
and expose the problems associated with embedding the concept of
biodiversity conservation in a Western framework of exclusive property
rights.
While it is beyond the scope of this chapter, one of the most contro-
versial aspects of the access and benefi t-sharing debate relates to the way
traditional knowledge is used and commercialized. Vermeylen (2008) has
reported that opinions differ widely within the communities studied as
to whether to commodify traditional knowledge, but the way benefi t-
sharing agreements are conceptualized and presented suggests that there
is an expectation that indigenous peoples will speak with one voice.
Although during the fi eldwork carried out over a period of three years,
a diversity of opinions were recorded—a result that is not surprising
when the local context is taken into account, as well as current socio-
