Sharing benefits fairly

decision-making and governance

Rachel Wynberg, Doris Schroeder, Samantha Williams, Saskia Vermeylen

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Understanding how decisions were made by the San in the Hoodia case and how decision-making and governance structures vary between bioprospectors and indigenous communities is essential for the implementation of effective benefit sharing.
Drawing on academic literature and on interviews undertaken in South Africa, this chapter shows that decision-making processes in benefit-sharing negotiations vary significantly from party to party. In corporate hierarchies, decision-making usually centres on a small number of individuals and does not involve the wider consultation of stakeholders. Decisions are routinely made by highly educated personnel in positions of power who are well versed in the legalities and implications of their decisions. By contrast, decision-making in traditional indigenous communities such as the San often involves a large number of community members, typically with little knowledge of the technicalities and legal implications of their decisions. Discussions are seldom limited to a single event, but rather emerge over time during 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.
These differences in decision-making practice place an obvious burden on negotiations, with one party requiring fast decisions to satisfy shareholders while the other needs significant time to allow meaningful community consultation and digest the implications of different options. This clash over decision-making procedures and speed often turns out to be detrimental to traditional knowledge holders, whose decision-making abilities are compromised by the commercial partners' need for urgent resolution.
One possible solution is embraced by South Africa's National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, which now locates support for consultation firmly with the government to ensure that negotiations are on an equal footing when benefit-sharing agreements are negotiated. However, the practical implementation of this requirement remains hampered by constraints of capacity, resources and knowledge.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationIndigenous Peoples, Consent and Benefit Sharing
Subtitle of host publicationLessons Learned from San Hoodia Case
EditorsRachel Wynberg, Doris Schroeder, Roger Chennells
PublisherSpringer
Pages231-257
Number of pages27
ISBN (Print)9789048131228
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 13 Nov 2009

Fingerprint

governance
decision making
community
legality
shareholder
environmental management
biodiversity
decision-making process
personnel
opposition
conversation
stakeholder
act
event
ability
interview
resources
time

Keywords

  • benefit sharing
  • consultation
  • decision-making
  • governance
  • indigenous communities
  • traditional knowledge

Cite this

Wynberg, R., Schroeder, D., Williams, S., & Vermeylen, S. (2009). Sharing benefits fairly: decision-making and governance. In R. Wynberg, D. Schroeder, & R. Chennells (Eds.), Indigenous Peoples, Consent and Benefit Sharing: Lessons Learned from San Hoodia Case (pp. 231-257). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3123-5_12
Wynberg, Rachel ; Schroeder, Doris ; Williams, Samantha ; Vermeylen, Saskia. / Sharing benefits fairly : decision-making and governance. Indigenous Peoples, Consent and Benefit Sharing: Lessons Learned from San Hoodia Case. editor / Rachel Wynberg ; Doris Schroeder ; Roger Chennells. Springer, 2009. pp. 231-257
@inbook{96c60fecd53742899016185345c99b49,
title = "Sharing benefits fairly: decision-making and governance",
abstract = "Understanding how decisions were made by the San in the Hoodia case and how decision-making and governance structures vary between bioprospectors and indigenous communities is essential for the implementation of effective benefit sharing.Drawing on academic literature and on interviews undertaken in South Africa, this chapter shows that decision-making processes in benefit-sharing negotiations vary significantly from party to party. In corporate hierarchies, decision-making usually centres on a small number of individuals and does not involve the wider consultation of stakeholders. Decisions are routinely made by highly educated personnel in positions of power who are well versed in the legalities and implications of their decisions. By contrast, decision-making in traditional indigenous communities such as the San often involves a large number of community members, typically with little knowledge of the technicalities and legal implications of their decisions. Discussions are seldom limited to a single event, but rather emerge over time during 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.These differences in decision-making practice place an obvious burden on negotiations, with one party requiring fast decisions to satisfy shareholders while the other needs significant time to allow meaningful community consultation and digest the implications of different options. This clash over decision-making procedures and speed often turns out to be detrimental to traditional knowledge holders, whose decision-making abilities are compromised by the commercial partners' need for urgent resolution.One possible solution is embraced by South Africa's National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, which now locates support for consultation firmly with the government to ensure that negotiations are on an equal footing when benefit-sharing agreements are negotiated. However, the practical implementation of this requirement remains hampered by constraints of capacity, resources and knowledge.",
keywords = "benefit sharing, consultation, decision-making, governance, indigenous communities, traditional knowledge",
author = "Rachel Wynberg and Doris Schroeder and Samantha Williams and Saskia Vermeylen",
year = "2009",
month = "11",
day = "13",
doi = "10.1007/978-90-481-3123-5_12",
language = "English",
isbn = "9789048131228",
pages = "231--257",
editor = "Rachel Wynberg and Doris Schroeder and Roger Chennells",
booktitle = "Indigenous Peoples, Consent and Benefit Sharing",
publisher = "Springer",

}

Wynberg, R, Schroeder, D, Williams, S & Vermeylen, S 2009, Sharing benefits fairly: decision-making and governance. in R Wynberg, D Schroeder & R Chennells (eds), Indigenous Peoples, Consent and Benefit Sharing: Lessons Learned from San Hoodia Case. Springer, pp. 231-257. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3123-5_12

Sharing benefits fairly : decision-making and governance. / Wynberg, Rachel; Schroeder, Doris; Williams, Samantha; Vermeylen, Saskia.

Indigenous Peoples, Consent and Benefit Sharing: Lessons Learned from San Hoodia Case. ed. / Rachel Wynberg; Doris Schroeder; Roger Chennells. Springer, 2009. p. 231-257.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

TY - CHAP

T1 - Sharing benefits fairly

T2 - decision-making and governance

AU - Wynberg, Rachel

AU - Schroeder, Doris

AU - Williams, Samantha

AU - Vermeylen, Saskia

PY - 2009/11/13

Y1 - 2009/11/13

N2 - Understanding how decisions were made by the San in the Hoodia case and how decision-making and governance structures vary between bioprospectors and indigenous communities is essential for the implementation of effective benefit sharing.Drawing on academic literature and on interviews undertaken in South Africa, this chapter shows that decision-making processes in benefit-sharing negotiations vary significantly from party to party. In corporate hierarchies, decision-making usually centres on a small number of individuals and does not involve the wider consultation of stakeholders. Decisions are routinely made by highly educated personnel in positions of power who are well versed in the legalities and implications of their decisions. By contrast, decision-making in traditional indigenous communities such as the San often involves a large number of community members, typically with little knowledge of the technicalities and legal implications of their decisions. Discussions are seldom limited to a single event, but rather emerge over time during 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.These differences in decision-making practice place an obvious burden on negotiations, with one party requiring fast decisions to satisfy shareholders while the other needs significant time to allow meaningful community consultation and digest the implications of different options. This clash over decision-making procedures and speed often turns out to be detrimental to traditional knowledge holders, whose decision-making abilities are compromised by the commercial partners' need for urgent resolution.One possible solution is embraced by South Africa's National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, which now locates support for consultation firmly with the government to ensure that negotiations are on an equal footing when benefit-sharing agreements are negotiated. However, the practical implementation of this requirement remains hampered by constraints of capacity, resources and knowledge.

AB - Understanding how decisions were made by the San in the Hoodia case and how decision-making and governance structures vary between bioprospectors and indigenous communities is essential for the implementation of effective benefit sharing.Drawing on academic literature and on interviews undertaken in South Africa, this chapter shows that decision-making processes in benefit-sharing negotiations vary significantly from party to party. In corporate hierarchies, decision-making usually centres on a small number of individuals and does not involve the wider consultation of stakeholders. Decisions are routinely made by highly educated personnel in positions of power who are well versed in the legalities and implications of their decisions. By contrast, decision-making in traditional indigenous communities such as the San often involves a large number of community members, typically with little knowledge of the technicalities and legal implications of their decisions. Discussions are seldom limited to a single event, but rather emerge over time during 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.These differences in decision-making practice place an obvious burden on negotiations, with one party requiring fast decisions to satisfy shareholders while the other needs significant time to allow meaningful community consultation and digest the implications of different options. This clash over decision-making procedures and speed often turns out to be detrimental to traditional knowledge holders, whose decision-making abilities are compromised by the commercial partners' need for urgent resolution.One possible solution is embraced by South Africa's National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, which now locates support for consultation firmly with the government to ensure that negotiations are on an equal footing when benefit-sharing agreements are negotiated. However, the practical implementation of this requirement remains hampered by constraints of capacity, resources and knowledge.

KW - benefit sharing

KW - consultation

KW - decision-making

KW - governance

KW - indigenous communities

KW - traditional knowledge

UR - http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-90-481-3123-5

U2 - 10.1007/978-90-481-3123-5_12

DO - 10.1007/978-90-481-3123-5_12

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9789048131228

SP - 231

EP - 257

BT - Indigenous Peoples, Consent and Benefit Sharing

A2 - Wynberg, Rachel

A2 - Schroeder, Doris

A2 - Chennells, Roger

PB - Springer

ER -

Wynberg R, Schroeder D, Williams S, Vermeylen S. Sharing benefits fairly: decision-making and governance. In Wynberg R, Schroeder D, Chennells R, editors, Indigenous Peoples, Consent and Benefit Sharing: Lessons Learned from San Hoodia Case. Springer. 2009. p. 231-257 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3123-5_12