Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 6.1
Five Benefit-Sharing Cases: Women's Representation in Formal Benefit-Sharing
Decision-Making
Number of Women in Formal Benefit-Sharing Decision-
Making Bodies
Benefit Sharing Case
Kani (India) (Alvarez Castillo and
Lucas
2009
: 160)
Kerala Samudaya Kshema Trust Executive Committee,
which administers benefit-sharing income:
ο 1997-2008: 1 woman in 11-member committee
ο 2008 to present: 2 women in 11-member committee
(co-opted members as no women candidates stood for
election)
San (South Africa) (Alvarez Castillo
and Lucas
2009
: 159)
Working Group of Indigenous Minorities in Southern
Africa, which mandated South African San Council to
undertake benefit-sharing negotiations:
ο 2001-2002: none
South African San Council, which negotiated benefit-
sharing deal:
ο 2001-2003: none
San-
Hoodia
Benefit-Sharing Trust, which administers
benefit-sharing income:
ο 2005 to present: 2 out of 9 elected trustees
Nigeria (Niprisan/Nicosan)
A benefit-sharing agreement was negotiated between the
National Institute for Pharmaceutical Research and
Development, representing the government, and a sole
male traditional health practitioner. There was no body
that represented such practitioners
Kenya (Majengo) (Alvarez Castillo
and Lucas
2009
)
This case is unique in that it only involves women.
However, given the traditional nature of the scientific
research project, no benefit-sharing agreement has been
negotiated with the community of participants
Iceland
9
The Act on a Health Sector Database was passed by a
parliament 25% of whose members were women
integrated, but face huge problems of socio-economic inequalities and political
instability. Iceland, by contrast, is a developed, capitalist-industrialized society
with a strong welfare system and guaranteed political freedoms.
The differences between these societies, in terms of their respective socio-eco-
nomic, cultural and political situations, are reflected in the degree and manifestations
of gendered inequality within them. For instance, negotiations on benefit sharing
were monopolized by men in the Nigerian and Kenyan cases, while women had a
much higher level of formal participation in Iceland (although they were still in the
minority). These differences are exemplified by the very low percentage of women
in parliament in Kenya and Nigeria compared to Iceland (Table
6.2
).
The specific differences between women's broader political participation in the
larger societies, is then reflected in the degree of women's involvement in benefit-
sharing negotiations within these societies. This is perhaps an unsurprising result.
