Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
registered in November 1997, to regulate and direct the inflow of money. The main
objectives of the trust are as follows
13
:
• Addressing the welfare and upliftment of the Kerala Kani tribal community
• Formulating and implementing necessary development projects (including
research projects)
• Documenting and protecting the knowledge of the Kani tribal community.
The secretary of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Development
Department was emphatic about ensuring that the trust should be representative.
He called a meeting of all the factions of the Kani tribes on 21 January 1999 at
Kottur. All Kani members present suggested to the secretary that the money should
be transferred to the trust. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 519,062 (approximately
US$12,000) (50% licence fee and 50% royalties) was transferred to the trust (No
109/97) on 22 February 1999 (Equator Initiative
2002
).
A second phase of benefit-sharing negotiations in 2004 was more transparent
and democratic in nature, including Kani people in the decision-making process
rather than just as recipients of benefits, both by formalizing the presence of the
trust representatives in the new negotiation process and by including two repre-
sentatives from the Kani Trust on the seven-person business management com-
mittee at the TBGRI, which agreed to set minimum conditions for the access and
benefit-sharing arrangement. This process led to a second benefit-sharing agree-
ment in 2006 with an increased share of the profits for the Kani (in both absolute
and percentage terms).
As this account shows, the original Kani benefit-sharing agreement was initi-
ated voluntarily by the researchers involved, with the general support of the Kani
people (or at least some of them), before there was any legal regime or obligation
governing access and benefit-sharing arrangements in India. However, this process
did not happen in isolation. It was part of a growing movement towards binding
international frameworks in this area. This, in turn, was based on earlier develop-
ments in the 1970s and 1980s, both in India and worldwide, towards the protection
of indigenous peoples and their traditional knowledge systems. The commitment
of certain key individuals to these processes was essential to the outcome in this
case. It is noteworthy and commendable that prior to domestic or international leg-
islation, the research institute involved decided to share proceeds equally with the
indigenous community.
This is not to say, however, that criticisms of the Kani benefit-sharing agreements
since the CBD are irrelevant. The initial consent phase involved very few community
members, and this later became divisive. The Kani Trust is in principle open to all
for involvement in decision-making, but membership has not expanded sufficiently to
achieve a genuinely fair and equitable sharing of benefits. Limited efforts at the initial
stage to make the trust more representative are partly responsible for this, but there
13
Personal communication from Dr Rajsekharan.
