Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Fair for Women? A Gender Analysis of Benefit Sharing

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Benefit Sharing

  • 899 Accesses

Abstract

If benefit sharing is about justice, then it needs to be fair for both sexes. This chapter provides a gender analysis of benefit sharing. Five cases are presented, from Kenya (Nairobi sex workers), Nigeria (NIPRISAN), southern Africa (San/Hoodia), India (Kani people), and Iceland (deCODE biobank), to show the ways in which women are politically marginalized, and the implications of this for genuine fairness in benefit sharing. In the light of international commitments to women’s rights, international guidelines on benefit sharing are examined for the extent to which they protect such rights. Seeing how gender-based power imbalances on the ground can work against the implementation of guidelines and policies demonstrates the importance of strategies, processes and mechanisms that are sensitive to power dynamics in local contexts. The chapter concludes that all guidelines and policies for benefit sharing should explicitly require women’s meaningful participation in all phases of decision-making, and should include examples of the kinds of mechanisms that will enable women to have an effective voice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A ‘hierarchically sexist society’ is equivalent to a patriarchal society, as defined by Karen Warren: ‘As I use the term, “patriarchy” is the systematic domination of women by men through institutions (including policies, practices, offices, positions, roles), behaviors, and ways of thinking (conceptual frameworks), which assign higher value, privilege, and power to men (or to what historically is male-gender identified) than to that given to women (or to what historically is female-gender identified) …. What characterizes the position of women under patriarchy is not that women have no power, valued status, prestige, or privilege; they do…. What characterizes women’s position is the varying degrees and ways women, as a group, are excluded from political and economic institutions of power and privilege …. [W]hat women under patriarchy have in common, as a group, is less institutional power and privilege than men’ (Warren 2000: 64).

  2. 2.

    This analysis is based on Alvarez Castillo and Lucas (2009: 141).

  3. 3.

    Personal communication from Dr Joshua Kimani, November 2010.

  4. 4.

    Personal communication from Charles Wambebe, June 2008.

  5. 5.

    Concern has been expressed that benefit sharing should have taken place with the wider community in which Rev. Ogunyale lived (Wambebe 2007: 13) (Lucas et al. Chap. 4).

  6. 6.

    Apart from the trust fund, the Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute has also implemented capacity building for women. This includes an entrepreneurship development programme, the establishment of cooperative societies and self-help groups, and marketing strategies (personal communication from Dr Sachin Chaturvedi, October 2007).

  7. 7.

    Data provided by Gardar Arnason, GenBenefit project meeting, Paris, 7 July 2008.

  8. 8.

    In Iceland’s 1997 election, the percentage of women elected to parliament was 25.4% http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=MDG&f=seriesRowID%3A557.

  9. 9.

    http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=MDG&f=seriesRowID%3A557

  10. 10.

    http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=MDG&f=seriesRowID%3A557

  11. 11.

    The emergence of a specific mode of production in early societies was influenced by the interactions of factors such as the natural environment, the food sources, climate, technology, population size, material culture and social organization.

  12. 12.

    For example, in a study regarding gender, consent and research participation in Pakistan, 44% of respondents believed it was important or essential for the researcher to involve the family members or elders of an adult potential study participant in the process of obtaining informed consent. If the research participant was a woman, 60% of the respondents felt it was essential that the father’s or, in the case of a married woman, husband’s permission be sought before approaching the woman. Where there was a difference of opinion between the study participant and the father or spouse, 74% felt that the opinion of a male participant should prevail, but if the study participant was a woman, then only 53% of respondents felt that her opinion should be honoured. There was no significant difference in the opinions expressed between male and female respondents (Jafarey 2006).

  13. 13.

    The protocol was adopted on 30 October 2010 at the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD (2010).

  14. 14.

    Personal communication from Victoria Haraseb, July 2008.

  15. 15.

    For example, this is the experience of women in pastoralist and rural societies in Africa (see Kipuri and Ridgewell 2008; IFAD 2004).

  16. 16.

    ‘A critical 30% threshold should be regarded as a minimum share of decision-making positions held by women at the national level. Few countries have reached or even approached this target, recommended in 1990 by the UN Commission on the Status of Women ….The Report recommends that each nation identify a firm timetable for crossing the 30% threshold in some key areas of decision-making. The 30% threshold should be regarded as a minimum target, not as the ultimate goal’ (UNDP 2005).

  17. 17.

    By 2011 this figure was 40.2% (Lord Davies of Abersoch 2011: 24). Several EU member states have recently started to act in this area and have introduced legally binding quotas for company boards. This includes Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain, with Denmark, Finland, Greece, Austria and Slovenia adopting rules on gender balance for the boards of state-owned companies. The European Commission is currently considering whether or not to impose quotas and legislation across European Member States. The European Commission Vice-President for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, Viviane Reding, launched a public consultation in March 2012 to identify possible action at EU level (Reding 2012). A 2011 report Women on Boards (Lord Davies of Abersoch 2011) for the UK Government published a roadmap for UK plc businesses to achieve 25% female representation on boards by 2015, relating this clearly to questions of corporate governance.

  18. 18.

    The Platform for Action outlines 12 critical areas of concern where the violation of women’s rights and gender inequality persist, and proposes strategic objectives and actions for each (see UN 1995).

  19. 19.

    For a discussion of appropriate strategies to facilitate women’s participation in practice, see Alvarez-Castillo and Feinholz (2006: 117–118). Such initiatives can have unanticipated benefits. For example, when GenBenefit researchers met the women’s leaders in Majengo, Nairobi, in September 2007, they noted a sense of empowerment and solidarity among the women. During the meeting one of the authors (Fatima Castillo) shared with them a problem faced by women in sex work in other countries, which is that customers refuse to use condoms – and women who insist on condoms often lose their customers because the men simply go to other women who agree to sex without a condom. The Majengo women said that in their group, customers like these were refused, and there was an agreement among the women in Majengo that not one of them would cater to such a customer. The result is that sex workers’ customers in Majengo have to use condoms, which reduces the risk for women of contracting sexually transmitted infections. See also Lavery et al. (2010).

  20. 20.

    http://www.scidev.net/en/announcements/gender-training-and-development-network-web-resources.html .

  21. 21.

    We are grateful to Jack Beetson for this point (GenBenefit Dissemination Conference: Montreal, 6 November 2009).

  22. 22.

    Personal communication July 2008 in relation to the skills building needs of San women.

  23. 23.

    See NGO Forum 1995.

  24. 24.

    For an interesting discussion see Lavery et al. (2010).

  25. 25.

    For example the European Commission includes an optional ‘consideration of gender aspects’ in research funding applications under Framework 7, currently expressed as ‘an indication of the type of actions that will be undertaken during the course of the project to promote gender equality in the project, or in the specific research field…. The gender dimension of the research content should also be considered’ (EC 2010: 31).

    These kinds of mechanisms could be used more widely to consider research content in more detail. For example, the Research Council of Norway regards it as ‘essential that gender perspectives are given adequate consideration in the research projects’ it funds, and states that ‘consideration will be given to whether the research projects have taken such perspectives adequately into account’ (Research Council of Norway 2003).

    In a recent development, point 4 of the Manifesto for Integrated Action on the Gender Dimension in Research and Innovation (2011) launched at the 1st European Gender Summit in November 2011, wishes to: ‘Consider “whether, and in what sense, sex and gender are relevant in the objectives and methodology of the project” to ensure excellence in research. This key question must be asked by researchers, research funders, evaluators, reviewers and journal editors. Evidence demonstrates that the assertion that science is gender neutral is not the case. When gender is not taken into account, research often results in different health and safety outcomes for women and men. Researchers also need to question how to ensure that the products and services they help develop benefit both women and men.’ The Manifesto is the product of extensive public consultation and discussion and was presented to the EC Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science, Maire Geoghegan-Quinn on December 16th, 2011.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UCLAN, Centre for Professional Ethics, Brook 317, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK

    Julie Cook Lucas

  2. College of Arts and Sciences, University of the Philippines Manila, Padre Faura Street, 1000, Manila, Philippines

    Fatima Alvarez Castillo

Authors
  1. Julie Cook Lucas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fatima Alvarez Castillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie Cook Lucas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Professional Ethics, University of Central Lancashire, Brook 317, Preston, PR1 2HE, Lancashire, United Kingdom

    Doris Schroeder

  2. Centre for Professional Ethics, University of Central Lancashire, Brook 317, Preston, PR1 2HE, Lancashire, United Kingdom

    Julie Cook Lucas

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lucas, J.C., Alvarez Castillo, F. (2013). Fair for Women? A Gender Analysis of Benefit Sharing. In: Schroeder, D., Cook Lucas, J. (eds) Benefit Sharing. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6205-3_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation