Convention of Biological Diversity, Biological Diversity Act and ABS - 3 decades of Biodiversity Governance
Extensive biodiversity loss in the past decades has spared neither developed
nor developing countries. Species extinction, over-harvesting, introduction of exotic
species, habitat loss, pollution and climate change has led to an increased
risk portfolio for marginalised communities. This in turn has led to fears that
the existence of life on earth cannot be taken for granted. These concerns on
biodiversity loss led to the gradual revaluation of integrating resource availability
with that of development needs of mankind. The need for ecosystem stability and
habitat heterogeneity has slowly taken credence over conventional economic
standards such as Gross Domestic Product.
Rapidly accelerating biodiversity loss led to a series of
introspections and eventually to a worldwide catharsis amongst nations that
resulted in countries coming together at the Rio Summit in 1992, where major
legally binding conventions for the protection of nature and life itself were
adopted including the adoption of the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD).
Now, as more than 25 years have passed since 197 countries became party to the
Convention of Biological Diversity, countries worldwide have taken significant steps
to protect their biodiversity.
India, as a key mega-biodiversity country adopted the Biological
Diversity Act in 2002 to halt and reverse the effects of diversity loss. The
act was hailed as an important step towards preserving our vast biodiversity and
the government took immediate steps in forming the National Biodiversity Authority,
State Biodiversity Boards as well as local level Biodiversity Management
Committees.
The Biological Diversity Act (BD
Act) was considered a pioneer legislation as it recognized the sovereign right
of nations over their natural resources and put in restrictions on the access
of bioresources by user countries. CBD determines that access to genetic
resources rests with the national government and is subject to national
legislation. This decision shifted the balance of power of utilising
bio-resources from the user countries to the provider countries. Significantly,
while most of the worldās biotechnology-based patents are owned by developed
countries and most of these resources are sourced from mega-diverse country
like India, the BD act came as a game changer to ensure that conservation and
sustainable use of resources led to proper sharing of benefits for local
populations. The message that the use of genetic resources should not bypass
the poor people went a long way in correcting the historical injustice that
provider countries have suffered for centuries.
The CBD in its very spirit laid
the foundation for ethics taking priorities over mindless exploitation and
constantly sounded a nagging reminder to the international community in the
form of Article 15 and Article 8 (j)[1].
Article 15 of the CBD recognizes the right of states to their genetic resources
and Article 8 (j) recognizes the rights of communities to their traditional
knowledge.
With these guidelines in mind,
most countries that had signed the CBD met again at Nagoya in Japan in 2010 and
adopted the Nagoya Protocol that aimed to give effect to the fair and equitable
sharing provisions of the CBD.
The Nagoya Protocol in its
simplest interpretation sought to ensure that any commercial and research
utilization of genetic resources that belong to a state and associated
traditional knowledge that belongs to the communities holding this traditional
knowledge shares the benefit of such utilization with the government and the community
that have conserved such resources as well as knowledge since time immemorial.
Biological Diversity Act in Action
Under the Biological Diversity Act
promulgated by the Government of India in 2002, an important regulatory
mechanism was the emphasis provided for Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) to
local populations. Having integrated ABS within a decade of the Convention of
Biological Diversity, India has come to be regarded as a pioneer country as
only 105 out of 197 countries that signed the Convention on Biological
Diversity have formed a national legislation for regulatory use of
bio-resources. This initial initiative taken by the Indian government will go a
long way in strengthening the case of securing benefits for its rightful owners
in the future coming decades.
The Biological Diversity (BD) Act
is a complex multi-layered legislation that seeks to address the issues of
managing bio-resources in the most decentralized manner possible without
compromising upon the sovereignty of the nation or communityās rights over
these resources.
The BD act which became
operational after the adoption of the Biological Diversity Rules in 2004 lists
the conditions under which persons, commercial firms and other institutions can
access biological resources occurring within India and the knowledge associated
with the biological resource, for either research or for commercial utilization
or for bio-survey or for bio-utilization.
Essentially, these elaborate
conditions and guidelines were instituted to ensure that the basic tenets of
the Convention of Biological Diversity which are sustainable use of its
components and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the
commercial utilisation of bioresources and associated knowledge are well
protected.
The act in combination with
various other policies and laws such as the National Biodiversity Action Plan,
National Forest Policy, National Wildlife Action Plan, National Forestry Action
Programme, National Environment Policy, National Action Plan on Climate Change
are being continuously strengthened to protect, conserve and sustainably use
the countryās bio-resources.
The act assumes significance as
it imposed prohibitions on the transfer of genetic material originating from
India without specific approval from competent authorities. The act also
strengthened the countryās stand with respect to anyone claiming an
intellectual property right over biodiversity related knowledge.
Adopting Access and Benefit Sharing Mechanism
With the adoption of the
Biological Diversity Act in India, focus shifted on actualising the tenets of
the Convention of Biological Diversity. Internationally, too, it was felt that
an efficient mechanism needs to be adopted that is acceptable to all countries
and becomes a reference point for all bioresources related issues.
Thus, for a process that began in
1992 with the Convention on Biological Diversity, the detailed action points
were adopted under the Nagoya Protocol in 2010 which focusses on the equity
provision of the Convention of Biological Diversity and specifically on access
to genetic resources and the fair and equitable utilization sharing of benefits
resulting from their utilization.
Almost immediately, countries
began the process of implementing national legislations to adopt the regulatory
frameworks and India again took a lead and adopted the Access and Benefit
Sharing guidelines in 2014.
Indiaās stand leading upto the
negotiations that finally led to the adoption of the Nagoya Protocol was that
of intense negotiations and in the words of the then Minister of State
(Independent Charge), Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Shri
Prakash Javadekar, he said that India has been a victim of misappropriation or
biopiracy of our genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, which
have been patented in other countries (well known examples include neem and
haldi). It is expected that the Nagoya Protocol on ABS which is a key missing
pillar of the CBD, would address this concern.[2]
India and other developing countries had fought hard in various international
negotiations to correct the historical wrong of being victims of biopiracy and
succeeded in scoring a major victory.
The Nagoya Protocol provides an
international framework for implementing and advancing the third objective of
the CBD, which is āthe fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the
utilization of genetic resources, including by appropriate access to genetic
resources and by appropriate transfer of relevant technologies, taking into
account all rights over those resources and to technologies, and by appropriate
fundingā.
The Nagoya Protocol provides a
certain degree of flexibility to parties to take domestic legislative,
administrative or policy measures to implement its various articles, but
nonetheless also imposes a number of obligations on parties, geared towards
ensuring that benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources and
associated traditional knowledge are shared fairly and equitably between users
and providers, taking into account all rights over resources and technologies.
At the core of the protocol are
obligations related to access to genetic resources, to the fair and equitable
sharing of benefits arising out of utilization, as well as to compliance with
prior informed consent (PIC) and mutually agreed terms (MAT) provisions. To
support compliance, parties are obliged to take measures to monitor the
utilization of genetic resources, including through the designation of
checkpoints and reporting requirements. As evidence that genetic resources have
been accessed in accordance with PIC and that MAT have been established, a
permit or its equivalent has to be granted by the provider country at the time
of access. Once this permit or its equivalent is made available to the Access
and Benefit-sharing Clearing House of the Protocol, it becomes an
āinternationally recognized certificate of complianceā which can be used to
prove legal access.
Nagoya Protocol parties also have
a set of additional obligations towards indigenous and local communities (ILCs)
regarding ILC rights over traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources
and, in certain instances, over genetic resources held by these communities.
These include obligations to take measures to ensure that genetic resources and
associated traditional knowledge held by ILCs are accessed with their prior
informed consent or approval and involvement, and that MAT have been
established.
In implementing their obligations
under the Protocol, parties are further required, in accordance with domestic
law, to take into consideration ILCsā customary laws, community protocols and
procedures and, as far as possible, not to restrict the customary use and
exchange of genetic resources and associated knowledge within and amongst ILCs.[3]
It is being observed that more
requests for permits and various mandatory benefit sharing agreements with a
commercial intent is being inquired by prospectors. Infact, data suggests that the
greatest demand for access to Genetic Resources is in the agriculture sector
followed by forest areas. A key agreement, the International Treaty on Plant
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) was signed which seeks to
establish an international ABS regime for plant genetic resources for food and
agriculture and was the first such legally binding operational international
instrument for access and benefit sharing for genetic resources. Another key
focus area for the ABS regime is the integration of Sustainable Forest Management
with ABS provisions so that more mutually beneficial agreements can occur in
the coming few years.
After the entry into force of the
CBD, many developing countries adopted legislation on the bio-prospecting of
genetic resources, to ensure that access to such resources would be granted on
mutually agreed terms and subject to prior informed consent, often also
involving indigenous and local communities. However, user countries of genetic
resources have largely failed to enact and implement compatible legislation, so
important measures to ensure benefit sharing once the genetic resources had
left the providing countries, were missing.
As a result, bioprospecting has
been met with wide mistrust, and in many countries achieving access to genetic
resources has proven difficult, involving lengthy and complicated processes. India
has evolved a decentralized mechanism that essentially operates as independent
structures and has specific roles for the implementation of the Biological
Diversity Act.
The three structures were the
National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) at the national level, State Biodiversity
Boards (SBB) at the state level and Biodiversity Management Committees (BMC) at
the local level. These three bodies are statutory and autonomous in nature
while NBA and SBBs are body corporates. To ensure that independent autonomy
exists, there is no overlap of NBA and SBBs on issues of Access and Benefit
Sharing.[4]
āGrant of approvalā which is a key
regulatory mechanism and forms the key of the ABS system has been demarcated
between NBA and SBBs. Foreign individuals, companies or institutions and
non-resident Indians are required to seek prior approval of the NBA to obtain any
biological resources and associated knowledge occurring in India.
Further, prior authorisation of
the NBA is required to transfer the results of any research relating to any
biological resources occurring in, or obtained from, India to any foreign individual,
company or institution, and also for applying for Intellectual Property Rights
(IPRs) for any invention based on any research or information on a biological
resource obtained from India. Indian citizens or firms registered in India can
obtain any biological resource for commercial utilization or bio survey and bio
utilization for commercial utilization after giving prior intimation to the
State Biodiversity Board only.
However, the benefit sharing (BS)
guidelines are to be issued by NBA. NBA may take any measure necessary to
oppose the grant of IPRs in any country on any biological resource or
associated knowledge obtained from India, on behalf of the Central Government[5].
ABS and its implications on Forest Based Resources
The issue of forests and its relationship
with the ABS regime[6] is
complex in nature with concurrent interest expected to increase in the coming
few years. Forests are closely linked with biodiversity use and provides a
myriad variety of valuable products for commercial as well as research
purposes. Forests are covered under the first objective of Convention of
Biological Diversity as conservation of resources has a direct impact on
protection of resources. At the same time, efficient forest management is
intricately linked with providing benefits to communities which have been
living in forest landscapes for generations.
Thus, the ABS regime is expected
to be increasingly exercised with respect to benefit sharing of forest-based
resources with local communities. The challenge is to integrate traditional
knowledge associated with biological resources within forests with that of
conventional forest management systems in India. Most policies and regulations
related to conservation of forest resources gives scant attention to
traditional knowledge and as a result making it even more difficult for
managers of the ABS regime to integrate this traditional knowledge when it
comes to sharing of benefits that accrue from forests. Hence, the challenge in
this regard is to establish linkages of traditional knowledge with mainstream
forest management practices especially with regard to the ABS regime.
The Intergovernmental Forum on
Forests in its report dated 2000, reached the conclusion that traditional
systems significantly contribute to the effective management, conservation and
sustainable use of forest resources, in accordance with Article 8 (j) and other
provisions of the Convention and IPF/IFF proposals for action. With this report and contiguous subsequent
developments, the role of traditional knowledge as an important repository for
effective forest management has increased over the years. However, as discussed
above, the main hinderance to incorporating traditional knowledge into forest
management is the absence of recognition to traditional knowledge combined with
a lack of legal protection against usurping the knowledge of indigenous
communities. Here, the role of the Peopleās Biodiversity Register (PBR) gains
prominence and perhaps presents a roadmap for future forest management
prescriptions.
The narrative of changing
perceptions has led to more integration of ABS regimes with the interest of
local communities in matters pertaining to bioresources. The most significant
change has occurred in the change of narrative from āConsultingā to āConsentā[7].
This has provided clear guidelines to policy makers that the role of the
indigenous and local communities over access of genetic and bioresources cannot
be ignored. Peopleās Biodiversity Register as a repository of information that
can be legally verified will go a long way to provide local communities with
rights on their resources.
Peopleās Biodiversity Register aims
to document folk knowledge of status, uses, history, ongoing changes and forces
driving changes in biodiversity resources, gainers and losers in these
processes and peopleās perceptions of how these resources should be managed[8].
PBRs are useful in many ways to strengthen the claims of the local communities
over their resources while at the same time mapping the change in resources as
a result of harvesting practises. These documents have the potential to carve
out a role in the international discourse on conservation and sustainable use
of bioresources as they help identify the right benefit claimer. Additionally,
PBRs provide geographical identity to the bioresources and can be useful in
providing a tool for clarification when disputes over biopiracy and
Intellectual property rights arise.
However, it must be noted that
linking traditional knowledge with traditional forest management systems is a
challenging task. Though PBRs provide rights over traditional knowledge
associated with the forest region in question, the proprietary right of the
communities over land is more often than not, a matter of dispute. In India,
most forests are owned by the government and though communities may be given
access in some cases as bonafide users of the resources, they are most often
than not allowed to commercially trade these resources. In view of these
complications, the role of communities and traditional knowledge in forest
management systems must be further analysed as well as incorporated in future
discourses. A simple suggestion put forth by a traditional healer in Dindigul
district of the state of Tamil Nadu was that while the proprietary rights of
forest areas remain as the unquestionable property of the forest department,
the rights over associated knowledge of bioresources must squarely be with the
community which is the holder of the knowledge. Sharing of benefit from genetic
resources can be under the custodianship of the state in the forms of one of
its bodies such as the Tamil Nadu Biodiversity Board in the case of Tamil Nadu.
The CBD was created with wild
biodiversity in mind, especially medicinal plants where the source of a
particular genetic resource and associated traditional knowledge can often be
established easily. The situation is different with respect to genetic
resources for food and agriculture, including crops and livestock, as humans
have modified these in an incremental manner and in many different geographical
locations far from where they were originally domesticated. In recognition of
this situation, a special instrument has been developed for access to crop
genetic resources, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture. This treaty establishes a multi-lateral ABS - system for a
common pool of 64 of the most important food crops and forage crops which are
held in ex-situ collections worldwide (Santilli 2012).[9]
The practice of agriculture is an
extremely dynamic process. Since the start of agriculture, humankind has
continuously modified plant genetic resources to suit the special nature of
agricultural biodiversity, its distinctive features and problems needing
distinctive solutions which was acknowledged by the Conference of the Parties
to the CBD at its fifth meeting in 2002. The COP considered to include the
following:
1. Agricultural biodiversity is essential to satisfy basic human needs
for food and livelihood security;
2. Agricultural biodiversity is managed by farmers; many components of
agricultural biodiversity depend on this human influence; indigenous knowledge
and culture are integral parts of the management of agricultural biodiversity;
3. There is a great interdependence between countries for the genetic
resources for food and agriculture;
4. For crops and domestic animals, diversity within species is at
least as important as diversity between species and has been greatly expanded
through agriculture;
5. Because of the degree of human management of agricultural
biodiversity, its conservation in production systems is inherently linked to
sustainable use
6. Nonetheless, much biological diversity is now conserved ex situ in
gene banks or breedersā materials;
7. The interaction between the environment, genetic resources and
management practices that occurs in situ within agro-ecosystems often
contributes to maintaining a dynamic portfolio of agricultural biodiversity.[10]
It is to be noted that traditional agriculture and conventional
practises are exempted from the purview of benefit sharing[11].
However, there are various aspects related to agriculture such as the use of
genetic resources and making commercially distinct products for medicinal use
that can come under the purview of the ABS regime.
There are numerous cases of local initiatives that can help protect
genetic resources. Rahibai Soma Popere of Kombhalne village in Maharasthra has
helped created a seed bank that distributes upto 122 varieties of 22 crops and
has even applied for registration in Protection of Plant varieties and farmers
right authority, India (PPV and FRA) under farmerās variety thus helping
preserve several varieties.[12]
Several NGOs in India have worked towards protection of seed based genetic
resources. Navdanya is an internationally renowned organisation that has collected
more than 5000 crop varieties and has helped preserve several native species. Traditionally,
most agricultural societies in India integrated preservation of crop species
into the social and religious milieu, an act that has helped preserve hundreds
of species which would have been lost otherwise with the rise of commercial
agriculture.
Accordingly, ABS implementation cannot work in isolation and must be
commensurate with other international treaties. Integration between ABS and
ITPGRFA needs to consider the legislative, administrative and policy measures
that cross each otherās path.
The International Treaty on Plant
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) popularly known as the
International Seed Treaty, is a comprehensive international agreement in
harmony with the Convention on Biological Diversity, which aims at guaranteeing
food security through the conservation, exchange and sustainable use of the
world's plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA), as well as the
fair and equitable benefit sharing arising from its use.
It also recognises farmers'
rights, subject to national laws to: a) the protection of traditional knowledge
relevant to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture; b) the right to
equitably participate in sharing benefits arising from the utilisation of plant
genetic resources for food and agriculture; and c) the right to participate in
making decisions, at the national level, on matters related to the conservation
and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. The treaty
establishes the multilateral system of access and benefit-sharing to facilitate
plant germplasm exchanges and benefit sharing through standard material transfer
agreement (SMTA)[13].
The Nagoya Protocol[14]
in the development and implementation of its access and benefit sharing
legislation or regulatory requirement, noted that each party shall: consider
the importance of genetic resources for food and agriculture and their special
role for food security (Article 8c). It is envisaged that though conventional
agriculture does not fall under the Nagoya Protocol, however if any plant
material be used for its genetic material, it should be done only after prior
informed consent is approved by the provider of the material.
The key interlinkage between them
is again with respect to the rights of the traditional communities and of
farmer-bred and traditional varieties which may be in the danger of
misappropriation or extinction. The challenge would be to protect the intellectual
property rights of the traditional farmer who is under constant threat from
external agencies.
India for its part has taken the
right measures with the legislation on Plant Variety Protection and Farmersā
right Act that recognises farmers right to save and sell seed that has been
produced on farm as they have been done traditionally.
There is an opportunity to link
Peopleās Biodiversity Register with farmerās rights over their traditional
knowledge. Not only are PBRs useful for documenting forest-based resources,
they can be extremely useful in documenting genetic and bioresources related to
agriculture as the PBR formats encompasses several elements of agri-diversity
based data. Under the ITPGRFA, the concept of Plant variety protection or the
Plant breeders right is a form of an intellectual property right granted to the
breeder of a new variety. Similarly, PBRs can be useful to preserve the rights
of farmers or communities over the traditional knowledge they may hold over a
particular variety.
The need to explore the linkage
of PBRs and implementation of ITPGFRA will be further investigated in the
coming years as the role of implementing farmerās rights gains prominence and
ITGRFA takes concrete steps to adopt a precise definition of Famerās rights so
that they are protected from future rights violations.
ABS and its implications on Animal Husbandry Based Resources
Traditional indigenous breeds of
animals are considered by many to be ideally suited to harsh tropical countries
like India. Traditional breeds were raised by farmers throughout history as a
result of an intimate study of local conditions. Most traditional breeds are
known to be genetically close to their wild relatives as the breeding selection
process considered the harsh environmental conditions for development of
subsequent breeds. However, raising traditional breeds is under sustained
onslaught by modern processes of breed selection that is currently predominant
in the entire world.
As industrialisation advanced, so
did commercial agriculture and the need for more efficient breeds. This led to a
gradual reduction of traditional breeding systems and a consequent loss of
agrobiodiversity. There was a steady loss of traditional knowledge associated
with ancient breeding systems.
In addition to that, cases of
biopiracy also severely affected traditional systems of breeding. It took
several decades before the international community acknowledged and took steps
to protect and preserve these traditional systems. Animal genetic resources
which is composed of breeds and strains of domesticated animals that humans
have developed out of 40 wild species in the past 10000 years were placed under
the purview of the Nagoya Protocol.
While access to crop genetic
resources is protected under the International Treaty on Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture, for animal genetic resources (AnGR), an
equivalent instrument is absent. The impending and on-going implementation of
the Nagoya Protocol at national levels therefore creates some urgency for the
animal genetic resource sector to engage with these questions. [15] India which a key repository of
genetic resources related to animals holds a rich diversity of distinct
livestock breeds. It is thus essential that these breeds be protected and any
utilisation of knowledge of these breeds has a direct benefit to the
communities that holds the knowledge over these breeds.
The Nagoya Protocol recognizes
the importance of genetic resources to food security, public health,
biodiversity conservation and mitigation of and adaption to effects of climate
change. While there is no direct reference to animal genetic resources in the
protocol, the protocol attempts to ensure that any user of genetic resources
and traditional knowledge pertaining to genetic resources must comply with the
ABS regulation by declaring the so-called due diligence. The user therefore
must ensure and prove that the genetic material used was in accordance with the
applicable legislation of the provider country. Also, the benefits must be
distributed in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with the agreed terms
and conditions.
Linking ABS to crop resources and
animal husbandry is fraught with challenges. While commercial application of
animal genetic resources may be limited, application of traditional knowledge
for commercial purpose is a possibility. For example, it would be interesting
for an industry to infuse elements of traditional knowledge into modern breeds
of cattle to make them more resilient in harsh conditions.
In India, the lack of a suitable
instrument was noted and the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)
initiated a mechanism for āRegistration of Animal Germplasmā by giving
temporary authority to National Bureau of Animal Genetic Resources (NBAGR),
Karnal. Subsequently in 2008, ICAR constituted a Breed Registration Committee
(BRC) under the chairmanship of Deputy Director General (Animal Science), ICAR
and having members from National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) and Dept. of
Animal Husbandry Dairying & Fisheries, Govt. of India for registration of
new breeds. This mechanism is the sole recognised process for registration of
livestock and poultry breeds at national level.[16]
Currently, Peopleās Biodiversity
Registers must take into account the rights of traditional breeders who may be
spread over a larger area as opposed to the geographical limit that a PBR
mandates. While the document may not provide a complete legal protection from
any case of theft of traditional knowledge of breeders, a bio-cultural protocol
can be inserted in those geographical regions which have high density of
traditional breeders. This can supplement and strengthen claims submitted to
the Breed Registration Committee in the future.
The Future Outlook for Access and Benefit Sharing in India
While users are to share benefits
as mandated under the BD act, an often-ignored aspect of ABS is the link with
industries that have a strong social commitment towards accessing resources and
wish to contribute benefits equitably. These actions of such industries is
largely driven by market perceptions and the desire for more accountability on
the part of the final customers. The silver lining is that the trend of
companies voluntarily taking steps to pay for benefits accrued has increased
significantly. Certifications, associations and a need for a unique identity
are leading companies to adopt measures that identify them as socially
responsible and use appropriate benefit sharing to develop a high brand
reputation.
While biodiversity-based business
from the natural oil, fragrances, timber, plantation crops and crop sectors continuously
strengthen their credibility, they have an intrinsic desire to build their
brand. They may not be required to share benefits, falling as they may outside
the purview of the BD Act, however the possible integration of legislations
such as Corporate Social Responsibility with ABS can be beneficial to
industries who wish to closely share benefits accrued from use of biological
resources. However, without mandatory compliance mechanisms, the onus still
lies upon the voluntary acceptance of the ABS mechanism by companies involved
in bio-trade. Industries are likely to be more comfortable in sharing non-monetary
benefits, as this serves as a good source of advertisement for the companies
and the value of benefits derived from the use of non-monetary benefits would
have more significance than sharing mere monetary benefits.
The concept of Access and Benefit
Sharing has been highly debated and vigorously researched, especially in pioneer
developing countries like India. There have been several suggestions made to improve
the structure of implementing ABS within the framework of the existing laws.
However, in the midst of much amplified noise and use of jargons, it is to be
remembered that the Convention of Biological Diversity was set up to conserve
biodiversity and provide benefits to providers. The Indian Biological Diversity
Act was constituted in the same lines and so was the Nagoya Protocol which
attempted to provide definite guidelines for access of resources.
However, the paradigm needs to be
reiterated that not only is benefit supposed to be shared but biodiversity
needs to be protected along with reversal of fast-paced biodiversity loss. This
remains the core objective of all the acts related to biodiversity. The
resource providers are not yet been acknowledged and even if they are, consent
is largely ignored. Additionally, actual monetary benefits are usually too
paltry to be considered. Concepts such as Bio-cultural protocols and Peopleās
Biodiversity Registers can serve as enablers in accelerating the acceptance of
ABS provisions, however the road ahead is fraught with risks as the full
implication of the act has not yet been actualised to its full potential in
India.
[1] https://www.cbd.int/convention/articles/default.shtml?a=cbd-15
[2]
Press Information Bureau, July 2014, India facilitates entry into force of Nagoya
Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing. New Delhi, Government of India,
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
[3] AU-IBAR,
2016, Into animal genetic resources
development in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities for the Nagoya Protocol.
AU-IBAR Reports
[4]
Research and Information System for Developing Countries, National Study on ABS implementation in India, New Delhi, ABS
Capacity Development Initiative
[5]
Section 3, 4, 6, 7, 21(2) and 18(4) of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002
[6] Jose Cabrera, Olivier Rukundo and
Frederic Perron-Welch, The interface
between sustainable forest management and access and benefit sharing outlining
potential areas of synergy, Quebec, Centre for International Sustainable
Development Law Biodiversity and Biosafety Law Programme.
[7]
Balakrishna Pisupati, 2015, The Ten
Questions to be Addressed while Developing National ABS Frameworks. FLEDGE,
India. Pp: 34.
[8] Environment, Development and Sustainability, Volume 2, Number 3-4,
Page 323
[9]
Santilli, 2012, Agrobiodiversity and the
law. Regulating genetic resources, food security and cultural diversity.
Earthscan, Oxford and New York
[10] COP
5 Decision V/5, Appendix, paragraph 2
[11]
Balakrishna Pisupati, 2015, The Ten
Questions to be Addressed while Developing National ABS Frameworks. FLEDGE,
India. Pp: 34.
[12] https://www.thebetterindia.com/114951/maharashtra-seed-mother-conservation-native-varieties/
[13]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Treaty_on_Plant_Genetic_Resources_for_Food_and_Agriculture
[14] https://www.cbd.int/abs/about/
[15]
Ilse Koehler-Rollefson and Hartmut Meyer, 2014, Access and Benefit-sharing of Animal Genetic Resources Using the Nagoya
Protocol as a Framework for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Locally
Adapted Livestock Breeds, League for Pastoral People and Endogenous
Livestock Development, The ABS Capacity Development Initiative
[16] http://www.nbagr.res.in/accessionbreed.html