NBA releases Rs 8.22 crore to research institutions, State Biodiversity Boards, UT Biodiversity Councils

The recent disbursement of Rs 8.22 crore by the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) to 33 State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs), Union Territory Biodiversity Councils, and three research institutions marks a significant milestone in operationalizing India’s Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) framework under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. This Act was enacted to fulfill India’s obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which India ratified in 1994, and its supplementary Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization, adopted in 2010 and ratified by India in 2012. The Nagoya Protocol entered into force globally on October 12, 2014, establishing a legally binding framework for fair benefit-sharing from the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. The NBA, established in 2003 under Section 8 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, functions as a statutory body under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). It is mandated to regulate access to biological resources, ensure equitable benefit-sharing, and advise central and state governments on biodiversity conservation. The State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs), constituted under Section 22 of the Act, and Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) at the local level under Section 41, form a three-tier decentralized governance structure. This structure aligns with the constitutional mandate under Article 48A (Directive Principle for environmental protection) and Article 51A(g) (Fundamental Duty to protect the natural environment), while also resonating with the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments that empower Panchayats and Municipalities with environmental functions. The released funds represent monetary benefits collected from users — such as industries, researchers, and commercial entities — who access India’s biological resources and associated traditional knowledge for research, commercialization, or bio-prospecting. Under Section 21 of the Act, prior approval from the NBA is required for foreign entities, while Indian entities require intimation to the concerned SBB. The benefit-sharing mechanism ensures that a portion of the revenue generated from such utilization flows back to local communities conserving biodiversity, often through BMCs. The inclusion of three research institutions in this disbursement highlights support for scientific documentation, valuation, and sustainable use of bio-resources. This development has profound implications. Economically, it incentivizes conservation by linking biodiversity stewardship to tangible financial returns for local communities, particularly tribal and rural populations dependent on forest and agricultural biodiversity. Politically, it strengthens cooperative federalism by empowering states and local bodies in natural resource governance. Internationally, it demonstrates India’s compliance with the Nagoya Protocol and its leadership in the Global South on biodiversity finance — a critical agenda at forums like the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP16) and the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Looking ahead, the focus will likely shift to enhancing transparency in ABS agreements, digitizing benefit-tracking through platforms like the ABS Clearing-House, and expanding BMC capacity. The 2023 amendment to the Biological Diversity Act, which decriminalized certain offences and eased compliance for Indian entities and AYUSH practitioners, may further influence benefit flows. For aspirants, this case exemplifies the intersection of environmental law, federal governance, indigenous rights, and international treaty implementation — a quintessential UPSC/State PSC theme.