The Lima standoff and the rise of “biodiversity cartels”: A Global South Perspective

Imagine a world where the most valuable resource isn't gold or oil, but the very essence of life itself – biodiversity. The concept of a "biodiversity cartel," emerging from the Global South, signals a profound shift in how nations view and negotiate the worth of their natural wealth. This idea is a strategic response to historical imbalances, likening biodiversity's immense, often uncompensated, value to "data as the new oil." It represents a collective realization among developing nations that their rich biological resources, coupled with traditional knowledge, are powerful bargaining chips in global economic and environmental negotiations.

Historically, the Global North, with its advanced scientific and industrial capabilities, has often benefited disproportionately from the biodiversity found predominantly in the Global South. This has led to instances of 'biopiracy,' where biological resources or traditional knowledge are patented and commercialized without equitable benefit-sharing or prior informed consent from the originating countries or communities. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), adopted in 1992 during the Earth Summit in Rio, was a landmark attempt to address this. Its three main objectives are the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources (Access and Benefit Sharing – ABS). The subsequent Nagoya Protocol on ABS, adopted in 2010 and entered into force in 2014, further operationalized the third objective, providing a legal framework for ABS.

Despite these international agreements, implementation has been challenging, and the Global South often feels that the benefits flowing back are insufficient. The "Lima standoff" mentioned in the context likely refers to ongoing disagreements and strategic positioning in international fora, perhaps during CBD Conference of Parties (COP) meetings or other environmental summits hosted in Global South cities, where developing nations assert their rights and demand fairer terms. The term "cartel" itself, while provocative, underscores a desire for collective strength, similar to how OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) influences oil prices, aiming to give biodiversity-rich nations a unified voice and leverage.

Key stakeholders in this emerging dynamic include, first and foremost, the **Global South nations**. These are countries rich in biodiversity, often with large indigenous populations holding invaluable traditional knowledge. Their collective goal is to secure equitable returns and prevent exploitation. On the other side are the **Global North nations**, typically technologically advanced, with robust pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and agricultural industries that rely on genetic resources. **Multinational corporations** are also major players, as they are often the primary users and commercializers of these resources. Finally, **indigenous and local communities** are crucial stakeholders, as they are the custodians of much of the world's biodiversity and traditional knowledge, and their rights must be protected.

For India, this concept holds immense significance. India is one of the 17 mega-diverse countries, home to 4 of the 36 global biodiversity hotspots (the Himalayas, Western Ghats, Indo-Burma region, and Sundaland). This rich biodiversity underpins vast traditional knowledge systems, particularly in Ayurveda, Unani, and Siddha medicine. India has been a strong advocate for equitable benefit sharing and the protection of traditional knowledge on international platforms. The "biodiversity cartel" idea aligns perfectly with India's long-standing stance, offering a potential mechanism to amplify its voice and secure better terms in global negotiations. Economically, it could lead to increased revenue from access fees and benefit-sharing arrangements, fostering local economies and supporting conservation efforts. Politically, it strengthens India's position as a leader in the Global South and in environmental diplomacy.

India has already taken proactive steps domestically to operationalize the CBD and Nagoya Protocol. The **Biological Diversity Act, 2002**, and the establishment of the **National Biodiversity Authority (NBA)** at the national level, and State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs) and Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) at state and local levels, are crucial. These bodies regulate access to biological resources and associated knowledge for commercial utilization, research, or bio-survey and bio-utilization, ensuring that benefits are shared equitably. Furthermore, constitutional provisions like **Article 48A** (Directive Principle of State Policy) obligate the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife, while **Article 51A(g)** (Fundamental Duty) enjoins every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment. Acts like the **Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA), 1996**, and the **Forest Rights Act, 2006**, also empower local communities over their traditional resources and knowledge.

The future implications of a "biodiversity cartel" are multifaceted. If successfully formed and maintained, it could significantly alter global power dynamics in environmental governance and resource distribution. It might compel developed nations and corporations to engage in more transparent and equitable partnerships, fostering innovation and sustainable practices. However, challenges include achieving consensus among diverse Global South nations, preventing internal conflicts, and navigating potential retaliatory measures from developed nations. It could also spur further research into synthetic biology and alternative resources in the Global North, potentially reducing their reliance on natural biodiversity. Ultimately, this concept represents a bold assertion of sovereignty over natural resources and a demand for a more just and sustainable global economic order, moving beyond mere conservation to active resource governance and value extraction for the benefit of all.