The Access and Benefit Sharing mechanism under the Biological Diversity Act is as much about equity as about conservation. Critically examine in light of the 2023 amendments.

The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 puts into practice the CBD's third objective, fair and equitable benefit sharing. Anyone who commercially uses India's bio-resources pays a benefit share. That money funds conservation and pays the communities that hold the resources and the knowledge. The 2023 amendments brought more users into the system, but they shifted the balance from equity towards ease of access.

ABS as a conservation tool

• Revenue for conservation: the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) collected ₹9.68 crore from April to September 2026. This money pays for People's Biodiversity Registers (PBRs), stronger Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) and research [1].
• Users inside the system: NBA approval is now needed at the IPR grant stage instead of the application stage, and offences have been decriminalised [2]. IPR applications rose from 857 in FY25 to 1,077 in FY26 [3]. Firms now use the legal route instead of biopiracy.

ABS as an equity tool

• Money for communities: about ₹278 crore has been collected since 2008, and over ₹200 crore has been passed to communities and states [1].
• Control over who gets access: foreign-controlled companies registered in India now need NBA approval [2].

Where the 2023 amendments weaken equity

• Codified-TK loophole: AYUSH practitioners and users of codified traditional knowledge are exempt from benefit sharing, and the Act does not define the term [2]. AYUSH paid only ₹0.21 crore of the ₹9.68 crore [1]. The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) warned that knowledge recorded in PBRs could be treated as codified [4].
• Communities lose their voice: the NBA now negotiates benefit-sharing terms on behalf of BMCs [2].
• Weak deterrence: fines are fixed at ₹1 lakh–₹50 lakh [2]. The JPC wanted them linked to the firm's gains and size [4].
• Narrow revenue base: three firms paid about half of the receipts. IPR-linked receipts were only ₹11.24 lakh [1], even though the NBA issued 885 certificates for IPR applications in FY26 [3].
• Gene data gap: all receipts come from physical samples. Payments for Digital Sequence Information (gene data used online) go through the CBD's separate Cali Fund, set up at COP16 [5].

ABS therefore serves both conservation and equity, but the 2023 reforms favoured ease of access over fair returns. To restore the balance, MoEFCC should:

• define codified TK using the classical texts listed in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as the JPC recommended [4];
• link penalties to the violator's gains;
• publish which BMC receives each payment;
• push India's interests in the Cali Fund negotiations.

These steps would meet the Nagoya Protocol's aims and SDG 15.6 on fair sharing of benefits from genetic resources.