Access and Benefit Sharing has moved from a compliance obligation to a conservation-finance instrument in India. Critically examine with reference to the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and its 2023 amendment.

Under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) requires firms that use India's biological resources to return part of their gains to conservation and to local communities. The National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) has realised over ₹278 crore since 2008 and disbursed over ₹200 crore [1]. This shows ABS is becoming a way to fund conservation, but its scale and fairness remain weak.

ABS as a conservation-finance instrument

• Three-tier delivery: The NBA handles foreign and IPR-linked access. SBBs/UTBCs approve Section 7 (Indian) entities and have raised over ₹51 crore. BMCs receive the funds at the local level [1].
• Wide reach: Money has gone to over 10,500 BMCs, 28 SBBs, 7 UTBCs, 6 Forest Departments and 58 research institutions [1].
• Species-specific funding: About ₹100 crore was released for Red Sanders conservation in Andhra Pradesh. Payments for cotton, mustard and okra varieties reward farmers who conserved that germplasm [1].
• Ecological use: The funds pay for People's Biodiversity Registers, habitat restoration and community gene banks, in line with KMGBF Target 13 and the NBSAP 2024–30 [1].
• 2023 amendment eased compliance: IPR approval is now needed only at commercialisation. Offences were decriminalised and replaced with penalties of ₹1 lakh–₹50 lakh [2]. E-filing and model agreements make the process more predictable [1].

Limitations

• Small scale: Only ₹12.93 crore was received in 2025–26, which is small next to India's seed, AYUSH and pharma sectors [1].
• Slow disbursal: Most of the ₹132.01 crore released that year came from accumulated past collections [1].
• Weaker community rights: Codified traditional knowledge (TK) users and AYUSH practitioners no longer have to share benefits. Because "codified TK" is undefined, this could exempt almost all TK [2].
• Top-down bargaining: Benefit terms are now settled between the user and the BMC "represented by NBA", so communities have less direct say [2].
• Weaker deterrence: Replacing prison terms with fines may reduce the deterrent against biopiracy [2].

ABS has moved from a permit-based duty to a real source of money for conservation, but it is still small and not fully fair to communities. Defining codified TK, building up BMCs, releasing funds faster and bringing more domestic users under ABS would make it a lasting pillar of conservation finance. That would advance Article 48A and KMGBF Target 13's goal of fair and equitable benefit sharing.