Discuss how the Nagoya Protocol has shaped India's domestic biodiversity governance framework. What challenges remain in making sure local communities benefit?

The Nagoya Protocol requires that benefits from using genetic resources are shared fairly with the people who conserve them. India is a Party to it. It has built this goal into the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, through a three-tier set of bodies: the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA), the State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs) and the local Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) [2]. The framework is in place, but benefits still rarely reach communities.

How Nagoya shaped India's framework

• Legislative alignment: The Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill cites India's Nagoya obligations in its recitals [2].
• ABS as conservation finance: Total NBA disbursements now exceed Rs 203 crore. Of this, Rs 86 crore came from the agriculture sector, paid by seed firms that use maize, rice, pearl millet and cotton [1].
• Earmarked spending: In October 2026, Rs 1.19 crore went to 29 SBBs and one UT Biodiversity Council. The money can be spent only on activities listed in Section 32(2) [1].
• Rule-based allocation: The money was shared in proportion to each State's crop area, using a formula from an Expert Committee and UPAg data [1].
• Judicial backing: In Divya Pharmacy vs Union of India (2018), the Uttarakhand High Court read Nagoya's benefit sharing as centred on local and indigenous communities [3].

Challenges for local communities

• Benefits stop at SBBs: The seed was bought through traders, so the farmers and villages who conserved it could not be identified [1].
• Formula skew: Crop area rewards large commercial growing belts rather than places that conserve old local varieties. Maharashtra received Rs 19.46 lakh. The 20 smallest recipients got about Rs 1.1 lakh each [1].
• No consent step: Nagoya Articles 6(2) and 7 require communities' prior informed consent. The 2021 Bill sets up no way to obtain it [3].
• Weaker voice: The NBA now represents BMCs when benefit terms are agreed, so communities do not negotiate directly [3].
• Codified TK loophole: The Bill exempts "codified traditional knowledge" from benefit sharing but does not define it. Knowledge recorded in People's Biodiversity Registers could therefore be exempted [3].
• Weaker deterrence: Prison terms are replaced by fines of Rs 1 lakh to Rs 50 lakh, set by government officers rather than courts [3].

Nagoya has given India a working, rule-based ABS system, but benefits still flow mainly to institutions rather than communities. The way forward is to:

• define codified traditional knowledge narrowly in the Rules;
• consult BMCs before benefit terms are agreed;
• add a factor to the formula for local crop diversity recorded in People's Biodiversity Registers;
• require seed firms to declare where their material came from.

These steps would bring India closer to SDG target 15.6 on fair and equitable benefit sharing.