Discuss whether the exemption of AYUSH practitioners and codified traditional knowledge from benefit sharing dilutes the spirit of the Nagoya Protocol.

The Nagoya Protocol (2010) puts the CBD's third objective into practice: the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from genetic resources [5]. Article 5.5 extends this duty to traditional knowledge (TK) held by local communities [3]. The Biological Diversity (Amendment) Act, 2023 exempts codified TK and AYUSH practitioners from benefit sharing [1]. In its present form, the exemption partly dilutes that spirit.

How the exemption dilutes the Protocol

• Undefined loophole: the Act does not define "codified TK." A broad reading could exempt almost all TK [1].
• AYUSH is mostly codified: the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) found that most TK in the AYUSH system is codified [2]. AYUSH paid only ₹0.21 crore of ₹9.68 crore in ABS receipts in April–September 2026 [4].
• Documentation is penalised: TK recorded in People's Biodiversity Registers may be treated as codified. That could deny benefits to most local knowledge holders [2], against Article 7's prior informed consent and mutually agreed terms [3].
• Weaker community voice: the NBA now agrees benefit-sharing terms on behalf of Biodiversity Management Committees [1].
• Cultivated medicinal plants are also exempt: without an origin certificate, wild material can be passed off as cultivated [2].

Why the exemption is partly defensible

• Customary use: Article 12.4 asks Parties not to restrict the customary use and exchange of TK within communities [3]. Traditional healers fall within this.
• No single holder: knowledge in classical texts is centuries old and widely shared. Usually no identifiable community can negotiate terms for it.
• Ease of compliance: fewer permissions encourage AYUSH growth and cultivation, which may ease pressure on wild stocks.

Way forward

• Define codified TK as knowledge from the authoritative books in the First Schedule of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as the JPC recommended [2].
• Exclude PBR entries from "codified" status explicitly.
• Write into the Act that a certificate of origin comes from an entry in the local body's books [2].

The exemption has a fair basis for classical texts and customary practice, but its vague scope tilts the balance against communities. A narrow definition of codified TK and protection for PBR knowledge would keep India's ABS regime true to Nagoya's promise and to SDG target 15.6 on fair benefit sharing.