Evaluate the role of Biodiversity Management Committees and State Biodiversity Boards in decentralised biodiversity governance in India.

The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 set up a three-tier, non-hierarchical structure. The National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) works at the national level. State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs) work at the state level, and local bodies form Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) [1]. The design is sound and takes biodiversity governance down to the village. In practice, however, these bodies lack the capacity their mandate needs.

Role and Strengths

• Grassroots documentation: BMCs prepare People's Biodiversity Registers (PBRs), which record local biological resources and traditional knowledge [2].
• State-level implementation: SBBs carry out the Biological Diversity (Amendment) Act, 2023, with NBA funds [2].
• New conservation role: Under the I-OECM Guidelines, 2026, BMCs can apply to have sacred groves, irrigation tanks and seasonal fishing-ban areas recognised. SBBs check these applications within 30 days and keep the records [3].
• Rights-friendly: Recognition changes no ownership or rights. This avoids the access limits and displacement that Protected Areas can cause [3].

Limitations

• Weak capacity: The NBA says its focus has moved from forming BMCs to making them functional. Better-quality PBRs and training are now its priorities [2].
• Thin finances: NBA support to all SBBs and UT Councils together in FY 2025–26 was only Rs 6.09 crore [2].
• Centralised final say: In OECM recognition, the NBA decides and MoEFCC authorises. SBBs only validate and BMCs only apply [3].
• Diffuse accountability: One tank may be managed by several bodies (irrigation department, Panchayat, fishers), but the Guidelines do not say who answers if conservation outcomes fall. Monitoring happens only once in five years [3].
• Reliance on courts: Community sites still depend on judicial protection. The Supreme Court directed Rajasthan to survey and notify its Orans (sacred groves) [4].

Overall, SBBs and BMCs have a strong legal design but weak capacity, so decentralisation is so far more formal than real. Three steps would close the gap:

• Fund and train BMCs before expecting applications from them.
• In the six GEF-8 demonstration landscapes, name the BMC as the body answerable for each site [3].
• Link SBB records with forest notifications.

These steps would make decentralised governance work in practice, in line with the spirit of the 73rd and 74th Amendments. They would also give India's progress towards KM-GBF Target 3 (30x30) a community base.