India's obligations under the Nagoya Protocol have been domesticated through the Biological Diversity Act. Critically evaluate implementation gaps.

The Nagoya Protocol (in force 2014) obliges parties to ensure access to genetic resources rests on prior informed consent and mutually agreed terms, with fair benefit sharing [1]. India domesticated this through the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and its Rules — a statutorily sound framework whose delivery, however, remains uneven.

Domestication achieved

• Three-tier architecture: the National Biodiversity Authority (statutory body under MoEFCC, Chennai), State Biodiversity Boards/UT Biodiversity Councils, and Biodiversity Management Committees give ABS a functioning institutional spine [2].
• Operational ABS: 9,155 access applications received and 6,001 agreements signed; NBA transfers 85–90% of realised dues to the concerned SBB for onward payment to benefit claimers, releasing ₹6.09 crore to SBBs/UTBCs in FY 2025-26 [2][4].
• Grassroots documentation: over 2.76 lakh BMCs and 2.72 lakh People's Biodiversity Registers create a near-universal record of local resources and traditional knowledge [2].

Implementation gaps

• Diluted community agency: the 2021–23 amendment removes the direct role of local bodies and benefit claimers in settling mutually agreed terms, routing them through the BMC represented by NBA [3] — a weak fit with Nagoya's PIC–MAT logic.
• Undefined exemption: "codified traditional knowledge" is exempted from benefit sharing but left undefined; a broad reading could exempt almost all knowledge recorded in PBRs [3].
• Narrowed base: registered AYUSH practitioners are exempted from benefit-sharing obligations [3].
• Weak enforcement: decriminalisation substitutes administrative penalties (₹1–50 lakh) with no guidance to the adjudicating officer on quantum, vesting wide discretion in officials rather than courts [3].
• Pendency: roughly a third of access applications remain unconverted into signed agreements [2], indicating capacity constraints.

India's ABS regime is therefore strong in design but leaky in execution. Defining codified traditional knowledge through rules, restoring the benefit claimer's voice in negotiating terms, issuing penalty guidelines, and financing BMC capacity from the ABS pool would close the loop — converting a compliance framework into a genuine conservation incentive, consistent with Article 48A and the Protocol's equity mandate.