When benefit claimers cannot be identified, how should ABS proceeds be distributed? Evaluate the area-based approach adopted by the National Biodiversity Authority.

Under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) money paid by users of biological resources must reach the people who conserved those resources. In October 2026, the NBA released Rs 2.02 crore paid by seed companies to 27 SBBs and 3 UTBCs. Because the crops were bought through markets and traders, no individual claimer could be traced, so the NBA split the money by each State's cultivation area [1]. This is a sound fallback but a poor default.

Principles for distributing untraceable proceeds

• Trace first: check People's Biodiversity Registers (PBRs), which record local landraces and knowledge, before using any proxy [2].
• Objective, published proxy only for the remainder that truly cannot be traced [1].
• Earmark the money for conservation: BMCs, updating PBRs, traditional crop varieties, habitats [1].
• Time-bound flow: the NBA once had Rs 266 crore realised but only Rs 145 crore disbursed [3].

Merits of the area formula

• Prevents idle funds when market sourcing hides where a resource came from [1].
• Verifiable and transparent: it uses MoA&FW crop statistics, and the State-wise shares are published [1].
• Reasonable proxy for widely grown crops like rice.
• Shows progress on KMGBF Target 13 (benefit-sharing) ahead of COP 17 [1].

Limitations

• Measures acreage, not diversity: a State with large hybrid acreage can outrank one that conserves dozens of landraces.
• Money concentrates in a few States: the top 10 States took Rs 1.43 crore, leaving about Rs 3 lakh on average for each of the other 20 [1]. Diversity-rich hill and North-East States with small farm areas lose out.
• Stops at the State: no conserving farmer is owed a share by right, and the release gives no BMC-level spending data [1].
• Weaker community voice: the 2023 amendment removed claimers from direct negotiation of benefit-sharing terms and gave no mechanism for prior informed consent [2].

Verdict and way forward The area formula is defensible as a last resort, not as a rule. A hybrid model would work better:

• reserve a share for BMCs whose PBRs list the landraces used, and split the rest by area;
• require BMC-level audits and time-limited transfers;
• define "codified traditional knowledge" narrowly, as the JPC recommended [4].

Combining traceability, transparency and timely transfers would make ABS a real reward for conservers. That would honour Article 48A, SDG 15 and the Nagoya Protocol's promise of fair and equitable benefit-sharing.