When benefit claimers cannot be traced, formula-based distribution of ABS funds becomes necessary but is imperfect. Critically analyse.

Under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, benefits from commercial use of bioresources must reach benefit claimers. These are the people who conserve the resources or hold the linked knowledge [2]. In October 2026, NBA disbursed ₹1.19 crore to 29 SBBs and one UT council in proportion to each State's crop cultivation area. It did so because seed firms had bought maize, rice, pearl millet and cotton through traders [1]. The formula is justified, but it is a second-best solution.

Why formula-based distribution is necessary

• Untraceability: material bought in markets cannot be linked to any village or farmer [1].
• Rule-based: an Expert Committee recommended the formula, and it uses official UPAg data from MoA&FW, so officials have no discretion [1].
• Cost-effective: tracing individual claimers would cost more than these small tranches are worth.
• Ring-fenced use: funds can only be spent on Section 32(2) activities such as documentation, conservation and livelihoods [1].

Why it is imperfect

• Equity gap: the formula rewards large hybrid-growing belts (Maharashtra got ₹19.46 lakh). It misses the remote regions that conserve the landraces behind hybrid parent lines [1].
• Thin spread: the 20 bodies outside the top ten shared ₹21.87 lakh, about ₹1.1 lakh each. That is too little for meaningful work [1].
• Money stops at institutions: farmers and BMCs get nothing directly. The 2021 Amendment Bill lets NBA represent BMCs when benefit terms are set. It also has no prior-informed-consent mechanism, though Nagoya Articles 6(2) and 7 call for one [2].
• Legal tension: in Divya Pharmacy v. Union of India (2018), the Uttarakhand High Court held that Nagoya benefit sharing is centred on communities [2].
• Moral hazard: each formula payout reduces the pressure to fix traceability.
• Treaty overlap: rice and maize also fall under the ITPGRFA Multilateral System, which creates a risk of charging twice for the same material [3].

Way forward

• Diversity weight: allocate part of each tranche by the number of landraces recorded in People's Biodiversity Registers.
• Source disclosure: require companies to declare where their parent lines came from when they apply for approval.
• Narrow definition: define "codified traditional knowledge" narrowly so that PBR entries are not exempted [2].
• Consultation: SBBs should consult the BMCs where the crop lines originated before finalising benefit terms.

The formula is a practical stopgap that keeps ABS money flowing when traceability fails, but it gives up equity for administrative convenience. Combining area shares with diversity weights and compulsory source disclosure would carry benefits to the farmers who conserve these crops. That would honour the Nagoya Protocol's community-centred vision and SDG target 15.6 on fair benefit sharing.