Where benefit claimers cannot be identified, area-based benefit sharing is a pragmatic but imperfect solution. Critically examine.

Section 21 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 requires fair and equitable benefit sharing. In October 2026, the NBA shared ₹1.04 crore paid by three agri-firms among 27 SBBs and 2 UTBCs. Each share was based on crop-cultivation area, because the crops had been bought through traders and the original holders could not be traced [1]. The method is a sound fallback, but it cannot replace tracing who actually supplied the resource.

Why it is pragmatic

• Releases stuck money: money with no identifiable claimant can still be shared, so Section 21 keeps working [1].
• Objective data: shares come from MoA&FW's Unified Portal for Agricultural Statistics, so they are transparent and cheap to run [1].
• Federal reach: every state board gets a share, and the money is earmarked for conservation, documentation and capacity-building [1].
• Protects a growing revenue stream: the seed sector was the largest ABS contributor in FY 2025–26 [2], and agriculture has given about ₹87 crore so far [1].

Why it is imperfect

• Pays for area, not for custodianship: big crop states gain the most; Uttar Pradesh got the largest share [1]. Hill and tribal pockets that conserve landraces on small plots get little.
• Spread too thin: the 19 smallest recipients average only about ₹1.5 lakh each [1]. That cannot fund a real conservation programme.
• Stops at the state level: BMCs, the people the law is meant for [7], depend on what each SBB decides. Even the NBA had passed on only ₹145 crore of the ₹266 crore it collected [2].
• The root cause is missing records: the JPC asked that origin be proved through entries in local authority records. It also warned that exemptions could deny benefits to most traditional-knowledge holders [5].
• May soon be outdated: DSI (digital sequence information) lets firms use genetic data without buying any crop, so there is nothing to trace. COP 16 created the Cali Fund for this, with indicative contributions of 1% of profits or 0.1% of revenue [6].

Way forward

• Issue certificates of origin linked to People's Biodiversity Registers, and use area-based sharing only as a last resort [5].
• Set time-bound SBB→BMC transfers, following earlier direct releases to 24 districts [3] and ₹67 lakh to Dapur BMC [4].
• Weight shares by landrace diversity, not just area, and publish the money pipeline every year.
• Push at COP 17 for the Cali Fund to start working [6].

Area-based sharing keeps benefit sharing working when holders cannot be traced, but it rewards scale more than stewardship. Better origin records and faster transfers down to BMCs would make it a rare fallback rather than the usual route. That would serve the CBD's equity objective and KMGBF Target 13, as Article 48A intends.