Back To Biodiversity

In 1992, the Earth Summit in Rio recognised each countrys right to protect its biodiversity and many countries (like Australia) have already implemented legislation to ensure this. Such issues assume significance because of the protection to plant and seed varieties and micro-organisms proposed under the Uruguay Round. With such protection, cross-border trade and piracy of germplasm become possibilities. The biodiversity bill, together with the parallel bill on plant varieties, piloted by the agriculture ministry, should therefore have been high on the governments agenda. Unfortunately, both the bills disappeared for some time.

The biodiversity bill proposes the constitution of a national biodiversity authority, state-level biodiversity boards and committees at the local level. All existing agreements on transfer of biological resources from India will be reviewed to conform to new guidelines. Collaborative research projects and agreements between government-sponsored organisations and institutions will be allowed. There will be safeguards against commercialisation of the benefits of transferred resources and no intellectual property rights will be claimed on the resource, information or products based on related research. Technology related to the resources will also be transferred to India.

 

In addition, the national biodiversity authority can prohibit non-Indians and corporates with foreign equity from obtaining biological resources for research or commercial use without permission. Nor can the results based on such resources be transferred without authorisation. The permission will only be granted on specific terms and conditions, which will include the payment of royalties.

While the general principles of the bill are fine, there are at least four problems with what is proposed. First, the setting up of a government organisation in the form of the national biodiversity authority may not be the best way to conserve natural resources. Natural resources are best protected when property rights are devolved downwards. The bill does not preclude this, but then (and this is the second problem) how does one apportion property rights when development has historically taken place through communities rather than individuals? Third, what happens to the royalties collected? Do they go into government coffers, or are they distributed to local communities? Fourth, these principles become meaningless unless there is adequate documentation of the biodiversity India possesses. It is universally accepted that this country has one of the largest stocks of flora and fauna in the world, but databases do not exist. Extrapolating from past performance, by the time this stock is documented, much of

Indias biodiversity will have disappeared, despite the bill. This is yet another reason why one needs to think of decentralisation and devolution down to the level of local bodies. It is they who have a stake in Indias natural resources, not the government.