SESSION 7

POLICY AND LEGAL TERNDS IN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION

Contents
1. Importance of Biological Diversity

2. Convention on Biological Diversity

2.1. Background
2.2. Origin of CBD
2.3. Key issues under CBD
2.4. Institutional Structure of CBD
2.5. Biosafety Working Group
2.6. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

3. Indias Compliance with CBD

3.1. Process and Development of NBSAP
3.2. The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
3.3. Key Startegies and Actions
3.4. Implementation: Issues and current status
3.5. Criticisms on Implementation
3.6. Recommendations by critics on report
3.7. Current trends and implementation

4. Biological Diversity Act, 2002

1.

Importance of Biological Diversity

1.1

Introduction

The term Biological diversity or biodiversity implies the variety of life on earth
and the natural patterns it forms. It comprises not only all life forms but also
includes the variety of ecosystems such as those that occur in deserts, forests,
wetlands, mountains, lakes, rivers, and agricultural landscapes as well as the
natural components like the air, water, and soil. Biodiversity is the combination of
life forms and their interactions with each other as well as with the rest of the
environment.
The biodiversity we see today is the fruit of billions of years of evolution, shaped
by natural processes. Since times immemorial, human beings have used biological
resources in order to sustain their lives. However, with the progression in human
life, human beings started to exploit and abuse the gifts of nature. This overutilization of the resources of nature by humans has increasingly led to unnatural
alterations of the biodiversity.
Preservation of biodiversity is in our self-interest since biological resources are the
pillars which support our civilization. Nature provides us with vital goods and
services that are crucial for our subsistence. There is an urgent need to protect our
biological resources given that if these resources once exhausted, are irreplaceable.
If these biological resources perish, it will not take much time for the human race
to perish and become extinct forever.
Although several attempts have been made in the direction of protection of the
Biological Diversity, the most significant of all attempts is the Convention on
Biological diversity (CBD) also informally known as Biodiversity Convention.

2. The Convention on Biological Diversity

2.1. Background
The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in
1972 led to the adoption of various instruments such as the Stockholm Declaration
on Human Environment, the Action Plan including 109 resolutions and
Resolutions. The Conference also led to the establishment of the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP). Governments signed a number of regional and
international agreements to tackle specific issues, such as protecting wetlands and
regulating the international trade in endangered species. These agreements, along
with controls on toxic chemicals and pollution, have helped to slow the tide of
destruction but have not reversed it.
The World Commission on Environment and Development also known as the
Brundtland Commission, in 1987, concluded that economic development must
become less ecologically destructive. In its landmark report, Our Common
Future, it said that: "Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable-to
ensure that it meets needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs". It also called for "a new era of
environmentally sound economic development".
2.2. Origin of CBD
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was adopted in The United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development or the Earth Summit in
1992 held at Rio de Janeiro. At the Earth Summit the world leaders agreed on a
comprehensive strategy for "sustainable development", which involves meeting
our needs while ensuring that we leave a healthy and viable world for future
generations.
The CBD was adopted with the primary objective of securing sustainable
development. It was conceived as a practical tool for implimenting the principles
of Agenda 21. The Convention is a legally binding multilateral treaty having three
main goals, namely:
1. conservation of biological diversity;
2. sustainable use of its components; and
3. fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources.
The Convention was opened for signature at the Earth Summit on June 5, 1992.
The Convention initially had 157 signatories. It was entered into force on
December 29, 1993.

The convention recognized for the first time in international law that the
conservation of biological diversity is "a common concern of humankind" and is
an integral part of the development process. The agreement covers all ecosystems,
species, and genetic resources. It links traditional conservation efforts to the
economic goal of using biological resources sustainably. It sets principles for the
fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources,
notably those destined for commercial use. It also covers the rapidly expanding
field of biotechnology through its Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, addressing
technology development and transfer, benefit-sharing and biosafety issues.Some
of the many issues dealt with under the Convention include:

Measures and incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of

biological diversity.
Regulated access to genetic resources.
Access to and transfer of technology, including biotechnology.
Technical and scientific cooperation.
Impact assessment.
Education and public awareness.
Provision of financial resources.

2.3.

Key Issues under CBD

The treaty takes a comprehensive approch to conservation of biological

diversty of the planet and the sustainable use of the biological resources. It also
encompasses related socio-economic issues, such as sharing of benefits from
the use of genetic resources ans access ro technology, including biotechnology.
It secures right to control access to biological resources for the countries in
which those resources are located. One objective of the CBD is to enable
lesser-developed countries to better benefit from their resources and traditional
knowledge. Some of the many issues dealt with under the convention include:

Measures and incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of

biological diversity.
Regulated access to genetic resources and traditional knowledge, including
Prior Informed Consent of the party providing resources to be obtained
by the bioprospectors.
Sharing, in a fair and equitable way, the results of research and
development and the benefits arising from the commercial and other
utilization of genetic resources with the Contracting Party providing such
resources (governments and/or local communities that provided the
traditional knowledge or biodiversity resources utilized).

Access to and transfer of technology, including biotechnology, to the

governments and/or local communities that provided traditional knowledge
and/or biodiversity resources.
Technical and scientific cooperation.
Impact assessment.
Education and public awareness.
Provision of financial resources.
National reporting on efforts to implement treaty commitments.
2.4.

Institutional Structure of CBD

The institutional structure of the CBD consists of a number of bodies including the
Secretariat (situated at Montreal), the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical
and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) and the Conference of Parties (COP).
The Secretariat The Secretariat of CBD is located in Montreal, Canada. It
operates under the United Nations Environment Programme. The CBD
functions on a daily basis through the Secretariat. It is responsible for
organizing meetings, draft documents, assists member Governments in the
implementation of programmes, coordinate with other international
organizations and collect and disseminate information.

The Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice

(SBSTTA) The SBSTTA is a body established under Article 25 of the CBD,
with the view to provide expert advice to Conference of Parties and other
bodies to the Convention. It is a multidisciplinary expert body which has the
mandate to provide scientific and technical assessments of the status of
biological diversity and of the effects of different measures taken in
accordance with the Convention. It is required to identify innovative and
efficient technologies relating to the conservation and sustainable use of
biological diversity. The SBSTTA also provides advice on the ways and means
of promoting development as well as transferring such technologies.
The SBSTTA has met twelve times till date and has provided 129
recommendations to the Conference of Parties. The meetings of SBSTTA are
as follows1st Meeting of SBSTTA held in Paris, France from September 4 to 8,
1995

2nd Meeting of SBSTTA held in Montreal, Canada from September 2 to

6, 1996
3rd Meeting of SBSTTA held in Montreal, Canada from September 1 to
5, 1997
4th Meeting of SBSTTA held in Montreal, Canada from June 21 to 25,
1999
5th Meeting of SBSTTA held in Montreal, Canada from January 31 to
February 4, 2000
6th Meeting of SBSTTA held in Montreal, Canada from March 12 to 16,
2001
7th Meeting of SBSTTA held in Montreal, Canada from November 12 to
16, 2001
8th Meeting of SBSTTA held in Montreal, Canada from March 10 to 14,
2003
9th Meeting of SBSTTA held in Montreal, Canada from November 10 to
14, 2003
10th Meeting of SBSTTA held in Bangkok, Thailand from February 7 to
11, 2005
11th Meeting of SBSTTA held in Montreal, Canada from November 28
to December 2, 2005
12th Meeting of SBSTTA held in Paris, France from July 2 to 6, 2007
13th Meeting of SBSTTA held in Rome, Italy from February 18 to 22,
2008
The Conference of Parties (COP) The COP is the governing body which
brings together all States and Regional Organizations the have ratified the
Convention. It is mandated to review the implementation of the Convention.
More specifically, it reviews progress under the Convention, identifies new
priorities to be pursued, sets work plans for members, amends the Convention,
creates expert advisory bodies, reviews progress reports by member nations
and collaborates with other international organizations and agreements.

The COP has initiated work on a number of thematic work programmes

addressing agriculture biodiversity, forest biodiversity, island biodiversity, inland
water ecosystems, dry and sub-humid lands and mountain biodiversity. Till date
the COP has had nine ordinary meeting and one extraordinary meeting.
COP 1 held in Nassau, Bahamas from November 28 to December 9,
1994
COP 2 held in Jakarta, Indonesia from November 6 to 17, 1995
COP 3 held in Buenos Aires, Argentina from November 4 to 15, 1996
COP 4 held in Bratislava, Slovakia from May 4 to 15, 1998
ExCOP 1 - First Extraordinary Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to
the Convention on Biological Diversity held in Cartagena, Colombia from
February 22 to 23, 1999 and in Montreal, Canada from January 24 to 28,
2000. The Cartagena meeting led to the adoption of a supplementary
agreement to the Convention known as The Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety or the Biosafety Protocol.
COP 5 held in Nairobi, Kenya from May 15 to 26, 2000
COP 6 held in The Hague, Netherlands from April 7 to 19, 2002. The
major achievement of COP 6 was adoption of Bonn Guidelines on access
to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising
from their utilization.
COP 7 held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from February 9 to 20, 2004.
One of the major achievements of COP 7 was the adoption of Akw: Kon
Guidelines that were voluntary guidelines for the conduct of cultural,
environmental and social impact assessments
COP 8 held in Curitiba, Brazil from March 20 to 31, 2006
COP 9 held in Bonn, Germany from May 19 to 30, 2008
2.5. Biosafety Working Group
Article 19.3 of the CBD provides for Parties to consider the need and
modalities of a protocol setting out procedures in the field of the safe transfer,
handling and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) resulting from

biotechnology that may have an adverse effect on biodiversity and its

components. An ad hoc working group known as the Biosafety Working
Group (BSWG) was established to this end at COP-2.
After its establishment, the working group primarily worked towards charting
out the designs of a Protocol to address issues pertaining to Biosafety. After
five years of negotiations, the Biosafety Protocol was finally adopted.
2.6.

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety also known as Biosafety Protocol was

adopted on January 29, 2000 and was entered into force on September 11, 2003.
The Biosafety Protocol seeks to protect biological diversity from the potential
risks posed by living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology.
At present, 189 States are Parties to the Protocol.
The Protocol addresses the safe transfer, handling and use of LMOs that may have
an adverse effect on biodiversity, taking into account human health, with a specific
focus on transboundary movements. It makes clear that products from new
technologies must be based on the precautionary principle and developing nations
are allowed to balance public health against economic benefits. An Advance
Informed Agreement (AIA) has been made mandatory before the transboundry
movement of LMOs.
The Protocol further establishes a Biosafety Clearing- House (BCH) to facilitate
information exchange, and contains provisions on capacity building and financial
resources, with special attention to developing countries and those with domestic
regulatory systems.
The governing body of the Protocol is the Conference of the Parties to the
Convention on Biological Diversity serving as the meeting of the Parties to the
Protocol (COP-MOP). Its primary role is to regularly review the implementation
of the Protocol and to make decisions necessary to promote its effective
implementation. To date the COP-MOP has held three ordinary meetings and has
taken a total of 46 decisions.
COP MOP 1 held at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from February 23 to 29, 2004
COP MOP 2 held at Montreal, Canada from May 30 the June 3, 2005
COP MOP 3 held at Curitiba, Brazil from March 13 to 17, 2006
COP MOP 4 held at Bonn, Germany, from 12 to 16 May 2008.

3. Indias Compliance with CBD

3.1. Introduction
India signed the CBD on June 5, 1992 and hence, when the Convention came into
force in the year 1993, India was already a signatory to it. India ratified the CBD
on 18 February, 1994.
Article 6 of the Convention on General Measures for Conservation and
Sustainable Use states that each Contracting Party shall, in accordance with its
particular conditions and capabilities:
(a) Develop national strategies, plans or programmes for the conservation and
sustainable use of biological diversity or adapt for this purpose existing strategies,
plans or programmes which shall reflect, inter alia, the measures set out in this
Convention relevant to the Contracting Party concerned
(b) Integrate, as far as possible and as appropriate, the conservation and
sustainable use of biological diversity into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral plans,
programmes and policies.
Article 261 and Article 10 (a)2 are closely linked to Article 6. The first calls for
Parties to present, through their national reports, information on measures which
have been taken for the implementation of the provisions of the Convention and
their effectiveness in meeting the objectives of the Convention. The latter
encourages Parties to integrate consideration of the conservation and sustainable
use of biological resources into national decision-making.
1

Article 26 Reports
Each Contracting Party shall, at intervals to be determined by the Conference of the Parties, present to the
Conference of the Parties, reports on measures which it has taken for the implementation of the provisions
of this Convention and their effectiveness in meeting the objectives of this Convention.
2

Article 10 (a) Sustainable use of Components of Biodiversity

Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate:
(a) Integrate consideration of the conservation and sustainable use of biological resources into national
decision-making;
(b) Adopt measures relating to the use of biological resources to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on
biological diversity;
(c) Protect and encourage customary use of biological resources in accordance with traditional cultural
practices that are compatible with conservation or sustainable use requirements;
(d) Support local populations to develop and implement remedial action in degraded areas where biological
diversity has been reduced; and
(e) Encourage cooperation between its governmental authorities and its private sector in developing
methods for sustainable use of biological resources.

Article 6 creates an obligation for national biodiversity planning. A national

strategy will reflect how the country intends to fulfill the objectives of the
Convention in light of specific national circumstances, and the related action plans
will constitute the sequence of steps to be taken to meet these goals.
The requirement to integrate consideration of the conservation and sustainable use
of biological resources into national decision-making, and mainstream issues
across all sectors of the national economy and policy-making framework, are the
complex challenges at the heart of the Convention.
Article 6 of the Convention requires the Parties to prepare Biodiversity Action
Plans in their respective countries to implement the outcomes of the CBD. The
signatory countries, including India, are required to establish Biodiversity Action
Plans pursuant to this obligation. The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action
Plan was initiated in India under this mandate of the CBD.
In 1992, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) initiated consultations
with ministries, governmental agencies, NGOs, and academicians for preparing a
national action plan for conserving the biodiversity. A National Policy and Macrolevel Action Strategy on biodiversity was prepared. This document was a macrolevel statement of policies, gaps and strategies needed for conservation and
sustainable use of biological diversity. However, a need for a more detailed plan,
including state level action planning, was felt. Hence, the ministry decided to
prepare a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP).
NBSAP was formally initiated in 2000. MoEF assigned the task of Technical
Coordination of the Plan to a national NGO, Kalpavriksh, and a 15 member
Technical and Policy Core Group (TPCG) was set up to aid in the same. The
administrative execution was entrusted to the Biotech Consortium of India Ltd.
(BCIL). Funding for the project came from the Global Environment Facility
through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
The Strategic Plan of the Convention on Biological Diversity was decided in COP
6, held at the Hague in April 2002, as a vision for the implementation of the
Convention by 2010. Two operational goals of this Strategic Plan stated that:
To develop NBSAPs and integration of biodiversity concerns into relevant
sectors as an effective framework for the implementation of the objectives
of the Convention
Better understanding of importance of biodiversity and the Convention
which leads to broader engagement across society in implementation

In 2004, while the NBSAP was underway, India lobbied at the COP 7 of CBD that
the year 2006 should be made the deadline for all countries to prepare and submit
their respective NBSAPs.
3.2. Process of development of NBSAP
The basic aim of initiating the process of NBSAP was to develop an
implementable action plan that would help conserve Indias vast biodiversity. The
broad aim was to devise a plan that would orient utilization of biological resources
into sustainable directions, and ensure that decisions regarding access to such
resources and the benefits accruing from them are taken democratically and
equitably. The NBSAP process envisaged the formulation of several sub-national
plans known as Biodiversity Strategy and Actions Plans (BSAP) rather than
preparing one national level plan. The BSAP was prepared at the following five
levels:
18 Local and regional level plans for sub state sites
33 State level plans for all of Indias states and Union Territories
10 Inter-state (Eco-regional) level plans for ecologically significant regions
cutting across state boundaries
13 Thematic level plans for major topics related to biodiversity
30 sub-thematic reviews commissioned for addressing specific aspects of
biodiversity
Initially, 35 sub-thematic reviews were commissioned for addressing specific
biodiversity aspects. However, not all reviews were submitted or completed. There
are only 30 completed sub-thematic reviews commissioned for specified aspects of
biodiversity.
These BSAPs were designed using flexible and innovative methodologies such as
decentralized planning, moving upwards from grass-root level, public
participation, public hearing, data collection, awareness programmes, organizing
workshops and biodiversity festivals, etc, for outreach and feedback.
Later on, attempts were made to build elements from all the BSAPs into the
National level plan.
The process of development of NBSAP was attempted to be highly participatory,
transparent and with openness to all points of view and interest groups reaching
out to a large number of village-level organizations and movements, NGOs,
academicians and scientists, government officers from various line agencies, the
private sector, the armed forces, politicians and others who have a stake in
biodiversity.

Methodologies used for preparation of NBSAP were also flexible and innovative.
All plans were prepared by multi sectoral groups involving participation of
persons from diverse backgrounds from both within and outside the government
using various methodologies. Some of these were methodologies were indicated to
the executing agencies through the guidelines developed by the TPCG.
3.3. The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
The national level document, originally called the draft National Action Plan was
built on the following sources:
Draft BSAPs at local, state, eco-regional and thematic levels produced
during developmental process of NBSAP
Draft sub-thematic reviews commissioned or voluntarily offered during
NBSAP development process
A large number of secondary sources that included previous national level
documents such as National Wildlife Action Plan, National Forestry Action
Plan, country reports for Agenda 21, National Conservation Strategy,
Biodiversity Conservation Prioritisation Project Report, National
Environment Action Project, 9th and 10th Five Year Plan, inputs and
comments from several people, etc.
The draft document was produced in two volumes. The basic aims of NBSAP
were:
Biodiversity conservation and ecological security
Livelihood security
1. Volume I
Volume I contained eight Chapters.
The first chapter dealt with background, objectives, scope and approach of the
NBSAP methodology. It also critically analyzed the project.
The second chapter contained the statement of principles on which the analysis
and recommendations were based.
The third chapter dealt with evolutionary, physical and, historical context of
Indias biodiversity as well as contained subsections dealing with physical and
geographical, evolutionary and socio-economic features of India, relevant to
biodiversity.

The fourth chapter discussed the overall profile of Indias biodiversity.

The fifth chapter dealt with some of the key causes for the loss of biodiversity
including proximate causes like habitat destruction, hunting exploitation, fishing,
introduction of exotics-plants and animals, homogenization of ecosystems, etc and
root causes like current model of development; progressive erosion of customary
rights, increasing inequities in the society, inappropriate land and water tenure and
their management systems, changes in ethical and moral values, lack of
recognition of the full values of biodiversity, inflexible and contradictory laws,
demographic changes, inappropriate trade systems, etc.
The sixth chapter discussed the ongoing initiatives in conservation, sustainable
use, and equity, and the major actors involved. It included the history of such
initiatives, description of current status, assessment of their efficacy, and
identification of strengths, weaknesses and gaps. This chapter was divided into
two subsections, namely, Natural Ecosystem and Wild Taxa, as well as
Agricultural Ecosystems and Domesticated Taxa. These were further
subdivided into the following sections:

understanding and information (including research and monitoring),

in-situ conservation,
ex-situ conservation,
sustainable use,
equitable access, use, and sharing of benefits,
capacity building,
inter-sectoral coordination,
policies and laws,
financial measures,
technological measures, and
International fora.

The seventh chapter dealt with broad strategies and related actions for achieving
conservation, sustainable use, as well as equitable access and sharing of benefits
for both natural ecosystem and wild taxa along with agricultural ecosystems and
domesticated taxa. A total of 101 strategies and 345 actions were recommended in
this chapter.
The eighth chapter dealt with the overall implementation mechanism needed for
the strategy and actions presented in the earlier chapter.
The Volume also provides definition of key terms, glossary, list of abbreviation,
index of agencies and organizations identified as lead agencies responsible for

each action, annexure with list of TPCG, executing agencies and various people
who contributed or commented on the NBSAP.
2. Volume II
Volume II included summeries of each of local, state, eco-regional and thematic
level BSAPs and sub-thematic reviews. It also contained annexures relevent to
various parts of Volume I such as listings of protected areas and thretened species,
forest types, germplasm collections, and so on. It also included a chart showing
points of commonality between the strategies of NBSAP and those recommended
in local, state and eco-regional level BSAPs.
3.4. Key Startegies and Actions
The key recommendations contained in the Final Technical Report of NBSAP
were:
Preparing a land and water use plan, mapping the areas of the country that
are essential for ecological and livelihood security and declaring them offlimits to large scale commercial developmental purposes
Creating and strengthening decentralizing institutions of governance with
the basic planning and decision making unit being at the village and hamlet
level
Re-orienting development-related policies, laws and schemes to ensure that
biodiversity and peoples livelihoods are secured
Eco-regional planning on the basis of ecological boundaries such as river
valleys, forest blocks, coasts, etc., including eco-regions cutting across
state and international boundaries
Strengthening the Environmental Impact Assessment procedure, by
integrating biodiversity in all its aspects (especially agricultural
biodiversity, currently missing), and increasing the role of citizens
Integrating biodiversity concerns through inter-sectoral and interdepartmental coordination at local, district, state, and national levels
Expanding and strengthening the network of conservation sites for wild
animals and plants, including protected areas (national parks and
sanctuaries), community conserved areas (like sacred sites, community
forests, village tanks), Biosphere Reserves, Ecologically Sensitive Areas,
Heritage Sites, Medicinal Plant Conservation Areas, etc.
Conserving areas (agrobiodiversity protected areas) critical for
indigenous crop and livestock diversity, and promoting practices that would
help to conserve this diversity amongst farmers, pastoralists, fisher folk,
and others, including through food policy

 Respecting, protecting, and building on traditional knowledge of

biodiversity, including through community-led development of biodiversity
knowledge registers, and innovative legal or other means of traditional
knowledge rights that do not fall into the trap of privatized intellectual
property rights like patents
Strengthening and promoting community-level crop gene banks and seed
banks
Promoting indigenous, nutritionally-superior food crops such as coarse
millets in the Public Distribution System, mid-day meal schemes, Food for
Work programme, and other such public sector programmes
Regulating tourism in natural land and waterscapes, and facilitating genuine
ecotourism through strictly enforced guidelines, including by enhancing the
capacity of local communities to manage it
Tackling a range of threats to biodiversity, including quiet but widespread
ones like alien (exotic) invasive species, and climate change
Facilitating sustainable, bio-resource based livelihoods (including microenterprises), of fisher folk, adivasis and other forest-dwelling communities,
small peasants, artisans, and pastoralists, with special attention to
disprivileged sections like women, nomads, and the landless
Building capacity of all sections of society to handle various issues of
biodiversity conservation, especially of decision-makers, urban citizens,
and others who are particularly alienated from ecological and livelihood
concerns
Estimating the full economic and social values of biodiversity, especially
its role in ensuring water and climatic stability, soil productivity, and
peoples livelihoods
Re-orienting state and national budgets, to squarely integrate the true and
full value of biodiversity and the environmental services performed by
natural land and waterscapes, and redirect funding for rural and urban
development into conservation and sustainable use
Increasing funding for conservation measures, including through innovative
financial mechanisms such as a tax on industries that use biological
resources, an urban tax on rich citizens that benefit from free services
provided by natural ecosystems
Promoting traditional and new technologies that reduce the negative impact
of current human activities and use ecologically sustainable alternative
materials, such as organic farming, non-conventional energy,
environmentally friendly architecture
Facilitating and developing ecologically conscious consumer groups and
markets, such as for organic food, alternatives to plastics, and other ecofriendly produce

 Ensuring that decisions on genetically engineered or modified organisms

(GMOs) are evaluated taking into account long term ecological and socioeconomic studies by independent agencies, ensuring the participation of
key stakeholders in decision-making and disclosure of information
generated in evaluating biosafety.
Advocating the integration of biodiversity and livelihood issues specific to
India, at all international forums, including environmental treaties, and
economic agreements such as under WTO.
3.5. Implementation: Issues and current status
The draft went through extensive assesment by executive executing agencies, subthematic reviewers, and other partners of the NBSAP process, as also a few
hundred other institutions, experts, government officials, NGOs, and activists. Its
Executive Summary was made available in various languages to the public via
websites and was made accessible to anyone for review. Information on its
availability was also circulated through the mass media, NGOs and other
networks. The draft was also publicly discussed during the Final National
Workshop in December 2002. Apart from this, the Executive Summary of the first
draft was also sent out to all those persons that had requested to participate in the
NBSAP process in response to the Call for Participation.
The first draft was produced in October 2002. Shortly thereafter, the second draft
was also made availble in March 2003 and was widely circulated. Both the drafts
were circulated under MoEFs name and included revisions based on comments
of the Government of India ministries, state governments, NGOs, community
groups, and individual experts.
The third revised version was prepared and was reviewed by a peer review group
set up by the MoEF in mid-2003. The peer review group shared their views with
the members of the technical implementing agency at a meeting organized and
hosted by the MoEF in May 2003. It was only after this that a fourth draft was
prepared and sent for external editing and finalization. A final draft was produced
in December 2003 thereafter, and the same was expected to be approved as the
NBSAP.
However, in January 2004, MoEF took the view that the final draft could only be
published as a Final Technical Report and not as NBSAP as it needed the approval
of the Union Cabinet. The MoEF also stated that since the Cabinet had recently
mandated MoEF to come up with a National Environment Policy (NEP) and since
that would be a more over-arching document, the NBSAP would have to be in
harmony with it. The NBSAP could therefore not be accepted as final till the NEP
was finalized. The TPCG and the technical implementing agency considered this

point unreasonable, given the fact that the NBSAP process had started four years
earlier than the new process of development of NEP.
In May 2004 the MoEF further changed its position and did not sanction the
publication of the draft even as a Final Technical Report. The MoEF stated that
the draft cannot be published until the NEP and Cabinet approval of the NBSAP
draft were both completed. A few could be photocopied however. It was also
contended that MoEF was not comfortable with some parts of the report. MoEF
officially conveyed to the technical coordinating agency not to make the report
public in March 2005. However, a list of the specific points of discomfort was not
made available in writing to the agency or the TPCG.
The information on the discrepancies was made available to the technical
implementing agency through external sources like Parliament questions and using
the Right to Information Act. In December 2004, in response to a Short Notice
Question raised by a Member of Parliament, the Ministry sent a written response
which stated that: the draft report contained numerous irreconcilable
discrepancies, scientific inaccuracies as well as certain implausible and
unacceptable recommendations.
The main issue as stated in the letter was that the draft report was inconsistent
with the draft NEP of 2004 that had already been put on the Ministrys website. It
was stated that any long term Biodiversity Action Plan of the country should be in
conformity with and flow from the proposed Environment Policy. The Ministry
was therefore, of the view that the draft report should be scrutinized and then
synthesized with the Environment Policy before being sent to the cabinet for
approval.
In March 2005, MoEF wrote to Kalpavriksh, the technical coordinating agency,
asking it not to publish or in any form make publicly available, the report
submitted in December 2003. However, the technical coordinating agency, in
consultation with the TPCG, decided to make the report available to the public in a
published form, as the Final Technical Report of NBSAP. Hence, this report was
posted on the agencys website and was also made available electronically for
anyone who requested it. The final report was titled, Securing Indias Future:
Final Technical Report of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
(NBSAP).
The report was released to the public on October 04, 2005 in form of a printed
version of the concise summary and a CD containing the full final technical report,
all the BSAPs, sub-thematic reviews and other documents related to the process.
The day after the release, On October 05, the MoEF issued a press statement. The
key points of the statement were:

 A team of scientists who reviewed the report have concluded that major
part of the report is scientifically invalid.
MoEF has rejected the report and started the process of developing the
action plan afresh.
The Ministry however, submitted another report to the UNDP soon after rejecting
the draft report.
3.6. Criticisms on Implementation
It has been contended by the technical and administrative agencies, the TPCG as
well as various persons involved in the process of NBSAP that the decisions of
MoEF during the later stages of implementations were in complete contrast to the
open and transparent process carried out throughout the initial NBSAP phase. It
was alleged that the MoEF ignored the energy and inputs that thousands of people
had put into the process, and also violated the contractual agreement between
MoEF and UNDP/GEF.
Some critics have contended that since 2003 when the final national draft of the
NBSAP was submitted to it, the MoEF has betrayed the spirit of the process
making it non-transparent, sitting on and then rejecting the draft on flimsy
grounds, and delaying the formulation of the final action plan.
The sudden change of stance of the Ministry is believed to be due to the change in
constitution of the Ministry. Sources form the technical agency contended that
since the new Secretary of the Ministry took charge, there have been unexpected
turns in the process of NBSAP. There has been an undeniable confusion in the
MoEF's mishandling of the report.
When the Ministry submitted a new report to UNDP, the agencies involved in
NBSAP process asserted that the report was a diluted version of the rejected draft
report containing similar points that were a part of the draft report that the MoEF
had found incorrect and inaccurate. It was also argued that this submission was
made merely as a compromise since the Ministry was facing a deadline of the year
2006 when COP 8 was to be held.
The major reason as stated by critics for the MoEFs change of stance is that the
new Secretary of the Ministry was swayed in favor of draft NEP of 2004 and that
the Ministry wanted NBSAP to be in tune with the newly conceived NEP. The
causes stated for this change of stance are:

 MoEF favored draft NEP of 2004 to draft report of NBSAP since it was
more politically motivated and human centric.
90 groups and peoples movements from across India stated in an Open
Letter on 29 October 2005, the draft NEP was more an apology for
conventional economic growth than a strong statement on how to conserve
the environment. This led to the Ministry favoring the NEP even though
NBSAP four years older.
Another reason stated for the MoEF disfavoring the draft report was due to
the fact that it challenged the view that environment expertise lied only in
the government or some other formal scientific institution.
The final technical report of NBSAP was pro-environment with
recommendations for development of peoples livelihood. The report also
argued that the root of Indias Biodiversity crisis was due to a
fundamentally flawed developmental process and in decision making
process that put power in the hands of a small elite group living in big
cities. The report further stated that current phase of globalization was a
major environmental threat. The critics argue that statements like these in
the NBSAP attracted displeasure of the Government of India.
3.7. Recommendations by critics on Indias Stance
The critics have alleged that India has lost its proactive role in the last few years,
and worse still has started violating the CBDs provisions. In doing so, it is further
endangering its already fast-eroding biodiversity, threatening the future of its
uniquely and culturally diverse traditional communities and opening up traditional
knowledge to various forms of biopiracy and misuse.
If it is to regain its international leadership role in the field of biodiversity, India
must reverse the trend of the last few years. It must:

Review and modify national laws and policies to bring them more in line
with the CBD. It must strengthen EIA notifications to stop destructive
projects and enable full citizens participation, as well as reinforce the
Biological Diversity Act and Rules to strongly protect traditional
knowledge and empower communities, and the Wild Life Act to make
conservation more effective, participatory and respectful of the rights of
communities.
Maintain the integrity of protective principles in current legislation that
seek to protect farmers and community rights, biodiversity and indigenous
knowledge.
Finalize and implement a NBSAP that is true to the spirit and content of the
NBSAP draft report submitted to the MoEF in end-2003.

Halt the alarming spread of genetically engineered crops; in particular,

safeguard Indias position as country of origin of several crops.
Develop and implement a legal regime for liability and redress, sensitive
especially to the likely socio-economic impact on small farmers and
traditional agricultural practices, especially in relation to new technologies.
Oppose the promotion or acceptance of Genetic Use Restriction
Technologies including terminator, consistent with its domestic position
banning such technologies.
Halt the opening up of biological resources and peoples knowledge to
private corporations, which shifts control away from communities and
threatens biodiversity with further erosion.
Show greater commitment to community-centered conservation policies,
and more openness to the involvement of indigenous/local communities in
the operations of this forum.
Display leadership in the South Asian region in the development of such
ethics, including through forums like the South Asian Association of
Regional Cooperation (SAARC).
Respect Indias own constitutional principles mandating a bottom-up,
decentralized approach that provides legitimacy to the government to
represent the people at international forums such as the CBD.

3.8. Current trends in Implementation

Although, implementation of a Biodiversity Action Plan based on the draft report
of NBSAP has not yet seen the light, a large number of local, state, eco-regional
and thematic palns have already been implimented. Many implementation
measures had been initited even before the national plan process was over. Many
states have implimented the recommendations of the respecive BSAPs such as
Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Haryana, Sikkim, Madhya Pradesh, Mizoram,
Karnataka, Rajasthan, Punjab, Uttaranchal, West Bengal, etc. Some states have
also constituted Biodiversity Boards to look into implementation and other
incidental matters.
BSAPs of various sub-state, eco-regional and thematic levels have also been
adopted and implimented. Some sub-state BSAP that have been implimented are
at Simlipal in Orissa), North Coastal Andhra and Deccan Area in Andhra Pradesh,
Vidarbha in Maharashtra, Rathong Chu in Sikkim, Uttara Kannada in Karnataka,
Lahaul Spiti in Himachal Pradesh and so on.
In the last two centuries India has lost over half its forests, 40 per cent of its
mangroves and a significant part of its wetlands. At least 40 species of plants and
animals have become extinct, including the cheetah and the pink-headed duck,
with several hundred more under the same threat. Crop and livestock breeds are

not exempt either. All 18 indigenous breeds of poultry face the possibility of
extinction.
A compelling need to implement the report is brought out by these facts. The
report is wide-ranging in its recommendations, which stem from an understanding
that the greatest threats come from a destructive process of development. It
weaves together the effects that everything, from traditional water harvesting to
globalization to a centralized political system, ultimately has on the biodiversity of
the country.

Some Important Articles

Ashish Kothari , Why does India not have a National Biodiversity Strategy and
Action Plan? ECO, Vol 15, Issue 4, March 23, 2006.
Kalpavriksh Environmental Action Group, Towards the formulation of Indias
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, A Background Paper
Lyla Bavadam, Strategy and inaction, Frontline, Vol 23, Issue 02, Jan 28 to Feb
10, 2006.- http://www.flonnet.com/fl2302/stories/20060210001108400.htm
Kanchi Kolhi, Twists in tale of planning, India Together, August 2004 http://www.indiatogether.org/2004/aug/env-pubpart.htm
Ashish Kothari, Despatches from the Biodiversity Conference-I - The world
proposes, India disposes, Info change India News and Features, March 2006 http://www.infochangeindia.org/features332.jsp

4. Biological Diversity Act, 2002

Biodiversity encompasses the variety of all life on earth. India is one of the 12mega diverse countries of the world. With only 2.5% of the land area, India
already accounts for 7.8% of the global recorded species. India is also rich in
traditional and indigenous knowledge, both coded and informal.
Recognizing the sovereign rights of States to use their own biological resources,
the CBD (1992) expects the parties to facilitate access to genetic resources by
other Parties subject to national legislation and on mutually agreed upon terms
(Article 3 and 15 of CBD). Article 8(j) of the CBD recognizes contributions of
local and indigenous communities to the conservation and sustainable utilization
of biological resources through traditional knowledge, practices and innovations
and provides for equitable sharing of benefits with such people arising from the
utilization of their knowledge, practices and innovations.
Biodiversity is a multi-disciplinary subject involving diverse activities and actions.
The stakeholders in biological diversity include the Central Government, State
Governments, institutions of local self-governmental organizations, industry, etc.
One of the major challenges before India lies in adopting an instrument, which
helps realize the objectives of equitable sharing of benefits enshrined in the
Convention on Biological Diversity.
After an extensive and intensive consultation process involving the stakeholders,
the Central Government brought Biological Diversity Act, 2002 with the
following salient features:i. to regulate access to biological resources of the country with the purpose of
securing equitable share in benefits arising out of the use of biological resources;
and associated knowledge relating to biological resources;
ii. to conserve and sustainably use biological diversity;
iii. to respect and protect knowledge of local communities related to biodiversity;
iv. to secure sharing of benefits with local people as conservers of biological
resources and holders of knowledge and information relating to the use of
biological resources;
v. conservation and development of areas of importance from the standpoint of
biological diversity by declaring them as biological diversity heritage sites;
vi. protection and rehabilitation of threatened species; vii. involvement of
institutions of state governments in the broad scheme of the implementation of the
Biological Diversity Act through constitution of committees.
(Refer to Session 8 for more information on the Biodiversity Act)