Only a few states like Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Sikkim, West Bengal and Maharashtra have been able to implement Biological Diversity Act, 2002 towards sustainable use of bio-resources and benefit sharing.
Meanwhile, a uniform national-level guideline on benefit sharing for Ayush units is likely to be notified by the Central Government shortly. According to officials, lack of political will, awareness and control over manufacturers in the absence of a clearly defined uniform guideline on benefit sharing has however impacted the compliance of the act.
In order to implement the act, state biodiversity boards had started issuing notices to the Ayush manufacturers not registered with them, a few months ago, directing them to do so at the earliest.
As per the act, manufacturer has the responsibility to share details of the source from where the raw material has been procured and also share 2 per cent of the revenue generated out of the production to further the cause of biodiversity conservation and its sustainable use. Dr AP Singh, member secretary, Gujarat Biodiversity Board (GBB), "The act provisions for a mutual agreement between the industry and the respective bio-diversity boards towards benefit sharing on bio-resources. The much awaited uniform guideline will help state bio-diversity boards in a big way." Echoing similar views, officials opine, "Notified guidelines on benefit sharing will allow and empower respective state biodiversity boards to determine the amount of benefit sharing to be given by Ayush manufacturers to the state exchequer."
Till date, over 34, 000 Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) and 29 State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs) have been set up under Section 22(2) of the Act across the country. Local bodies have constituted the BMCs in respective states as per Section 41 of the act. BMCs also prepare, maintain and validate People’s Biodiversity Register (PBR) in consultation with the local people. PBR gives information about the details of biological resources and traditional knowledge.
Till date, there is no clarity on the amount of benefit sharing to be accrued from the Ayush manufacturer annually in the absence of a guideline. Due to lack of proper benefit sharing guidelines boards of all the states were losing Rs.25,000 crore every year since 2004. Similarly, NBA is losing Rs.10,000 crore every year since 2004. National Green Tribunal (NGT) is also awaiting a clear-cut and well-defined guideline on benefit sharing for its effective implementation. This move from the tribunal comes in the wake of over dozen such cases of litigations pending in NGT Bhopal bench of Madhya Pradesh (MP) and in various benches of High Court of MP.
Explains Dr R G Soni, former member secretary, Madhya Pradesh State Biodiversity Board (MPSBB), "Cases are pending at NGT for final order which is awaiting notified guidelines of benefit sharing."
Dr Soni is credited to have initiated the action during his tenure at MPSBB following which companies moved to NGT. However, NGT approved the actions taken by MPSBB finally.
The notice served by different state boards as per the act states that the manufacturer is required to furnish information like name and address of the company, name of panchayat or nagar palika from where raw materials are procured, name and quantity of biological resources used annually, area and annual production (year wise) and annual gross turnover (gross revenue). State biodiversity boards set up in different states started issuing notices to the manufacturers not registered with them, a few months ago, directing them to do so at the earliest.
According to Section 7 and 24(2) of the Act, organisations extracting plant based material for commercial purpose without intimation to state biodiversity boards are liable under Section 55(2) of the Act and shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend up to three years with fine or five years with fine or both.