Abstract
Biodiversity underpins human well-being through ecosystem services that support public health, food security, and climate resilience. India, a megadiverse nation, covers approximately 2.4% of the planet's land area yet harbours about 8% of the world's recorded species, including over 49,000 plants and approximately 102,000 animals (as of 2026). Accelerating anthropogenic pressures like habitat loss, overexploitation, climate-induced ecosystem disruption, and unauthorised appropriation of biological resources through biopiracy threaten this heritage, with an estimated one million species at risk of extinction within decades. This review critically examines India's Biological Diversity Act, 2002, the principal statute establishing a three-tier institutional framework comprising the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA), State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs), and Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs). By September 2025, India had established 2,76,653 BMCs and 2,72,648 People's Biodiversity Registers, and between 2017 and 2025 mobilised Rs 216.31 crore through the Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) mechanism. Using a qualitative, document-based methodology drawing on primary legal instruments, India's first Nagoya Protocol Implementation Report (2026), international treaties, and peer-reviewed scholarship, the review identifies ten major implementation gaps including weak institutional capacity, inadequate funding, low public awareness, incomplete PBRs, poor enforcement, and overlapping jurisdictional mandates. It further analyses the implications of the Biological Diversity (Amendment) Act, 2023, the Biological Diversity Rules, 2024, and the ABS Regulations, 2025 for community rights and conservation outcomes, and concludes with evidence-based recommendations aligned with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (2022) and India's 2030 commitments.
Keywords
References
- ABS Regulations (2025). Biological Diversity (Access to Biological Resources and Knowledge Associated thereto and Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits) Regulations. New Delhi: National Biodiversity Authority. [Google Scholar]
- Bavikatte, K., & Robinson, D. F. (2011). Towards a people's history of the law: Biocultural jurisprudence and the Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit sharing. Law, Environment and Development Journal, 7(1), 35-51. [Google Scholar]
- Bhutani, S., & Kothari, A. (2002). The Biodiversity Rights of Developing Nations: A Perspective from India. Golden Gate University Law Review, 32(4), 587-624. [Google Scholar]
- Biological Diversity (Amendment) Act. (2023). Act No. 18 of 2023. New Delhi: Ministry of Law and Justice. [Google Scholar]
- Biological Diversity Rules. (2024). Notified 22 October 2024 (effective 22 December 2024). New Delhi: MoEFCC. [Google Scholar]
- Convention on Biological Diversity. (1992). Text of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Rio de Janeiro: UNEP. [Google Scholar]
- Cullet, P. (2005). Intellectual property protection and sustainable development. New Delhi: LexisNexis Butterworths. [Google Scholar]
- Down to Earth. (2026, March 18). India's first report on Nagoya Protocol highlights progress in ensuring access and benefit sharing. New Delhi: Down to Earth. [Google Scholar]
- Dutfield, G. (2004). Intellectual property, biogenetic resources and traditional knowledge. London: Earthscan. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. (2025). The State of the World's Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. [Google Scholar]
- Gadgil, M., & Guha, R. (1995). Ecology and equity: The use and abuse of nature in contemporary India. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1993). Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio, 22(2-3), 151-156. [Google Scholar]
- Government of India. (2002). Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (Act No. 18 of 2003). New Delhi: Ministry of Law and Justice. [Google Scholar]
- IPBES. (2019). Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Bonn: IPBES Secretariat. [Google Scholar]
- IPBES. (2024). Global Assessment Update: Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Bonn: IPBES Secretariat. [Google Scholar]
- IUCN. (2025). India Country Profile. Gland: International Union for Conservation of Nature. [Google Scholar]
- Kothari, A., Suri, S., & Singh, N. (1995). People and protected areas: Rethinking conservation in India. The Ecologist, 25(5), 188-194. [Google Scholar]
- Kumar, N. (2016). Access and benefit sharing under the Biological Diversity Act 2002: A critical analysis. Journal of Indian Law and Society, 7(1), 42-68. [Google Scholar]
- Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. (2022). CBD COP-15 Decision 15/4. Montreal: CBD Secretariat. [Google Scholar]
- Laird, S. A. (Ed.). (2002). Biodiversity and traditional knowledge: Equitable partnerships in practice. London: Earthscan. [Google Scholar]
- London School of Economics (LSE). (2025). Facing the Global Biodiversity Crises and Sixth Mass Extinction. London: LSE. [Google Scholar]
- Mgbeoji, I. (2006). Global biopiracy: Patents, plants and indigenous knowledge. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). (2021). State of Environment Report India 2021. New Delhi: MoEFCC. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). (2025). India State of Forest Report 2025. New Delhi: MoEFCC. [Google Scholar]
- Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits. (2011). Montreal: CBD Secretariat. [Google Scholar]
- Nanda, V. P., & Patra, R. (2015). Biodiversity governance in India: Institutional challenges and the way forward. Environmental Policy and Law, 45(3), 120-138. [Google Scholar]
- National Biodiversity Authority (NBA). (2024). Annual Report 2023-2024. Chennai: NBA. [Google Scholar]
- National Biodiversity Authority (NBA). (2025). BMC and PBR Status (updated September 2025). Chennai: NBA. [Google Scholar]
- Observer Research Foundation (ORF). (2024). Target 3 of Kunming-Montreal Protocol and its implementation in India. New Delhi: ORF. [Google Scholar]
- Sahai, S. (2003). India's Biological Diversity Act 2002: Some reflections. Current Science, 84(1), 19-20. [Google Scholar]
- Shiva, V. (1997). Biopiracy: The plunder of nature and knowledge. Cambridge, MA: South End Press. [Google Scholar]
- Shiva, V. (2001). Protect or plunder? Understanding intellectual property rights. London: Zed Books. [Google Scholar]
- Shrivastava, A. (2018). The Biological Diversity Amendment Bill 2021: Implications for conservation and community rights. Economic and Political Weekly, 53(29), 14-17. [Google Scholar]
- Suneetha, M. S., & Pisupati, B. (2009). Learning from practice: ABS cases from India. Tokyo: United Nations University Press. [Google Scholar]
- The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. (2010). TEEB: Mainstreaming the economics of nature. Geneva: TEEB Secretariat. [Google Scholar]
- World Bank. (2008). Biodiversity, climate change and adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank portfolio. Washington: World Bank. [Google Scholar]
- Yadav, R. K., & Singh, P. (2020). Implementation of People's Biodiversity Registers in India: Progress, challenges and way forward. Indian Forester, 146(4), 312-321. [Google Scholar]
