Kanchi Kohli

When India enacted the Biological Diversity Act in 2002, it made it mandatory for all foreign entities (individual, corporate, organisation or individual) to seek the permission of the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) before accessing the country’s biodiversity.

So if a plant, animal, or their part, or traditional knowledge associated needed to be researched upon, commercially utilised or patented, it could not be done without permission.

The three objectives of the legislation are conservation, sustainable use and equitable sharing of benefits; drawn from the international Convention on Biological Diversity.

So when D1 Oils India Ltd, the Indian face of D1 Oils plc, a UK-based producer of bio-diesel proposed to access Jatropha Curacas (Ratanjyot) plantations in India, they needed to abide by the provisions of the above legislation.

As per the information available in the agenda notes and minutes of the NBA meetings available on their Web site, D1 applied to the NBA in February 2006 with the intention of converting vegetable oil into bio-diesel to the standards stipulated by the European Union.

The company had proposed to collect 500 grams to 1 kg seeds of jatropha seeds throughout India at every 10 latitude.

But D1’s application was not approved by the NBA. This was keeping in mind that a controversy around the misappropriation of Jatropha germplasm from Indira Gandhi Agriculture University (IGAU), Raipur, was yet to be resolved.

What was this controversy? In 2005, a scientist of the IGAU, who was a leading researcher in the subject, was hired by D1. He had coordinated important Jatropha research and access to the University’s important germ-plasm. It was reported that upon investigations it was revealed the said scientist had illegally passed 18 varieties from that collection to D1.

The University has filed a compliant against the scientist who has denied allegation. This news appeared in newspapers and Web sites. Local groups in Chhattisgarh were critical to exposing this issue.

Why does a case like this become important?

No regulation mechanism

If there was no legislation to regulate access to biological resources, including Jatropha, companies would freely be able to collect and commercially exploit it; despite looming controversies like mentioned above.

The decision of the NBA would need to be appreciated and set as an example. There are inherent flaws in the regulatory regime prescribed in the biodiversity legislation; but that does not deny the importance and need to put in checks like the ones that exist today. The NBA has used that effectively.

But what is perhaps equally if not more important are the number of cases where illegalities like the ones mentioned above have not been caught.

Several approvals have been and are being granted by the NBA ( www.nbaindia.org ). Unless one proactively accesses the NBA Web site and seeks information, there is no way to know about permissions being granted for research and transfer of material/knowledge.

As per law, they are to “consult” Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs), to be set up by local bodies under this law.

This procedure is far from underway in most of the country. Yet economic pressures have ensured that the NBA processes applications irrespective of it.A verification of the content of the application is important is because it is impossible for the NBA as a small body to check every instance of misappropriation or “legalised” bio-piracy.

What this means is that if a research institution or private corporation is seeking to access germ-plasm from captivity or from wild, people, especially from the area, need to know how much and why?

If 500 grams is approved, can the NBA actually monitor whether it is that much or more?

If conservation and regulating access keeping the interest of local communities is truly the objective, would it not be important to keep local people in confidence for the same?

Is D1 the only case is one that gets curbed? What about the others that have gotten approval?

The NBA has approved collaborative research project of the Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE), Ministry of Agriculture, to export Jatropha to Zambia and Mozambique in 2006 itself.

The DARE will be sending two tonnes of Jatropha curacas seeds to Zambia at a cost of Rs 60,000 per tonne. As with the other cases, there is little public information on from where this germ-plasm will be accessed from and for what purpose?

Who is the deciding authority?

Accessing two tonnes or a few kilograms seem like small amounts at the outset? But, not if one applies the lens of ethics and governance.

Who gives the right to the government to send out germ-plasm without the public knowledge of the people?

What if such exports return to India with IPR applications and even get approved?

It will then impose restrictions on the use of such germ-plasm without the payment of royalty to a corporation or institution.

At another level, there is also the issue who decides on who should have the right of first use of biological resources. In such cases it clearly does not lie with local and indigenous communities when it comes to both use as well as permissions to grant access.

And this is exactly why cases like that of D1 are important to understand. It is surely not enough if we let the example used in this article be the only case where we can laud institutions like the NBA.

The loopholes in legislation have to be strengthened and more importantly need to recognise the spirit of community sovereignty and the positive role they can play in countering instances of bio-piracy.

In one known case, local communities in Yuksom, Sikkim, have already done it when they caught two Russian nationals who were illegally taking out butterflies and moths from the Kanchenzonga National Park.

That was in 2001, and the biodiversity legislation was not even in place. Because it was a national park, the provisions of the Wild Life Protection Act were used.

Of course, there is no guarantee that all this will be able to check the large-scale illegal access to the country’s biodiversity. We can only remotely fathom the extent and nature of such bio-piracy. With India’s growth agenda, access and commercial exploitation are top priority. But who said that has to be done at the cost of the country’s bio-security?