----- Original Message -----

From: Pankaj Oudhia

To: jatropha@...

Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 12:33 PM

Subject: [jatropha] Re: Bio security

Thanks Viren for forwarding this article but there are some loopholes
in this case. The most important is that Jatropha is not a plant of
Indian origin. It is exotic plant and world literatures are full of
information on this aspect. Promotion of any exotic plant in millions
of hactares without considering its bad effects on native flora and
fauna motivated me to raise voice against Jatropha. Lets come to
point, as Jatropha is foreign plant NBA rules are not very strict with
it. That is why since beginning the case of this bio-piracy is in
favor of that company. Jatropha supporters in India have always
claimed that it is Indian plant. Now its time to prove it. But I am
afraid as it is not true.

Pankaj Oudhia

--- In jatropha@yahoogroups.co.in, "Viren Lobo" <vlobo62@...> wrote:
>
>
> Published in Business line October 10th 2007 . FYI
>
> Viren
>
> Who decides on bio-security? 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.
>
>
> 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?
>
> (The author is a member of Kalpavriksh Environmental Action Group
and is based in New Delhi.)
>