India's Biological Diversity Act plays a very important role when it comes to preserve the biological diversity of our nation. The Act creates a regulatory body National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) which takes are of sustainable use of biological diversity and the issue of benefit sharing .To guarantee decentralised decision-making and involvement in biodiversity conservation activities, the Biological Diversity Act of 2002 also mandates the establishment of state biodiversity boards and biodiversity management committees at the municipal level.

The Biological Diversity Act of 2002 also requires the establishment of local biodiversity management committees and state biodiversity boards to facilitate decentralised decision-making and involvement in biodiversity protection initiatives.In order to advance the preservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in each region, the Biological Diversity Act of 2002 also mandates the creation of Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) at the local level.

The Act is crucial for safeguarding India's biodiversity, yet questions remain concerning its implementation and effectiveness. Some claim that because the Act's requirements are not sufficiently explicit, individuals become confused and fail to adhere to them. Others contend that the NBA has not been successful in encouraging benefit sharing or controlling access to biological resources. Concerns have also been raised over the local communities' lack of involvement in the BMCs and PBRs.

Since its implementation in 2002, the Biological Diversity Act of India (BDA) has provided a legislative framework for the preservation and sustainable exploitation of India's abundant biodiversity. However, the legislation has come under fire for a number of shortcomings, including a lack of effective protection for traditional knowledge and gaps in the access and benefit-sharing provisions.

Additionally, the legislation does not clearly outline how to ensure that individuals that utilise India's biological resources and the local people that produce them with fair and equitable benefit-sharing.Due to these restrictions, the legislation has been difficult to execute, leading to insufficient conservation efforts and an uneven distribution of benefits. To guarantee that the BDA properly safeguards India's biodiversity while encouraging sustainable usage and equitable benefit sharing, the Indian government must address these restrictions.

Case Examples
Novartis vs. India over patenting a cancer medication produced from an Indian plant. Novartis said the substance was a novel and unique innovation, while the Indian government claimed it was based on a traditional Indian medication and so ineligible for BDA patent protection. In 2013, the Indian Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision to refuse Novartis a patent on the medicine, stating it was not a legitimate innovation and that the corporation had not proved that it was much superior than alternative therapies.

This case created a precedent for other pharmaceutical firms attempting to patent traditional medicines and was a triumph for India's efforts to preserve its traditional expertise from foreign businesses. Critics said the verdict might deter foreign investment in India's pharmaceutical industry and stifle innovation.

The Delhi High Court accepted the geographical indicator (GI) status of Basmati rice, a kind of rice that is native to the Indian subcontinent, in the case of Basmati Rice Export Development Foundation v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (2005). This case served as a reminder of the value of acknowledging and safeguarding traditional knowledge and genetic resources, as well as the possibility for financial gain from the just and equal distribution of the advantages resulting from their utilisation. This situation serves as an illustration of how legal actions may safeguard genetic resources and traditional knowledge while simultaneously fostering economic gains via their just and equitable use. It shows how environmental rules have the power to promote sustainable development in addition to resource conservation.

The National Biological Diversity Act And The Convention On Biological Diversity Overview

An international agreement known as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was signed during the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992. Its objective is to encourage the preservation of biodiversity, the responsible use of its components, and the just and equal distribution of the advantages associated with the utilisation of genetic resources.

To fulfil its obligations under the convention, each nation that is a member of the CBD must develop its own national biodiversity strategy and action plans (NBSAPs). In order to achieve this, several nations have established their own Biological Diversity Acts (BDAs) that serve as a legal foundation for the preservation and sustainable use of biodiversity inside their borders. The protection of biodiversity, responsible use of its components, and equitable distribution of the benefits of genetic resource usage are the fundamental objectives of the CBD. The CBD's objectives are carried out through National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), which are necessary for each member state.

For instance, the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) is created under India's Biological Diversity Act (BDA) of 2002 to encourage benefit-sharing with local populations and govern access to biological resources and traditional knowledge. The South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), which will coordinate research and track the status of biodiversity, was established under the Biodiversity Act of 2004 to manage and conserve the nation's rich biodiversity.

(Republic of South Africa, 2004). In a similar vein, the animal Resources Conservation and Protection Act of 2001 of the Philippines seeks to preserve and safeguard animal species and their ecosystems, control the taking and sale of wildlife, and foster global cooperation for wildlife conservation (Philippines Government, 2001). Due to scarce resources, weak institutional capability, and a lack of political will, the execution of these rules and regulations is still difficult.

To ensure that these legal frameworks are properly implemented and biodiversity protection is emphasised, there is a need for ongoing lobbying and awareness-raising. In order to encourage sustainable use of natural resources and enhance enforcement mechanisms, efforts to solve these difficulties include building cooperation between government agencies, civil society groups, and local communities.

Additionally, cutting-edge strategies like ecosystem service payments and community-based conservation efforts have demonstrated potential in advancing biodiversity protection while simultaneously bringing economic advantages to nearby communities.

The CBD and national BDAs share several elements, including the requirement to create NBSAPs, national biodiversity agencies, and laws governing access to genetic resources. The varied ecological, social, economic, and political contexts in which international and national instruments are implemented, however, also result in variations between them. Finding gaps and weaknesses in the CBD and national BDAs can assist clarify their legal implications and examine the clauses relating to access and benefit-sharing in connection to intellectual property rights.

Evaluation Of The National Biodiversity Acts Adherence Cbd's Goals And Tenets

It is crucial to examine how the National Biodiversity Act implements these aims in order to determine if the CBD's objectives and guiding principles are being fulfilled. For instance, the CBD lists the preservation of biological variety as one of its main goals. Analysis of the clauses pertaining to the creation and maintenance of protected areas, the control of the wildlife trade, and the preservation of endangered species is required to determine how effectively the National Biodiversity Acts adhere to this purpose. The sustainable utilisation of biological resources is one of the CBD's key goals.

Analysis of the clauses governing access to genetic resources, the encouragement of benefit-sharing systems, and the inclusion of biodiversity concerns in sectoral and cross-sectoral planning are all required to determine whether this aim is being met.This evaluation can be aided by case studies of nations putting their national biodiversity acts into practise.

According to a study of India's Biological Diversity legislation, access to genetic resources and the preservation of traditional knowledge are both problematic even if the legislation has been effective in encouraging the protection of biological resources and the fair distribution of benefits. Similar to this, a review of South Africa's Biodiversity Act revealed that, although being effective in creating a legislative framework for biodiversity protection, the act is challenging to implement locally and ensure that local communities are included in decision-making.

A case study on the effectiveness of Costa Rica's national biodiversity policy was conducted by Richards and Satterfield in 2019.There are several ways to strengthen the CBD and National Biodiversity Acts in order to close the gaps and address the issues outlined in the previous section. Because there have been worries that the present arrangements are not efficient or equitable, strengthening the access and benefit-sharing (ABS) procedures is one of the most crucial methods to improve things.

This might entail the creation of more precise rules and standards for benefit sharing as well as the improvement of monitoring and enforcement systems. Another option is to promote local communities and indigenous peoples' participation in decision-making processes while increasing financing for conservation activities. Partnerships between private sector and civil society groups, as well as the development of financial incentives for firms that support biodiversity and sustainable land use, can be used to accomplish this.Including more local communities and Indigenous peoples in conservation initiatives is another area that may be improved. Effective conservation initiatives can greatly benefit from their knowledge and perspectives.

This might entail improving the manner in which traditional knowledge and the rights of Indigenous people are acknowledged and protected, as well as promoting more community participation in planning and making choices on biodiversity conservation. It's also critical to appreciate how social and economic growth and biodiversity protection are intertwined. Conservation activities can help to reduce poverty and advance social justice by fostering sustainable livelihoods and empowering local populations. This necessitates an integrated strategy that takes into account the requirements and goals of all concerned parties.

Conclusion:
Essential legal frameworks for advancing biodiversity conservation and the wise use of genetic resources include the Convention on Biological Diversity and national Biodiversity Acts. The two documents were critically evaluated in this dissertation with an emphasis on their legal ramifications, access and benefit-sharing clauses, and difficulties and flaws in their execution. improved capacity building and awareness among stakeholders to guarantee effective execution of the requirements. The efficiency of these legal frameworks in encouraging biodiversity conservation and sustainable usage can also be improved by incorporating traditional knowledge and practises.

While the CBD and National Biodiversity Acts have made great strides in resolving the concerns of access and benefit-sharing, the study has revealed that there are still a number of gaps and difficulties that need to be addressed. A number of legal issues have emerged in the interplay between the CBD and National Biodiversity Acts, particularly with regard to the legal implications of intellectual property rights in fostering benefit-sharing and safeguarding traditional knowledge.

Therefore, it is crucial that decision-makers and other interested parties keep looking for answers to these problems and make sure that holders of traditional knowledge are fairly acknowledged and recognised for their efforts. To improve traditional knowledge holders' and other relevant stakeholders' grasp of legal frameworks, capacity-building initiatives should also be stepped up.

Based on the research, the dissertation has suggested a number of ways to fill up the gaps and improve the Indian Biological Diversity Act, as well as the CBD and National Biodiversity Act's ABS provisions. These include strengthening enforcement systems, enhancing legal frameworks for the protection of traditional knowledge, and encouraging greater stakeholder involvement in the decision-making process.

In addition, it's critical to make sure that those who possess conventional knowledge are fairly paid for the contributions they made to the creation of cutting-edge goods and technology. This may be accomplished by establishing benefit-sharing arrangements that are just and reasonable that take into consideration the cultural and monetary worth of traditional knowledge. In the end, these initiatives will support sustainable development and safeguard indigenous populations' rights.

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Ms.Raisha Rout

Authentication No: MY313706878065-17-0523