Facilitating Formation of State Biodiversity Boards & Biodiversity Management Committee in the Indian Himalayan Region

India being a Party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), which recognizes the sovereign rights of States to use their own biological resources, is committed to facilitate access of genetic resources by other Parties subject to national legislation and on mutually agreed upon terms. In this context, considering different aspects and after an extensive and intensive consultation with the stakeholders, India has enacted umbrella legislation, the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and notified the Biological Diversity Rules, 2004. The main intent of this legislation is to protect India's rich biodiversity and associated knowledge against their use by foreign individuals and organizations without sharing the benefits arising out of such use, and check biopiracy. Among others, the Act includes the following salient features: (i) Regulate access to biological resources of the country with the purpose of securing equitable share of benefits arising out of the use of biological resources; and associated knowledge relating to biological resources; (ii) Conserve and sustain ably use biological diversity; (iii) Respect and protect knowledge of local communities related to biodiversity; (iv) Secure sharing of benefits with local people as conservers of biological resources and holders of knowledge and information relating to the use of biological resources; (v) Conservation and development of areas of importance from standpoint of biological diversity by declaring them as heritage sites; (vi) Protection and rehabilitation of threatened species; (vii) Involvement of institutions of state government in the broad scheme of implementation of the Act through constitution of committees.

Towards the purpose of effective implementation, the Biological Diversity Act 2002; respectively at National, State and Local levels; envisages establishing National Biodiversity Authority (NBA); State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs); and Biodiversity Management Committees (MBCs). Of these, the National Biodiversity Authority has been established with its Headquarters located at Chennai. Also, the establishment of State Biodiversity Boards and Biodiversity Management Committees is under progress in different States.

However, considering the overall importance of SBBs and BMCs, for effective implementation of the Act it is felt essential that the process of establishment of SBBs and BMCs be accelerated. Also, in case of established SBBs and BMCs, there is a need to: (i) facilitate their effective linkages with the NBA and the nodal ministry- the Ministry of Environment & Forests, GOI; (ii) make the representatives of SBBs and BMCs aware of the functions, powers and responsibilities. In this context, across the country, efforts are being made at various levels.

Particularly considering the Indian Himalaya, the region is well recognized as biodiversity rich areas in the world. The richness accompanied by uniqueness (endemism), sensitivity (rarity) and use value (e.g. Medicinal plants, wild edible, etc.) makes the biological resources of the region important from different angles. Further, the wide range of indigenous cultures in the region is repository of traditional knowledge on use and maintenance of biological resources. In view of this, the region would require special attention under provisions of the Act. Realizing this need, the NBA and GBPIHED (G. B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment & Development) joined hands to organize a zonal workshop (September 11-12, 2005), which aims at: (i) Facilitating establishment of SBBs and BMCs by awareness generation among the representatives of Himalayan States; (ii) Providing clarifications on the functions, powers and responsibilities of the SBBs and BMCs; (iii) Ensuring effective linkages of SBBs and BMCs with the NBA and the nodal ministry- the Ministry of Environment & Forests, GOI; (iv) Clarifying the duties of the Central and State Governments as notified under the Act.; (v)Taking note of and explore possibilities of addressing the problems arising during constitution or effective functioning of SBBs and BMCs, as raised by the participating State Government representatives (if any).

Inaugurating the workshop, Prof. S. Kannaiyan, Chairman NBA, mentioned that this is first of its kind workshop and highlighted importance of such events for biodiversity rich regions, like the Himalaya. This event will expedite formation of SBBs and BMCs in different Himalayan States, he emphasized. Mrs. Veena Upadhayaya, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, in her remarks described the event as an excellent example of developing synergistic relations among Himalayan States, National Biodiversity Authority, Research & Development organizations, NGOs and other stakeholders, for effective implementation of the Act. She stressed on outcome of the workshop as a clearly defined road map for formation of SBBs and MCBs in Himalayan States. Representing the scientific community, Prof. Madhav Gadgil, Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, was of the opinion that People's Biodiversity Registers (PBRs) would be one among most effective ways for achieving success in implementation of the Act. Mrs. Vibha Puri Das, Principal Secretary, Govt. of Uttaranchal, observed that most of the States are not well informed of the issue and the State Governments would require proper guidance and support not only from NBA but also from the experts while attempting formation of SBBs and BMCs. Dr. Venkataraman, Member Secretary, NBA, reiterated upon the importance of documenting countries biodiversity under the provisions of Convention on Biological Diversity so as to effectively protect IPR related issues.

In his thematic presentation S. Kannaiyan sensitized the delegates on status, scope and need of the Biological Diversity Act (2002). The subsequent deliberation on Biodiversity and Access of Bioresources (K. Venkatraman) dwelt with different form of ecosystems, variety of life in them and threats to the biodiversity in India. Also, salient provisions of the Act for access of biological resources were elaborated. While presenting the Concepts of People's Biodiversity Register and its importance under the Act, madhav Gadgil, explained the process with detailed examples from Karnataka experience. He highlighted the variations in concerns of biodiversity across locations and urged for location specific attention. Realizing the fact that the process of PBRs is still evolving, Gadgil emphasized the need for incorporation of State specific issues. These three thematic presentations effectively introduced the subject and lead to an intensive discussion.

Chairperson, Mrs. Veena Upadhyaya, after discussions concluded the session with following remarks: (i) to a number of issues being raised by the participants only limited answers can be offered at this stage. However, flagging the issues is the major objective of the workshop. Entire process is in the evolving stage and the stepping-stone would be effective participation of communities, (ii) both the SBB/BMC need to be highly professional bodies with adequate backup of relevant expertise, and (iii) institutions of eminence need to be recognized as repository of knowledge on biodiversity and given due considerations while formulating the said bodies.

An entire session was devoted to discussions on PBRs. The intensive discussions, among others, yielded following suggestions: (i) concept of PBRs needs to be introduced in the school/college syllabi. In this context, small projects of local importance may be awarded to the students; (ii) existing local bodies/committees (e.g. JFM committees, Mahila Mungal Dals, etc.), NGOs and use of folklores can effectively be used for popularization of the concept; (iii) mechanisms which elaborate the economic linkages of programme would prove effective motivating factor; (iv) proper mechanisms should be worked out to prevent piracy from PBRs and safeguard the interests of local people; (v) possibilities must be explored to bring together the available information with various departments/institutions; (vi) training on application of standard methodology for generation of biodiversity information is essential; (vii) PBRs should be designed to consider present and future trends of management; (vii) IPR protection being an important issue, strengthening of digital library on traditional knowledge would be required;(viii) due considerations of respect and confidentiality are essentially required while defining mechanisms for dissemination of existing information; (ix) in addition to Karnataka model of PBRs there is a need to analyze other existing models (if any) to come-up with most agreeable approach; (x) issues pertaining to sustainability of motivation would require primary attention.

Sharing the experiences of MP SBB, S. Bhore, informed that various stakeholder groups (school children, teachers, NGOs, local communities) are involved in this task. Accordingly the approach of involvement would vary. Referring to the 'Mugli Utsav' of the State he highlighted importance of cultural events for propagating the idea of PBR. Need for conversion of experiences from micro-level to a macro-level, while ensuring sustainability of programme was emphasized.

While presenting the approach of Conservation education programme being implemented in the region by GBPIHED from 1995, U. Dhar mentioned that some of findings of this programme have started impacting the target groups and policy planners as well. The potential of utilizing trained workforce (students) not only in biodiversity (wild and domesticated) information generation but also in ex situ conservation of sensitive elements was emphasized. Further, effectiveness of the programme in authentication of existing datasets and preparation of location specific biodiversity grid maps was stressed.

During the discussions, an issue was raised (S. Bhore and S. Bisht) raised, if the specific committees (i.e. BMC) for implementation are really needed? Responding to the question Gadgil emphasized the need of specific groups considering the technical aspects of PBRs. Venkataraman elaborated that the expected fund flow would also strengthen the case for establishment of specific committee (such as BMCs). Reacting on the presentation on conservation education S. Bisht emphasized upon need for effective replication of such programmes in different parts of the Himalaya. However, linking up of conservation with livelihood would add to value of the programme, she stated.

Need for further simplification of PBRs, to enable village people in registering the information, and incentives for maintaining the PBRs was also highlighted. It was suggested by one of the participants, GCS Negi, that the conservation priorities emerging from PBRs can be taken up for detailed investigations by schools/universities/research institutions in a project mode. SBBs may facilitate implementation of such projects. Also, it was emphasized that responsibility would be on SBB/NBA to make a full proof mechanisms as to which information should be put in public domain to safeguard the interests of local inhabitants.

During general discussion, lead by four panelists - K. Venkataraman, Madhav Gadgil, Lalit Pande and U. Dhar; one of the panelist, Lalit Pande, mentioned that considering the open-ended nature of PBRs we could expect drastic differences in responses due to variations in landholding patterns across the Himalayan States. He stressed upon the need to: (i) consider concerns of downtrodden people of society, and (ii) bring the people handling biodiversity commodities (commercial exploiters, contractors, etc.) under preview of the Act. Supporting the statement, U. Dhar suggested awareness component of the Act should include all the stakeholders. Reemphasizing on diverse connotations of the programme, Gadgil believed experiences from different States, as they flow in with time, could be appropriately considered by NBA. Responding to the concerns on sharing of benefits as raised by one of the participant K. G. Prasad, particularly when the control over resources belongs to one group of people in a community, Gadgil stated Act would be applicable to everyone. It was agreed, while forest department has to play major role, there is a need for various related Departments working in tandem. However, the role of different departments could be defined appropriately to avoid overlaps and conflicts. An early initiation of pilot programme on the PBR exercise was highlighted particularly to know the key players and bringing out an appropriate module of PBR.

One of the participants highlighted the need of technical guidelines for SBBs. In this regard, the suggestions included: (i) explore possibility of designating some nodal agency on regional basis (for instance GBPIHED in IHR) or at State level (some University or Institution) who can take a lead and circulate draft guidelines among various stakeholders to invite their views; (ii) develop a website which is updated on the basis of continual inputs from different forums.

The participants from the NE States agreed that the region would require master trainer for BMC / PBR. A more intensive sensitization on the issue is required in the region. Emphasis was laid on identification of role for different specialized institutions for training. The need to maintain botanical garden / herbaria for awareness among students and other stakeholders was also discussed. Further, the role of eco-clubs particularly for data generation was highlighted.

Based on the two days deliberations and extensive discussions, the house recommended the following: (i) strengthen awareness Programme on Biodiversity Conservation for different stakeholders; (ii) consider location/region specific considerations of land holding while formulating BMCs and implementing PBRs; (iii) clearly define the role of different govt. departments (for instance role of NBPGR can be highlighted in registering farmer's variety) and NBA; (iv) develop a very strong frame work to implement PBRs through participatory approach. Initially few pilot programmes on PBRs need to be initiated in respective states; (v) ensure flow of technical guidance from SBB for the formation of BMC as well as PBRs; (vi) provide further explanations/directions for legislative execution of penalties and related process while implementing the Act; (vii) make available the experiences (examples) of success stories of PBRs on the web. Documentaries can also be circulated; (viii) designate some nodal agency (regional or state basis) with adequate experience to facilitation the process of formation of BMCs and implementation of PBRs; (ix) strengthen the process and provide adequate funding facility in the north eastern states for the formation of BMCs and PBRs. Customary laws in the region need to be given due attention; (x) make efforts for creation of a cadre of trainers, which among others include taxonomists, social scientists and lawyers; (xi) built capacity on PBRs through well-defined mechanisms; (xii) ensure careful examination of transformation of local knowledge into scientific information; (xiii) create a network of relevant departments (biodiversity related) in States and ensure sharing of information among them; (xiv) develop mechanisms of incentives for people involved in conservation of biodiversity and preparation of PBRs. Reduce apprehensions by ensuring systematic returns of benefits; (xv) harness the potentials of existing Eco-clubs in generation and authentication of information; (xvi) consider interest and specialization of stakeholders while involving them in different activities of the programme.