Funds for community biodiversity management

The conservation of biological diversity and associated traditional as well as new research-based knowledge have assumed greater significance in building the resilience of local communities against the impacts of climate change. The loss of such information and associated knowledge for want of documentation, passing it to foreign companies or citizens of other countries due to ignorance, or selling it to unscrupulous elements for commercial exploitation can jeopardise the country’s efforts to build resilience against climate change’s impact. The launch of the National Campaign for the Update and Verification of the People’s Biodiversity Register (PBR) has brought into the centre stage of environmental discourse the role people can play in the documentation and preservation of biological diversity in their neighbourhood. Allocations to and utilisation of funds by State Biodiversity Boards for conservation of local biodiversity need to match the inventories to achieve the objectives of the compilation of the PBRs. The PBR is a comprehensive document containing information and knowledge of biological resources in an area, such as plants, animals, microorganisms, their genetic material, and by-products. So far, 2.67 lakh PBRs have been prepared by Biodiversity Management Committees (BMC), which marks significant progress in the compilation of the inventories of biological diversity across the country. The National Biodiversity Act, 2002, provides that the National Biodiversity Authority and the State Biodiversity Boards shall consult the BMCs while taking any decision relating to the use of biological resources and knowledge associated with such resources occurring within the Committee. The Act also states the BMCs may levy charges by way of collection fees from any person for accessing or collecting any biological resource for commercial purposes from areas falling within their territorial jurisdiction. The BMCs actually exercising these powers can serve the purpose of compiling the PBRs. With more than two decades already elapsing since the enactment of the legislation, the activities of the majority of state biodiversity boards still focused on the compilation and verification of the PBRs indicate that the pace of making the BMCs fully functional is yet to gather momentum in the country. Besides, the actual number of BMCs required to be constituted is 3.17 lakh. It was only after intervention by the National Green Tribunal in 2016 that the formation of the BMCs and PBR was pushed forward in 2019 by the Ministry of Environment, Forestry, and Climate Change. The Principal Bench of the NGT stated in its order in 2020 that India is one of the recognised mega-diverse countries of the world, harbouring nearly 7-8% of the recorded species of the world and representing 4 of the 34 globally identified biodiversity hotspots. India 5 is also a vast repository of traditional knowledge associated with biological resources. So far, over 91,200 species of animals and 45,500 species of plants have been documented in the ten biogeographic regions of the country, as observed by the Bench. Assam completed the formation of BMCs and the compilation of PBRs in all 2549 local bodies by 2020 and figured among the 21 states that achieved the mandates by December 2020, and the Assam State Biodiversity Board deserves commendation for the achievement. A Status Report titled “Fund Fallacy: Assessment of Fund Availability with State Biodiversity Boards” released by the advocacy group Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment (LIFE) in February revealed that “financial assistance from the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) is extremely skewed across states, ranging from as high as Rs 72 lakh to as low as Rs 7 lakh.” The report, based on studies conducted by LIFE, including information gathered by it under the Right to Information Act, also states that establishment of biodiversity heritage sites (BHS) and preparation of management plans for existing BHS have received only 0.44% of total assistance cumulatively given by NBA to all states; hiring of contractual services and outsourcing of personnel have received the highest percentage share (34.2%) of total assistance cumulatively given by NBA to all states; Assam is the only state to receive assistance on BHS; and Haryana has received the highest financial assistance from NBA in both the financial years, i.e. Haryana received the highest allocation of Rs 72.12 lakh in 2021–22 and Rs 47.82 lakh from the NBA. The study revealed that among all the states that responded, Haryana topped the list in terms of fund allocation to their State Biodiversity Board: Rs 16 crore in 2021–22 and Rs 10 crore in 2022, which signify the importance given by the Haryana government to the financial empowerment of biodiversity boards and have set an example for other states. Ironically, though Assam is the only state that has received assistance for the establishment of BHS and the preparation of management plans for existing BHS, the LIFE report reveals that it was a meagre amount of Rs 1 lakh in 2021–22. The NBA’s prioritising the allocation of adequate funds to state biodiversity boards towards strengthening the BMCs, BHS, and their management is the need of the hour.