It is too late in history of the world to think that there is time to produce ordered classifications of all plants, animals, fungi and micro-organisms, and then to employ

these classifications to seek new kinds of generalities while these organisms are still extant.

–Peter Rave

Aravind, NA

Dharma Rajan, Priyadarsanan

Narendran, TC

Poorani, J

Prathapan, KD

Subramanian, KA

Viraktamath, CA

ePrints@ATREE

OPINION 
 
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 91, NO. 8, 25 OCTOBER 2006 1006 
Biological Diversity Act, 2002: Shadow of permit-raj over research 
 
K. D. Prathapan, Priyadarsanan Dharma Rajan, T. C. Narendran, C. A. Viraktamath, K. A. Subramanian, 
N. A. Aravind and J. Poorani 
 
It is too late in history of the world to 
think that there is time to produce ordered 
classifications of all plants, animals, fungi 
and micro- rganisms, and then to employ 
these classifications to seek new kinds of 
generalities while these organisms are 
still extant. 
–Peter Raven1 
 
The United Nations Convention on Bio-
logical Diversity (Rio de Janeiro, on the 
5th day of June 1992) reaffirms the sov-
ereign rights of the States over their bio-
logical resources and the contracting 
parties have further agreed to develop 
national strategies, plans or programmes 
for the conservation and sustainable use 
of biological diversity. Being a signatory 
to the Convention, India has passed the 
Biological Diversity Act, 20022 to promote 
conservation of biological diversity, su-
tainable use of its components and equi-
table sharing of benefits arising out of 
the use of biological resources. But a 
close perusal reveals that the Act would 
seriously hamper biodiversity re earch in 
India, especially taxonomic work– both 
qualitatively and quantittively. 
 Scientific investigation of bidiversity 
is an essential prerequisite for its conser-
vation, management and sustainable uti-
lization. Conservation without knowing 
what we are conserving is nothing but 
looking for a black cat in a dark room. 
The Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) 
emphasizes the n ed for identification and 
monitoring of the components of biodi-
versity besides organizing and sharing the 
gathered information. The governments 
of the world recognizing the CBD have 
affirmed the existence of a taxonomic 
impediment to the sound management 
and conservation of biodiversity. Removal 
of this impediment is a crucial step in the 
proper implementation of the Conventi ’s 
objectives. Although there have been 
many global attempts to overcom  the 
taxonomic impediment during the past 
decade, taxonomy in India is grossly dis-
organized3. India being a megadiversity 
centre with its enormous number of prac-
tising biologists, should ideally have 
been the leader in the field of taxonomy. 
Unfortunately, due to the neglect and raw 
eal meted out to this branch of biology 
in the post-colonial period, a vast majority 
of organisms in India still remain unknown 
and undescribed4. Except for mammals, 
birds and higher plants, our expertise in 
taxonomy, especially that of invertebrates 
which form the lion’s share of the biota, 
is far from adequate. This taxonomic im-
pediment is directly linked to the shortage 
of taxonomists. No country ever poss ssed 
sufficient expertise to identify nearly all 
the 1400 families of insects and 350-plus 
families of plants. So far the worldtax-
onomists were addressing this problem 
by best using the tradition of collegiality 
and reciprocity existing in the taxonomic 
world, by sending specim ns to experts 
across the world for identification. 
 Quality taxonomic research requires 
extensive collaboration and cooperation 
among specialists and institutions across 
continents, as the type specimens of even 
closely related species may be held in 
museums in different continents. Species 
and genera with extensive geographical 
distribution breaching political boundaries 
of nation states make biological syste-
matics truly international in theory and 
practice. Hence the exchange or loan of 
specimens between specialists of even poli-
tically rival countries is common practice. 
For accurate generic and species d termi-
nations, it is essential to study specimens 
from across political boundaries and con-
tinents. This is espcially true in the case 
of invasive species, agricultural pests, 
disease vectors and other cosmopolitan 
taxa. For example, examin tion of the 
types of about 250 genera from dozens of 
museums across the globe had to be done 
before ascertaining the identity of a new 
genus of flea beetle distributed from 
Thailand through Myanmar to South India5. 
Collaborations with scientists from ad-
vanced countries are also required to im-
ibe the latest in taxonomic theory and 
practice, which have undergon  rapid 
changes over the past three decades with 
the advent of cladistics that uses a vari ty 
of molecular and computational techni-
ques to address the problems in classif-
cation. Two important discoveries of the 
decade, the purple frog family Nasika-
batrachidae6 and the new insect order 
Mantophasmatodea7 would not have been 
possible without interational collabora-
tion of scientists. 
 The international treatise on ‘Removing 
 (the Darwin 
Declaration 3–5 February 1998, Darwin, 
Australia)8 signed by the Director, Zoo-
logical Survey of India on behalf of the 
Government of India, c lls for encouraging 
partnerships among institutions in deve-
loped and developing countries so as to 
promote scientific collaboration and in-
frastructure rationalization. Unfortu ately, 
the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 seriously 
curtails the scientific freedom of individual 
taxonomists by putting Draconian regula-
tions on the free exchange of specimens 
for taxonomic research and threatens to 
strangulate biodiversity research with le-
gal as well as bureaucratic control. The 
Bi logical Diversity Act itself is bring-
ing in a new kind of impediment to taxo-
nomic research by impinging upon the 
ab lity of taxonmists to do fieldwork, to 
obtain specimens for comparative studies 
and even to safely deposit the type 
specimens in the museum of their choice. 
For exchange or loan of specimens with 
verseas institution or specialist, per-
mission has to be obtained from the Na-
tional Biodiversity Authority (Biological 
Diversity Act, Section 20). An active 
taxonomist has to simultaneously collabo-
rate with many individual scientists as 
well as institutions. Separate permission 
for each collaboration and exchange of 
material is warranted according to the 
current law, which is practically impossible. 
Application in the prescribed format with 
a fee of Rs 10,000 is mandatory to obtain 
the permit to transfer specimens outside
the country (Biological Diversity Act, Sec-
tion 20(2); Biodiversity Rules, 2004, 
Section 19(2)9). This is another blow 
from the Act to the already fund-starved 
taxonomists, especially self-financed 
amateurs. Though the law in its present 
form is difficult to implement, it is cer-
t in that the Biological Diversity Act will 
be an apt weapon in the hands of inept bu-
reaucracy to harass practising taxono-
mists besides leading to corrupti n, as 
rightly pointed out by Gadgil10. The Bio-
logical Diversity Act has brought in a 
OPINION 
 
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 91, NO. 8, 25 OCTOBER 2006 1007 
new era of permit-raj that would stifle 
any meaningful research in biodiversity 
and related areas in India. In a country like 
India where expertise is almost com-
pletely lacking, type specimens are un-
available and even collections and 
technical literature is lacking, unreason-
able over-protection by erection of an 
iron wall would be counterproductive and 
completely dampen a y chances of re-
vival of taxonomy in India. 
 Several provisions are included in the 
Biological Diversity Act to prevent bio-
piracy and challenge patenting of bio-
logical material of Indian origin by 
foreign multinational corporations. It also 
has built-in provisions for benefit-
sharing with indigenous communities 
who are the guardians of biological di-
versity and the knowledge associated 
with it. The Act conveniently overlooks 
the benefits that the nation has gained 
through free access and utilization of ex tic 
germplasm of plants and animals. In fact 
all revolutions – green, white and blue – 
that salvaged India from starvation and 
hunger and led us to the safety of self-
sufficiency and food security, would 
have been impossible without exotic bio-
logical material. The green revolution 
started with the cultivation of dwarf ja-
ponica rice varieties which later led to 
the development of a large series of high-
yielding rice varieties derived by cross 
breeding dwarf, short-duration exotic  
varieties with the long-duration, tall, in-
digenous varieties. Similarly, crop im-
provement prog ammes in wheat and 
maize also took- ff based on exotic varie-
ties. White revolution was made possible 
through massive cross-breeding pro-
grammes with exotic breeds of cattle like 
Brown Swiss, Jersey, Holstein-Friesian, etc. 
Indian farmers cultiva e a large number of 
exotic crops and even today continue to 
introduce and domesticate foreign plants 
and animals for commercial utilization. 
Cocoa, rubber, vanilla, stevia, anthurium, 
numerous varieties of orchids and other 
commercial floricultural crops and many 
species and breeds of livestock and poul-
try (Japanese quail, Yorkshire pig, white 
leghorn chicken, white chinchilla rabbit, 
Italian honey bee, etc. to name a few) h v  
become popular among farmers.  
 Biological control of noxious weeds 
and insect pests is another area where in-
troduction and utilization of exotic spe-
cies become inevitable. All the above 
examples would clearly illustrate that we 
have gained much more through free ac-
cess and exchange of biological materials 
from other countries and we will have to 
continue to depend on biological materi-
als from other countries for the continued 
improvement of our crops and livestock 
to sustain increment in productivity to 
meet the basic demands of the ever-growing 
population. Agricultural research organi-
zations throughout the country use exotic 
germplasm in crop and livestock breed-
ing. National research organizations under 
th  Indian Council of Agricultural Re-
search and the State Agricultural Universi-
ties procure and maintain exotic species 
and varieties of commercial importance, 
as most of the plant and animal breeding 
programmes are entirely dpen ent on 
exotic germplasm. With the introduction 
of the Biological Diversity Act, we have 
completely lost the moral authority to 
use these materials without the formal 
permission and benefit-sharing with the 
respective countries of origin. 
 It is true that the biodiversity is in-
valuable from every point of view. But a 
li n’s share of the biodiversity does not 
have any direct commercial importance. 
Most of the research in basic sciences 
like taxonomy does not yield any mone-
tary returns at all (the chief reason for its 
decline!), but significantly advances the 
horizons of knowledge. Hence basic re-
search which only generates knowledge 
and not profits should be viewed in a dif-
ferent perspective and be excluded from 
the ambit of the Biological Diversity Act. 
Bio-prospecting for commercial utilization 
hould be separated from basic scientific 
pursuit without any commercial objective. 
Within the current framework of Biologi-
cal Diversity Act, it isstill possible to 
pursue quality biodiversity resea ch by 
doing away with bureaucracy. Instead of 
nsisting on permits for individuals and 
projects, laboratories and institutions in-
volved in biodiversity research should be 
permanently exempted from seeking pr-
mits. There is need for a national deb te 
involving taxonomists, biodiversity re-
earchers and policy makers to amend 
the law or make provisions or exemptions 
in the law for biodiversity research. 
 
1. Raven, P. H., Acad. Nat. Sci., Spec. 
Bull., 1977, 12, 59–83. 
2. The Biological Diversity Act, 2002. No. 
18 of The Gazette of India Extraordi-
nary, 5 February 2003; Pub. Ministry of 
Law and Justice (Legislative Depart-
ment), Government of India, New Delhi 
(http://www.nbaindia.org/act/act.htm). 
3. Narendran, T. C., Resonance, 2000, 5, 
60-68. 
4. Narendran, T. C. and Cherian, P. T., 
Zoos’ Print J., 2002, 17, 687–688. 
5. Prathapan, K. D. and Konstantinov, A. 
S., Zootaxa, 2006, 1109, 39–47. 
6. Biju, S. D. and Bossuyt, F., Nature, 
2003, 425, 711–714. 
7. Klass, K. D., Zompro, O., Kristensen, N. 
P. and Adis, J., Science, 2002, 5572, 
1456–1459. 
8. The Darwin Declaration, Australian Bio-
logical Resources Study, Environment 
Australia, Canberra (http://www.biodiv. 
org/programmes/cross-cutting/taxon my/ 
darwin-declaration.asp), 1998. 
9. The Biological Diversity Rules, 2004 
(with effect from 15th April 2004). (http: 
//www.nbaindia.org/rules.htm)  
10. Gadgil, M., Curr. Sci., 2000, 79, 280–282. 
 
 
K. D. Prathapan* is in the Kerala Agri-
cultural University, Vellayani P. O.,  
Thiruvananthapuram 695 522, India; 
Priyadarsanan Dharma Rajan is in the 
Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology 
and the Environment, #659, 5th A Main, 
Hebbal, Bangalore 560 024, India; T. C. 
Narendran is in the Department of Zoo-
logy, University of Calicut, Calicut 
673 635, India; C. A. Viraktamath is in 
the University of Agricultural Sciences, 
GKVK, Bangalore 560 065, India; K. A. 
Subramanian and N. A. Aravind are in 
the Western Ghats Invertebra e Research 
and Conservation Group; and J. Poorani 
is in the Project Directora e of Biologi-
cal Control, Bangalore 560 024, India 
*e-mail: prathapankd@gmail.com 
 
 
 


Biological Diversity Act, 2002: Shadow of permit-raj over research

http://eprints.atree.org/82/1/CS_priyan_vol.91_no.8_2006.pdf

Biological Diversity Act, 2002: Shadow of permit-raj over research

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ePrints@ATREE