National Biodiversity Authority vs State Biodiversity Board under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002

The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 creates a three-tier institutional structure: the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) at the Centre, State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs) in the States, and Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) at the local level. The NBA and SBBs divide regulatory work mainly according to who seeks access to biological resources: foreign persons and entities, and all intellectual property questions, go to the NBA; Indian persons and entities seeking resources for commercial use deal with the SBB.

1. National Biodiversity Authority

The NBA was established in October 2003 under Section 8, with its headquarters at Chennai. It is a body corporate consisting of a Chairperson, ex officio members representing the Central ministries concerned (such as environment, agriculture, biotechnology, science and AYUSH), and non-official members who are specialists. Its functions (Section 18) include:

• granting approval for access to biological resources and associated knowledge by foreign persons, non-resident Indians and foreign-controlled companies (Section 3);
• approving transfer of research results to foreigners (Section 4);
• regulating intellectual property rights: foreigners need NBA approval, and Indians must register with the NBA, before the grant of an IPR based on Indian biological resources or knowledge (Section 6, as amended in 2023);
• approving third-party transfer of accessed resources;
• determining benefit sharing in the matters it approves (Section 21), with money credited to the National Biodiversity Fund (Section 27);
• advising the Central Government on conservation and sustainable use, and State Governments on biodiversity heritage sites;
• taking measures to oppose the grant of IPRs abroad in contravention of the Act; and
• performing the functions of an SBB for Union territories.

2. State Biodiversity Board

Each State constitutes an SBB under Section 22, consisting of a Chairperson, ex officio members from the State departments, and experts. Its functions (Section 23) include advising the State Government on conservation, sustainable use and benefit sharing, and regulating, by granting approvals or otherwise, requests for commercial utilisation or bio-survey and bio-utilisation of biological resources by Indians. Under Section 7, Indian persons and entities must give prior intimation to the SBB before obtaining biological resources for commercial utilisation; the 2023 amendment exempts local people and communities, growers and cultivators, registered AYUSH practitioners, users of codified traditional knowledge and cultivated medicinal plants. Under Section 24, the SBB may restrict or prohibit an activity that is detrimental to conservation, sustainable use or benefit sharing. SBBs also determine benefit sharing for Indian commercial users (as upheld in Divya Pharmacy v. Union of India, Uttarakhand High Court, 2018), maintain the State Biodiversity Fund, and support BMCs and People's Biodiversity Registers.

3. Key Differences

4. Relationship and Issues

The NBA and SBBs are consulted by each other and must consult BMCs in decisions affecting local resources (Section 41(2)). The NBA may issue guidelines, and the Guidelines on Access to Biological Resources and Associated Knowledge and Benefit Sharing Regulations set a common benefit-sharing framework. Issues include weak capacity of many SBBs, disputes with industry over benefit sharing, the effect of the 2023 exemptions on communities, and incomplete constitution of BMCs and PBRs, which the NGT addressed in Chandra Bhal Singh v. Union of India.

5. Related Topics and Provisions