Question map
Consider the following statements : 1. In India, the Biodiversity Management Committees are key to the realization of the objectives of the Nagoya Protocol. 2. The Biodiversity Management Committees have important functions in determining access and benefit sharing, including the power to levy collection fees on the access of biological resources within its jurisdiction. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Explanation
The correct answer is Option 3 (Both 1 and 2).
Statement 1 is correct: The Nagoya Protocol focuses on "Access and Benefit Sharing" (ABS). In India, the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, establishes Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) at the local body level. These committees are essential for the conservation of biological diversity and sustainable use, directly facilitating the decentralized implementation of the Nagoya Protocol's objectives.
Statement 2 is correct: Under Section 41 of the Act, BMCs play a vital role in ABS by providing advice on requests for access to biological resources. Crucially, they possess the statutory power to levy collection fees from any person accessing biological resources for commercial purposes within their territorial jurisdiction. This revenue is credited to the Local Biodiversity Fund, ensuring that benefits reach the local custodians of traditional knowledge and biodiversity.
Therefore, both statements accurately reflect the legal framework and functional mandate of BMCs in India.
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full viewThis is a classic 'International Treaty to Domestic Law' bridge question. Statement 1 is standard static knowledge (Nagoya = ABS). Statement 2 tests the specific statutory teeth of the local body (BMCs). The trap is knowing BMCs exist versus knowing they have the specific financial power to levy fees (Section 41 of BD Act).
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: In India, are Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) key to the realization of the objectives of the Nagoya Protocol?
- Statement 2: Do Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) in India have functions related to determining access and benefit-sharing (ABS) of biological resources?
- Statement 3: Do Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) in India have the statutory power to levy collection fees on access to biological resources within their jurisdiction?
- Specifies the Biodiversity Act envisages a three-tier structure (NBA, SBB, BMC) to regulate access to biological resources.
- Links this three-tier regulatory structure directly to access regulation, which is central to the Nagoya Protocol’s ABS objective.
- Defines the Nagoya Protocol as creating legal certainty and ensuring benefit sharing for providers and users of genetic resources.
- Emphasizes that benefit sharing promotes conservation and sustainable use, outcomes that require implementation mechanisms at multiple levels.
- States the Biodiversity Act, 2002 provides for setting up NBA, SBB and BMCs and governs approvals for access to biological resources and associated knowledge.
- Shows BMCs are institutional actors within India’s ABS regime that can operationalize local-level decisions relevant to Nagoya objectives.
- Explicitly identifies NBA, SBB and BMC as the three-tier structure to regulate access to biological resources.
- Places BMCs at the local level within the regulatory framework for access and benefit-sharing.
- States SBBs handle prior intimation and may restrict activities to protect conservation, sustainable use and benefit sharing objectives.
- Links regulatory approvals and benefit-sharing considerations to the tiered institutional framework that includes local bodies.
- Notes the Biodiversity Act establishes NBA, SBB and BMCs and prescribes NBA approval for foreign access and transfer related to biological resources.
- Connects monetary benefits/fees from approvals to biodiversity funds, demonstrating a benefit-sharing mechanism within the same legal regime.
- Explicitly states the Biological Diversity Act (BD Act) grants BMCs authority to levy collection fees.
- Specifies the scope: charges can be levied on persons accessing or collecting biological resources within the BMC's territorial limits for commercial purposes.
- Describes BMCs as responsible for utilising Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) fees, indicating their role in fee-related functions under the Act.
- Positions BMCs as the foundational local bodies for preparing PBRs and utilising ABS fees, supporting their involvement in fee collection/management.
States the three-tier structure (NBA, SBB, BMC) created by the Biological Diversity Act, indicating different roles at national, state and local levels.
A student could use this to check the Act's specific allocation of powers among tiers to see whether fee‑levying is assigned to NBA/SBB or to BMCs.
Says monetary benefits, fees or royalties from approvals by the National Biodiversity Authority are deposited in NBA funds and that SBBs may restrict activities; also notes Indians have some free access for personal use.
Suggests fee collection is explicitly tied to NBA approvals — a student might compare approval/fee provisions with the listed functions of BMCs to infer whether BMCs are given similar fee powers.
Specifies that NBA imposes benefit‑sharing conditions and that prior approval of the NBA is required for use of biological resources for IPR purposes.
Implies NBA-level authority over benefit sharing/conditions; one could check whether such benefit‑sharing/fee authority is duplicated, delegated, or absent at the BMC level in the Act.
Reiterates the three-tier regulatory framework for access to biological resources (NBA, SBB, BMC).
A student can treat this as a pattern: if access regulation and benefit‑sharing are managed centrally by NBA/SBB, BMCs may have advisory/local documentation roles — so compare formal powers in the Act to decide if fee‑levy is plausible.
Explains general principles about distribution of financial powers and taxation between Union and States, relevant to who may levy charges/fees.
A student could use this constitutional pattern to investigate whether a BMC (a local body) would need express statutory/state authorization to levy fees, distinguishing fees/charges from taxes.
- [THE VERDICT]: Medium/Tricky. Statement 1 is a Sitter (Standard Books); Statement 2 is a specific legal provision (Section 41 of BD Act) often glossed over.
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: Environmental Legislation & Institutions. Specifically, how the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 operationalises the Nagoya Protocol.
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: 1. BMCs prepare the People's Biodiversity Register (PBR). 2. NBA (Chennai) approves foreign access; SBB approves commercial Indian access. 3. Exemptions: Vaids/Hakims and local people for self-use. 4. 'Normal Traded Commodities' are exempt from ABS. 5. NBA is a statutory, autonomous body under MoEFCC.
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: When studying Acts (WPA, EPA, BD Act), do not stop at the 'National' body. UPSC is obsessed with 'Decentralised Governance'. Always check the powers of the lowest tier (BMCs, Gram Sabhas, etc.)—specifically their financial powers (fees/fines) and documentation duties (Registers).
BMCs form the local tier of India’s tripartite framework that regulates access to biological resources and thus connect domestic governance to Nagoya-style ABS goals.
High-yield for UPSC since questions often ask how international agreements are implemented domestically; links law, institutions and local governance. Mastery helps answer questions on institutional roles, federal implementation, and local resource rights.
- Environment, Shankar IAS Acedemy .(ed 10th) > Chapter 28: International Organisation and Conventions > Objectives > p. 391
- Environment and Ecology, Majid Hussain (Access publishing 3rd ed.) > Chapter 5: Biodiversity and Legislations > BIodIvErSIty act, 2002. > p. 16
The Protocol’s primary aim is transparent ABS and fair/equitable benefit sharing from genetic resources, which defines the problem domestic institutions must address.
Essential for environment and international relations sections; helps frame questions on conservation incentives, legal frameworks, and national legislation alignment with international regimes.
- Environment, Shankar IAS Acedemy .(ed 10th) > Chapter 28: International Organisation and Conventions > Nagoya Protocal > p. 392
- Environment, Shankar IAS Acedemy .(ed 10th) > Chapter 28: International Organisation and Conventions > Ianportance > p. 393
The Act creates the institutional and approval mechanisms (including BMCs) that implement access and benefit-sharing policies within India.
Important for policy-implementation and governance questions in UPSC; links statutory mechanisms to international commitments and helps answer how global protocols are operationalised locally.
- Environment and Ecology, Majid Hussain (Access publishing 3rd ed.) > Chapter 5: Biodiversity and Legislations > BIodIvErSIty act, 2002. > p. 16
- Environment and Ecology, Majid Hussain (Access publishing 3rd ed.) > Chapter 5: Biodiversity and Legislations > BIodIvErSIty act, 2002. > p. 17
India's regulation of access to biological resources is organized as a three-tier system with BMCs forming the local-level component responsible for local-level regulation and inputs.
High-yield for questions on the Biodiversity Act and governance: explains institutional roles across national, state and local levels; connects to topics on decentralised environmental governance and legal implementation. Enables analysis of which body handles approvals, access control and local benefit-sharing.
- Environment, Shankar IAS Acedemy .(ed 10th) > Chapter 28: International Organisation and Conventions > Objectives > p. 391
- Environment and Ecology, Majid Hussain (Access publishing 3rd ed.) > Chapter 5: Biodiversity and Legislations > BIodIvErSIty act, 2002. > p. 16
State Biodiversity Boards are tasked with advising governments and regulating approvals for commercial utilisation, tying state actions to benefit-sharing objectives.
Important for questions on federal roles in environmental regulation and ABS: links state-level approval processes to conservation and equitable benefit-sharing; useful for comparative questions on centre-state responsibilities and implementation bottlenecks.
- Environment, Shankar IAS Acedemy .(ed 10th) > Chapter 27: Environmental Organizations > 7.3). The State Biodiversity Boards (SGs) > p. 383
- Environment and Ecology, Majid Hussain (Access publishing 3rd ed.) > Chapter 5: Biodiversity and Legislations > BIodIvErSIty act, 2002. > p. 17
The Nagoya Protocol provides the international legal framework for access to genetic resources and fair and equitable sharing of benefits, which underpins domestic ABS institutions.
Useful for questions linking international treaties to national law: shows why India’s Biodiversity Act and institutional setup (NBA/SBB/BMC) align with global ABS obligations; aids answers on international commitments and domestic implementation.
- Environment, Shankar IAS Acedemy .(ed 10th) > Chapter 28: International Organisation and Conventions > Nagoya Protocal > p. 392
- Environment and Ecology, Majid Hussain (Access publishing 3rd ed.) > Chapter 5: Biodiversity and Legislations > nagoya Protocol. > p. 10
The regulatory framework for access to biological resources is organised into National, State and local bodies (NBA, SBB, BMC).
High-yield for UPSC: questions often test institutional architecture and division of roles in environmental law. Mastering this clarifies which body is likely to have regulatory versus advisory power and links to governance, federalism and administrative law topics.
- Environment and Ecology, Majid Hussain (Access publishing 3rd ed.) > Chapter 5: Biodiversity and Legislations > BIodIvErSIty act, 2002. > p. 16
- Environment, Shankar IAS Acedemy .(ed 10th) > Chapter 28: International Organisation and Conventions > Objectives > p. 391
The People's Biodiversity Register (PBR). While BMCs levy fees, their primary intellectual duty is maintaining the PBR, which documents local flora/fauna and traditional knowledge. A future question will likely swap PBR responsibility to SBB or NBA (which would be False).
The 'Toothless Tiger' Logic: If Statement 1 says BMCs are 'key' to realizing Nagoya (which is about Benefit Sharing), then Statement 2 *must* be true. A local body cannot ensure 'Benefit Sharing' without the financial power to collect/levy fees. If S2 were false, S1 would logically be weak or false too.
Polity (73rd/74th Amendment): BMCs are the environmental manifestation of 'Local Self-Governance'. Just as Gram Panchayats have taxation powers under Article 243H, BMCs have fee-levying powers under the BD Act. It is fiscal federalism applied to ecology.