Earth is our mother, it’s our duty to protect the diversity on it.
The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 was coming out of India’s attempt to realise the objectives enshrined in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 1992 which recognising the sovereign rights of states to use their own Biological Resource.
(A) Biodiversity – The biodiversity means the variability among living organisms from all sources and the ecological complexes of which they are part and includes diversity within species or between species and of ecosystems
(B) Biological Resources – The biological resources means plants, animals and micro-organisms or parts there of and their genetic material and by-products (excluding value added products) with actual or potential use or value, but does not include some genetic material of human.
Biological diversity Act 2002
The Act’s main objective is to ensures the conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of its basic nicely usage of its resources in order to prevent overuse or eventual destruction of bio-diversity.
(1) Regulation of access to the biological resources of the country.
(2) Fully Conservation and sustainability of biological diversity.
(3) Protect the knowledge of local communities regarding biodiversity.
(4) Securing sharing of benefits with local people as conservers of biological resources and holders of knowledge and information relating to the use of biological resources.
(5) Protection and rehabilitation of threatened or endangered species.
(6) Involvement of institution of state governments in the broad scheme of the implementation of the Biological Diversity Act through the establishment of dedicated committee.
National Biodiversity Authority
In order to make out the provisions of the act, the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) had been set up working under the Ministry of Environments and Forest by the Government of India in 2003. The NBA is a statutory and autonomous body headquartered in Chennai. State Biodiversity Boards (SBB) were created in the 29 states along with Biological management committees for each local body.
Work of NBA
(A) Monitoring and prevention of actions prohibited under the Act.
(B) Providing advice to the government on how best to conserve biodiversity in India.
(C) Prepare a report on how the government can select biological heritage sites.
(D) Make concrete steps to prevent the grant of intellectual property rights regarding locally used biological resources or allied traditional knowledge
State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs)
The SBBs are establish by the State Governments in accordance with Section 22 of the Act, deal with all matters relating to access by People,of India for commercial purposely.
Work of SBBs
(A) Advising the State Government on matters of biodiversity and its same proportion distribution or on matters relating to the conservation, sustainable use or sharing equal benefit.
(B) Regulate granting of approvals or otherwise requests for commercial utilization or bio-survey and bio-utilization of any biological resource by people
Biodiversity Management Committees
According to Section 41 of the Act, every local body shall constitute or establish the BMC within its area for the purpose of promoting conservation, sustainable use and documentation of biological diversity.
(1) Preservation and conserving of habitats.
(2) Conservation of Landraces.
(3) Folk varieties and cultivars.
(4) Domesticated stocks And breeds of animals.
(5) Microorganisms And Chronicling Of Knowledge Accordance To Biological Diversity.
Penalties under Act
The Act stipulates that all offences shall be cognizable and non-bailable, which means that all offences under the Act shall be punishable under with the imprisonment for 3 years or more and that a police officer may arrest any alleged offender without a warrant.
Any violating of the provisions of Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Act, or attempt or abetment there,of attracts an imprisonment term of 5 years, or fine of ₹1 million (note: in case of the damage cause is greater that ₹1 million, then commensurate with such damage caused), or both.
Any breaking of the provisions of Section 7 of the Act, or attempt or abetment thereof attracts an imprisonment term of 3 years, or fine of ₹0.5 million, or both.
Furthermore, in case the offender is found to be a company/institution , the directors and key managerial personnel of the company shall be deemed to be guilty of such offence, unless they prove that they the offence was committed without their knowledge
Akb Jagannath Nag V. Union of India & Ors.
This case handled the ecological and social implications of business shrimp farming in India. The conventional rice/shrimp rotating acqua tradition gadget formerly utilized by Indian fishermen had started out to present manner to extra in depth techniques of shrimp tradition which can produce hundreds of kilograms consistent with hectare. A big variety of personal businesses and multi-country wide agencies had commenced making an investment in shrimp farms. Within some years extra than 80 thousand hectares of land were transformed to shrimp farming. A excessive funding go back and increasing marketplace turned into predicted with the aid of using changing the environmentally benign conventional mode of tradition with the aid of using semi-in depth and in depth techniques. The petitioner sought the enforcement of a coastal area law notification issued with the aid of using the Government of India, stoppage of in depth and semi-in depth sort of prawn farming withinside the ecologically fragile coastal areas, prohibition to apply moist lands for Prawn farming and the charter of a National Coastal Management Authority to shield the marine lifestyles and coastal areas. The Supreme Court analyzed numerous country wide and global research at the ecological and social implications of business shrimp farming. It took under consideration the problems of lack of agricultural land and mangroves, obstruction of herbal drains, salinisation, destruction of herbal seed resources, use of medication and chemicals, extraction of groundwater and lack of biodiversity, amongst others. The courtroom docket emphasised that the brand new fashion of extra intensified shrimp farming – with out a great deal manage of feeds, seeds and different inputs and water control practices – had delivered to the fore a extreme risk to the surroundings and ecology. Agricultural lands have been being transformed into business aquaculture farms, which had prompted unemployment to the landless labourers and additionally lack of cultivable land. Sustainable improvement have to be the guiding precept for the shrimp aquaculture. The enterprise needed to broaden below the unified motto of surroundings and improvement. There needed to be an environmental effect evaluation additionally considering the social effect on one of a kind populated strata within inside the region earlier than permission turned into granted to put in business shrimp farms. It additionally needed to think about the inter-generational fairness and the reimbursement for folks who have been affected and prejudiced. The courtroom docket consequently directed, inter alia, that the Central Government needed to represent an expert with all of the powers essential to defend the ecologically fragile coastal areas. The institution needed to fully implementing”the Precautionary Principle” and “the Polluter Pays” principles. No shrimp tradition pond as described withinside the coastal area law notification might be built or installation in the coastal law area. This course did now no longer observe to standard forms of technologies. All shrimp tradition industries working withinside the coastal law area as described below the notification needed to be demolished. The agricultural lands, salt pan lands, mangroves, moist lands, wooded area lands, couldn’t be transformed for production of shrimp tradition ponds. Shrimp tradition enterprise aside from conventional and stepped forward conventional might be installation out of doors the coastal law area as described with the aid of using the notification with the earlier approval of the authority referred to above. The authority needed to investigate the loss to the ecology and needed to investigate the reimbursement to individuals/households who had suffered due to the pollution
Divya Pharmacy V. Union of India
A Single Judge Bench comprising of Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. said that Fair and Equitable Benefit Sharing (FEBS) subjected under the Biodiversity Act, 2002, become welfare law that become made to cater the desires of the neighborhood and indigenous group.
Swami Ramdev firm Divya pharmacy , an Ayurveda pharmacy has challenged an order which calls to percentage earnings with neighborhood and indigenous groups as a part of FEBS goals of the Biodiversity Act, 2002. It become submitted that the Sections 2(g) and three of the Biodiversity Act states that most effective overseas entities the use of organic assets may be made to percentage earnings/pay expenses in the top of FEBS and most effective a overseas detail calls for permission from the National Biodiversity Authority earlier than they adopt any pastime the use of organic assets. Now the query that got here earlier than the Court become whether or not the State Biodiversity Board ought to impose FEBS responsibilities at the employer as a part of their regulatory powers over Indian groups and people the use of such assets. The respondents argued that FEBS responsibilities create no difference among a overseas or an Indian entity and the equitable sharing of advantages with the neighborhood and indigenous groups become one in all its goals
The Court thinking about India’s global commitments took a large and purposive interpretation with the aid of using deciphering the FEBS definition extensively in order that each Indian and overseas entities have been obligated to percentage advantages with the neighborhood and indigenous groups while a organic aid become exploited. It pressed upon the reality that after the apparent studying defeats the very reason of the Act then it’s miles the obligation of the Court to assign a right that means to it. The Court additionally located its reliance on Nagoya Protocol which added the idea of FEBS in which no difference among overseas and country wide entities become made. Accordingly, the petitioner become sure to conform with the SBB’s course to percentage earnings with the neighborhood and indigenous groups and consequently
Biodiversity helps in conservation of flora and fauna as there national and state authority setup for proper management of biological resources. Under the section 37 of Act there is provision to protect the Biodiversity Heritage Sites. Biodiversity Heritage Sites are Unique, ecologically and fragile ecosystems. India is biological rich area and the Act determines to protect it from human intervention. There is awareness created amongst the local communities under this Act.
1- S.C.Tripathi , Environmental Law (CLA)
2 – S.C.Shastri, Environmental Law, Eastern Book Comapny
3 – Drishti IAS .com
4 – SCC Online
5 – informea.org
6 – INDIANKANOON.org
7 – blog.ipleaders.in
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at firstname.lastname@example.org