Is Narmada water being made to flow in Sabarmati not supplied to city of Ahmedabad? This has furthered the idea of river...
I have been selling glass for commercial buildings talking about light, thermal/solar heat gain etc.etc..but I...
Dear Saxena ji,
Thank you for inquiry.
West facing windows can be a big source of heat, first measure which you...
The Biological Diversity Act (bda) 2002 promised to help arrest the destruction and piracy of India's biological resources and traditional knowledge. This hope was dealt a body blow by its creator, the Union ministry of environment and forests (moef), when on April 15 2004 it notified a thoroughly uninspiring and possibly retrogressive set of rules under the act.
bda is supposed to achieve conservation and sustainable use of the country's biological sources. It is also designed to promote equity in benefit-sharing from their use. The act does have numerous loopholes. Nevertheless, it could have helped check the illegal outflow of genetic material from India, given some protection (and benefits) to local communities for their immense knowledge and put some check on the unbridled exploitation of bio-resources by industries and urban consumers. Many of us expected that subsequent rules and guidelines would help elaborate bda's provisions, and plug some of its weaknesses. But the Biological Diversity Rules 2004 have disappointed us thoroughly.
Secondly, by leaving many crucial terms (like "local body", "equitable" and "endangered") undefined or inappropriately defined, the rules allow serious misuse or varying interpretations. This could undermine the act's intent and spirit. For instance, non-governmental organisations (ngos) have suggested that the term "local body" should imply gram sabhas or full village/tribal councils. If this is not done, many bmcs are likely to be manipulated by powerful sarpanches, landlords and the like.
Moreover, there are even points where basic science has been ignored. For instance, the rules prohibit access to "endangered" species, but leave out of their purview a range of "threatened" species that are not endangered. Also, the application forms for gaining access to biological resources or related knowledge, ask only for species name, and not variety or breed names. It is therefore technically possible for someone to take away basmati variety by simply declaring that s/he is taking Oryza sativa, the species name for rice. This is an amazing loophole, given that many of the infamous biopiracy cases the world over relate to particular crop varieties or livestock breeds.
There are no provisions in the rules for making decisions of the National Biodiversity Authority (nba) or of other bodies constituted under bda, open to public scrutiny. This is a mockery of the government's oft-repeated promise to be more transparent.
What is astounding is that all these and many other deficiencies were pointed out by a number of people who had sent comments to moef when the draft rules were opened up for public inputs, in 2003. Not a single substantial comment has been incorporated in the final rules. To make matters worse, the nba's composition hardly inspires confidence. It contains no representative of tribal or other local communities, though bda specifically requires inclusion of "creators" and "conservers" of biodiversity. The five non-governmental experts on it are academics or scientists -- three of them formerly or currently in government! I have nothing against them; indeed I respect the contribution of some of them. But surely the nba should contain people who deal with biodiversity? Once again, local communities find their future in hands of government officials and urban institutions.
Ashish Kothari is a founder-member of Kalpavriksh, an Environment Action Group