Breaking Indigenous Communities Omitted From India’s Draft Report on Access‑and‑Benefit‑Sharing

By Hemant Bhatt

New Delhi – A draft government report on access and benefit sharing (ABS) of genetic resources released by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) fails to mention any of India’s Indigenous peoples, prompting criticism from environmental NGOs and Indigenous rights organisations. The omission raises questions about the draft’s compliance with India’s constitutional guarantees for Scheduled Tribes, its obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Nagoya Protocol, and the potential marginalisation of communities that have traditionally stewarded the nation’s biodiversity.

What happened
The MoEFCC published a draft document outlining sectors—such as agriculture, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology—where ABS mechanisms would apply. The draft, however, contains no reference to the country’s more than 100 Indigenous groups, including the Adivasi, Garo and Bhil communities. Environmental NGOs and the Indigenous Peoples’ Forum of India (IPFI) reviewed the draft and highlighted the absence of any mention of Indigenous peoples or mechanisms for their participation in ABS decisions.

A spokesperson for the IPFI said the exclusion “signals a broader marginalisation of communities that have stewarded biodiversity for generations.” The organisation called for an immediate revision to incorporate explicit references to Indigenous rights and participation mechanisms.

The Ministry has not issued a formal response. A senior MoEFCC official, speaking on condition of anonymity, described the document as a “working paper” and indicated that consultation with Indigenous groups is planned in later stages.

Why it matters
The CBD and its Nagoya Protocol require that the benefits arising from the utilisation of genetic resources be shared fairly and equitably with the communities that have conserved those resources, and that prior informed consent be obtained from Indigenous peoples and local communities. By omitting Indigenous groups from the draft, the report may undermine these international obligations and the constitutional protections afforded to Scheduled Tribes under the Indian Constitution.

Legal scholars note that the Supreme Court has affirmed the entitlement of Indigenous communities to protect traditional knowledge. Without explicit inclusion in the ABS framework, benefit‑sharing agreements could lack legal enforceability, potentially allowing commercial bioprospecting to proceed without adequate compensation or consent from the communities most directly affected.

Background and context
India is a signatory to the CBD (1992) and ratified the Nagoya Protocol (2014), committing to incorporate the principles of prior informed consent, mutually agreed terms and benefit sharing into national law. The MoEFCC is the primary agency responsible for drafting policies that operationalise these commitments.

Indigenous peoples in India—often classified as Scheduled Tribes—represent a diverse set of communities with distinct languages, cultures and traditional ecological knowledge. They have historically been custodians of a wide array of plant and animal genetic resources, ranging from medicinal herbs in the Western Ghats to crop varieties cultivated in the Northeastern hills.

In recent years, India has witnessed growing interest from multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms in bioprospecting Indian genetic resources. The ABS framework is intended to ensure that any commercialisation of such resources translates into tangible benefits—such as revenue sharing, technology transfer or capacity‑building—for the source communities.

Competing claims and uncertainty
The MoEFCC’s draft positions the ABS regime as a tool to facilitate research and commercial development while safeguarding biodiversity. Proponents argue that the sector‑specific approach will streamline regulatory processes and attract investment. However, the draft’s silence on Indigenous participation fuels concerns that the government may be prioritising commercial interests over community rights.

The senior official’s comment that the draft is a “working document” suggests that further consultation is forthcoming, but the timeline and scope of such engagement remain unclear. Critics point out that past policy consultations have sometimes been limited in depth, with Indigenous representatives reporting inadequate opportunities to influence final outcomes.

There is also a legal dimension: while the Constitution recognises the rights of Scheduled Tribes, the extent to which these rights translate into enforceable claims under the Nagoya Protocol is still being interpreted by courts and scholars. Some legal experts contend that the lack of explicit reference to Indigenous peoples could expose the government to challenges under both domestic constitutional law and international treaty obligations. Others caution that the draft may simply be an early iteration, and that subsequent revisions could incorporate the necessary safeguards.

What to watch next
– Formal government response – The MoEFCC is expected to issue a statement or revised draft within the next few weeks. Observers will be looking for explicit language on Indigenous participation, mechanisms for prior informed consent, and benefit‑sharing arrangements.
– Stakeholder consultations – Scheduled meetings with Indigenous organisations, such as the IPFI, will be critical. The breadth of representation, the transparency of the process, and the incorporation of community feedback will determine whether the final policy addresses the current criticisms.
– Legal developments – Any filing of public interest litigation by Indigenous groups or NGOs could force the courts to interpret the constitutional and treaty obligations in the ABS context. Monitoring court filings and judgments will be essential for assessing the enforceability of the eventual framework.
– International scrutiny – As a party to the CBD and Nagoya Protocol, India may face review by the Convention’s Conference of the Parties (COP) and the Nagoya Protocol’s subsidiary bodies. Reports from these forums could amplify pressure on the government to align its ABS policy with global standards.

Conclusion
The MoEFCC’s draft ABS report, by omitting any reference to India’s Indigenous peoples, highlights a gap between the nation’s stated commitments under international biodiversity treaties and the practical steps being taken to implement them. While the draft may still evolve through further consultation, the current silence risks marginalising the very communities whose traditional knowledge underpins the genetic resources that commercial entities seek to exploit. Ensuring that Indigenous voices are embedded in the final ABS framework will be pivotal for meeting constitutional guarantees, fulfilling treaty obligations, and achieving equitable benefit sharing for biodiversity conservation in India.

Sources
– Mongabay India, “Indigenous communities missing in India’s report on access and benefit sharing” (Commentary). https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiwgFBVV95cUxPRnFWX0NzSmo3MnJoSjZ0aERNNU9nb0I4NE4tbGZHU2hpNExteUFWa1BVR3lPU2tJYjJwWU1IRDFoLXh2YlpSOHpqWjRLWDBuMTJOaDhiN1lfWmdjcEc4X3VnV2xfVDdzLUgwRUpSRlo0UzhIdW01UEdabVkzWU01RXlyUjJSMHBnbF9ZM3gxNnAtU3J0OGp5SVFuclFOXzJsR2hDM09xVUctZGVxZzY3U1JnNjZjMWc5UnBRcm0yQmFyUQ?oc=5

Story synopsis gathered from: Google News India — source