1

BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES (BMCs)

POLICYPAPERPolicy Paper Series/

October 2017

HAKIM SINAN VILLAGE, RANIBANDH BLOCK, BANKURA DISTRICT, WEST BENGAL

The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 promulgated by India to achieve the objectives of CBD mandates constitution of BMCs at all local body levels for the purpose of conservation of biodiversity. However, even after 14 years of the Act being in force, BMCs are left to be formed at more than 80% of the local bodies; those formed remain largely on paper given lack of basic funding from the top and inability of BMCs to generate their own finances. With exception to a few active ones; BMCs have largely failed to perform their roles and responsibilities. This brief looks at the Status of BMCs in India. PR

ADAN

2

OVERVIEW OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY ACT, 2002 The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted at the Rio Earth Summit, 1992 is the most important legislation with respect to conservation of biological diversity. The internationally binding agreement signed by 198 countries (including India) is based on three-fold objectives: con-servation on biological diversity, sustainable use of its components and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of utilisation of genetic resources. To achieve these objectives, Government of India promulgated the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (BD Act). For its implementation, the BD Act, 2002 institutes a 3-tier structure which can be seen in chart 1 below.

Given the above, this policy brief looks at the institutions at the lowest level (BMCs) which are primarily responsible for carrying out of the objectives of the BD Act: conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of its components and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the use of the resources and knowledge associated with them.

This brief looks at the legal provisions governing BMCs in India, the status of their constitution and functioning and examples of a few BMCs which have taken an active stand given the objec-tives of the statute.

CHART 1: Institutional Structure under BD Act, 2002

FEDERAL LEVEL: National Biodiversity Authority (NBA)

STATE LEVEL: State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs)

LOCAL BODY LEVEL: Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs)

DUDWA NATIONAL PARK, LAKHIMPUR KHERI, UTTAR PRADESH

DR R

K SI

NGH

AUTHORS: MRIDHU TANDON RITWICK DUTTA

3

LEGAL PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO BMCs The legal provisions with respect to BMCs are divided into three parts: their constitution, their primary duty of preparing biodiversity registers, their powers and financing.

1. Constitution of BMCs: As per the BD Act, it is mandatory for every local self-governing institution in both rural and urban areas to constitute BMC within their area of jurisdiction. The objective behind BMC consti-tution is promotion of conservation, sustainable use and documentation of biological diversity1. A BMC is a 7-member committee which is elected in the general body meeting of that local body. At least one-third of these members are women and not less than 18% belong to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes2. The tenure of a BMC is co-terminus with the tenure of the local body however; the existing BMC will continue to operate, until a new committee is constituted3. The jurisdiction of a BMC, i.e. its legal authority is restricted to the territorial boundary of its local body.

2. Mandate of a BMC: PBR Preparation:Once constituted, the major responsibility of a BMC is to prepare a Peoples’ Biodiversity Register (PBR) in consultation with local people. A PBR comprehensively documents information on the availability and knowledge of local biological resources (those falling within the territorial jurisdic-tion of the BMC), their medicinal or any other use of traditional knowledge associated with them4. The PBR thus prepared then serves as a legal document which confirms the sovereign rights of that BMC over the resources documented in the PBR. It serves as a legal basis which proves that the traditional knowledge associated with a biological resource is the ‘prior art’ of that village and therefore, cannot be patented.

3. Powers/Roles and Financing of a BMC: In addition to preparation of a PBR, the roles and responsibilities of a BMC takes various forms such as eco-restoration of the local biodiversity, management of sacred groves and sacred water bodies, conservation of traditional varieties/breeds of economically important plants and animals and regulation of access to biological resources for commercial purposes. The BD Act grants BMCs the independent powers to levy charges by way of collection fees from persons collecting biological resources from their territorial jurisdiction. Collection of fees by BMCs will enable them to build their own finances which can be utilised by them for carrying out the objectives of the statute.

The BD Act authorizes the BMCs to operate Local Biodiversity Fund (LBF) consisting of grants and loans made by State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs) and fees collected by them5. These funds are strictly used by BMCs for conservation of local biodiversity and community development (as long it is consistent with conservation).6 The LBF accounts are audited and the same are presented to the concerned local body7.

1 Section 41 (1) of Biological Diversity Act, 20022 Rule 22 (2) of Biological Diversity Rules, 20043 Section 1.5: Tenure of BMC: Guidelines on Operationalization of Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) issued

by National Biodiversity Authority, 20134 Sub Rule 6 of Rule 22 of Biological Diversity Rules, 20045 Section 43 (1) of Biological Diversity Act, 20026 Section 43 (1) of Biological Diversity Act, 2002 7 Section 46 of Biological Diversity Act, 2002

4

STATUS OF BMCs IN INDIA This section looks at the status of constitution of BMCs in India, the extent to which they have been financed, status of fees collection and status of PBR preparation.

1. Status of BMC Constitution BMC constitution is mandatory for every local body. However, analysis reveals that as on October 2017 of all the local bodies in India, only more than 18% have constituted a BMC within their jurisdiction (see chart 2 (a)).

Chart 2 (b) indicates that not even a single local body in Bihar, Haryana and Jammu and Kashmir has constituted a BMC. While the Bihar SBB communicated the matter to the Panchayati Raj with respect to BMC constitution and PBR preparation only in 2016 (seven years after the constitution of the Board); in Haryana the reconstitution of SBB is still pending after the transfer of subject matter of biodiversity from the Environment to Forest Department. Further, the formation of BMCs in different regions is yet to begin in Jammu and Kashmir following Board’s late constitu-tion in 20138. Further, Chhattisgarh, Nagaland, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu show less than 1%. In states of Kerala and Madhya Pradesh, BMCs have been constituted by all local bodies.

8 Reply Affidavits filed by the Bihar, Haryana and Jammu and Kashmir State Biodiversity Board in in Chandra Bhal Singh Vs. Union of India and Others. Original Application No. 347 of 2016; National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi

Even after 14 years of the promulgation of the BD Act, 2002; BMCs are yet to be constituted by more than 81% of the local bodies in India. Current complinace rate is 18.46%.

18.46

81.64

0102030405060708090

100

Kera

laM

adhy

a Pr

ades

hKa

rnat

aka

Goa

Trip

ura

Guja

rat

Miz

oram

Man

ipur

Tela

ngan

aSi

kkim

Mah

aras

htra

Andh

ra P

rade

shM

egha

laya

Utta

rakh

and

Assa

mH

imac

hal P

rade

shW

est B

enga

lJh

arkh

and

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Raja

stha

nN

agal

and

Punj

abCh

hatti

sgar

hUt

tar P

rade

shTa

mil

Nad

uOd

isha

Biha

rH

arya

naJa

mm

u an

d Ka

shm

ir

Com

plia

nce

(in

%)

CHART 2(A): Compliance w.r.t BMC Constitution: All India level

CHART 2(B): State wise compliance with w.r.t BMC Constitution

Source: Compilation of Replies received in Chandra Bhal Singh Vs. Union of India and Others. (Original Application No. 347 of 2016, National Green Ttribunal, New Delhi) Data as on October 2017

5

2. Practical experiences while constituting BMCs As per BD Rules, 2004 BMC constitution begins with a general body meeting of the local body. This meeting is called by the chairperson of the local body. The purpose of constituting a BMC, its roles and responsibilities and PBRs are explained to all. 7 members are then selected by vote, who further elect a chairperson amongst themselves. However, these rules have not been followed in every state. For example, in Madhya Pradesh which shows 100% compliance, BMCs were set up following an order issued by the Additional Chief Secretary in 2006 to the Principal Secretaries of Panchayati Raj and Urban Development Department. This led to further instructions to all Dis-trict Collectors about the mandatory requirement of setting up of a BMC as per the BD Act, 2002. In this way all BMC were constituted by 2006. How-ever, it is important to note that these BMCs remain essentially on paper and are yet to become operational at the ground level (Ex-Member Secretary MP SBB 2017). Further, in the state of Ut-tarakhand, BMCs were initially formed by the State Forest Department. Specif-ically, letters were issued by the Uttara-khand SBB to the Divisional Forest Of-ficers (DFOs) for constituting a BMC following which instructions were sent to the Range Forest Officer (RFO) and thereafter the Forest Guard regarding the same; this resulted in more than 900 BMCs being formed in the state between 2010 and 2017 (UK SBB BMC List ). However, they have remained on paper and it is only recently that these BMCs have been reconstituted with the help of local NGOs which also as-sist in PBR preparation (President Lok Chetna Manch 2017) (President Theatre for Education Mass Society 2017).

The ‘irregularities’ are not just restricted to setting up of BMCs but also visible while selecting members. The BD Rules, 2004 specify that members of the BMC are selected in the general body meeting of the local body called by the chairperson of the local body. The 7 members so nomi-nated thereafter select for a chairperson amongst themselves.However, there have been instances in case of constituting BMC at the gram panchayat level where the Gram Pradhan (chairperson of the gram panchayat) has assumed the role of the chairperson of the BMC as well. Specifically, in Him-achal Pradesh of the 253 BMCs so far constituted, in close to 60-70% of the BMCs constituted at the Gram Panchayat level, the Panchayat Pradhan is the BMC chairperson as well. However, their awareness to even local agro-biodiversity such as local varieties of paddy/kidney beans is absent (Member Secretary HP SBB 2017). The fact that the Gram Pradhan resist formation of BMC at their panchayat unless they are taken as the BMC Chairperson is a practical challenge in Uttara-khand as well when it comes to constituting one (Deputy Director UK SBB 2017).

BMC ROHNA, HOSHANGABAD TEHSIL, HOSHANGABAD DISTRICT, MADHYA PRADESH

MRI

DHU

TAND

ON

6

Box No. 1:

Involvement of Forest Department in BMC Finances: A Few Questions

The Member Secretary of a BMC enjoys the signatory power as does the chairperson with respect to cheques issued out of the LBF. He/she is also responsible for managing the BMC’s financial accounts. In Uttarakhand, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh, the role of member secretary has been assumed by Deputy Rangers/Forester/Forest Guards and the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) has been designated as the Nodal Officer to BMCs9. It is the duty of the Nodal Officer to oversee the matters of BMC (within the forest division) and is duly informed when SBB whenever funds are allocated to the BMC by SBB10.

The above model where role of member secretary has been assumed by Forest Department is provided for in the guidelines issued by NBA. However, there are clarifications with respect to guidelines themselves. For example, guidelines mention that in order to ensure transparency, monitoring and follow up, each BMC is required to maintain separate bank accounts for its two categories of receipts. First, consisting of grants and loans from the State Government, NBA and SBB and second, consisting of fees collected by BMC11. However, given the two-account approach recommended by NBA, the need to designate an ‘official personnel’ to manage and maintain the second account of the BMC is questionable. Given that these funds have been earned by the BMC because of their independent powers under the statute, their maintenance and management should be left completely with the BMC. Any official involvement in this aspect is unwarranted.

There are a few practical issues as well regarding involvement of forest department. While Forest Guard/Range Officer are already burdened with other official responsibilities, there have been difficulties faced by BMC due to their involvement. For example, in Uttarakhand, BMCs cannot utilize money in their LBF without the written orders from the DFO. (Deputy Director UK SBB 2017) (President Lok Chetna Manch 2017) (President Theatre for Education in Mass Society 2017). There have been proposals from BMCs such as a proposal for a Pear Processing Plant (from the Champa Gram Panchayat BMC, Hawalbagh Block, Amora district); proposal for a Botanical Garden for cultivation of medicinal plants such as Cinnamon Leaves, Berberis aristata (Khilmoda), Zanthoxylum armatum (Timur), Barleria prrionlitis (Vajradanti) and Syzygium aromaticum (Cloves) so that a contract farming arrangement is made between farmers and companies using these plants (Nakina Gram Panchayat BMC, Pithoragarh district); and a proposal for cultivation of Walnut Trees and ornamental plants such as Rose (from Ko-thera Gram Panchayat BMC, Gangolihat Block, Pithoragarh district) (BMC Champa 2017) (BMC Majheda 2017) (BMC Nakina 2017) (BMC Kothera 2017) However, BMCs have not been able to go ahead with these as response from the department is awaited. One common theme that emerges from these villages and few others (Simalkot, Kunotla and Jajut Gram Panchayats in Gangolihat block, Pithoragarh) is that no activity has taken place in these villages with respect to BMCs post their PBR preparation in 2015. While PBR preparation costs Rs. 1, 15, 000, rest Rs. 85,000 is lying unutilized in the BMC back account (BMC Champa 2017) (Forest Range Office Gangolihat Pithoragarh 2017).

9 Reply Affidavits filed by Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Himachal Pradesh State Biodiversity Boards in Chandra Bhal Singh Vs Union of India and Others, Original Application No 347/2016, National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi

10 Section 2.2: Funding BMCs and Maintenance of their Accounts: Guidelines on Operationalization of Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) issued by National Biodiversity Authority, 2013

11 Section 2.1: Financial Resources for BMCs: Guidelines on Operationalization of Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) issued by National Biodiversity Authority, 2013

7

3. Financing of BMCs As per NBA Guidelines, a start-up fund is released to very BMC. This fund is used for the following: BMC formation, their training, conduct of BMC meetings, purchase of office equipment including stationery for opening of bank accounts. These amounts are Rs. 60,000 for gram panchayat level BMCs, Rs. 80,000 for block level BMCs, and Rs. 1,00,000 for district level BMCs12. The adequacy/inadequacy of funding to BMCs is judged given the above norm set by NBA.

Table 1: Funding to BMCs: State-wise Status

S. N

o

Stat

es

Tota

l BM

Cs

cons

titut

ed

Num

ber o

f BM

C th

at

have

rece

ived

fu

ndin

g

Fund

ing

rece

ived

by

BMCs

(in

Rs)

Average Funding to BMCs/Remarks

1. Chhattisgarh 45 45 2700000 All BMC have received funding; average of Rs. 60,000

2. West Bengal 199 35 33, 90, 938 17.58% of BMCs have received funding in WB; average of Rs. 96, 883.94

3. Andhra Pradesh

1, 890 105 31,00,000 Close to 6% of BMCs have received funding; average of Rs. 29,523.81

4. Telangana 1, 784 212 44,60,000 Close to 12% of BMCs have received funding; average of Rs. 21,037.73

5. Maharashtra 4, 173 167 33,30,000 4% of BMCs have received funding; average of Rs. 19,940.12

6. Gujarat 5, 646 536 80,40,000 Close to 10% of BMCs have received funding; average of Rs. 15,000

7. Sikkim 27 8 80,000 Close to 3% of BMCs have received funding; average of Rs 10,000

8. Meghalaya 41 N.A. 16,20,000 BMCs have received funding at an average of Rs.

39, 512.19

9. Tripura 303 N.A. 86,33,000 BMCs have received funding at an average of Rs 2, 8491.74

10. Manipur 52 N.A. 4,20,000 BMCs have received funding at an average of Rs. 8, 076.92

11. Uttarakhand 827 N.A. 43,05,000 BMCs have received funding at an average of Rs. 5, 205.56

12. Kerala 1, 034 N.A. 33.54,221 BMCs have received funding at an average of Rs. 3, 243.93

13. Karnataka 4, 631 N.A. 4,00,000 BMCs have received funding at an average of Rs. 86.37

For States 8-13, There was no data available on the number of BMCs that were funded. Hence, average funding is calculated given the total funding received by BMCs and total number of BMCs constituted.

14. Madhya Pradesh

23743 93 60 BMCs: Rs. 33,25,000 (for IBD Day)

33 BMCs: Rs. 59,26,400

(for BMC level conservation programs)

15. Himachal Pradesh

253 107 Data Not Available

Only 43% of BMCs have received funding

16. Goa 105 Data Not Available

72,20,000 Only 67 of 105 BMCs are functional

12 Section 1.6: Methodology of the Start-up Fund release: Guidelines on Operationalization of Biodiversity Management Com-mittees (BMCs) issued by National Biodiversity Authority, 2013

8

Only in Chhattisgarh, all BMCs on an average have received adequate funding. In West Bengal, though average funding exceeds the NBA norm, the coverage of BMCs is low. For states (3-7) not only coverage of BMCs that have received funding is low, but also, the average funding is nowhere close to the norm set by NBA. Further, for states (8-13) as well the total amount of funds received are no match to the number of BMCs constituted in the first place. This implies inadequate fund-ing. In Himachal Pradesh, BMC coverage is not even 50%.

Further, with respect to Chhattisgarh, it is relevant to note that while grants worth Rs. 64.20 lakhs were given by NBA for the constitution of 107 BMCs, only 45 BMCs have been constituted in the state so far, thereby indicating the questionable utilisation of funds of the rest Rs 37.20 lakhs. Further, additional grants worth Rs. 51.26 were also provided for the preparation of 45 PBRs, however, no PBR has been prepared till date13.

In Goa, Rs. 72, 20, 000 have been allocated to BMCs so far. However, no data is available as to how many BMCs out of 105 have received funding. Further, as per Goa SBB, only 67 out of 105 BMCs are functional. This might indicate that only 63% of BMCs have received funding in Goa.

The state of Madhya Pradesh needs explanation. First, only 93 out of 23,743 BMCs have been given funding. Further, data on funding is only provided from 2014 onwards whereas BMC constitution was over by 2006. This leaves the question open if BMCs were only funded eight years after their constitution. Lastly, funds have been given to BMCs for celebration of International Biodiversity Day. However, when only 848 out of 23, 743 BMCs have prepared PBRs, which implies only 4% compliance14, spending on less priority areas like International Biodiversity Day seems odd.

13 Funding details of Chhattisgarh have been taken from Reply Affidavit filed by the Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board in Chandra Bhal Singh Vs. Union of India and Others. Original Application No. 347 of 2016; National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi

14 PBRs prepared in Madhya Pradesh: Reply Affidavit filed by Madhya Pradesh State Biodiversity Board in Chandra Bhal Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, Original Application No 347of 2016 National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi

17. Arunachal Pradesh

74 Data Not Available

18. Jharkhand 249

19. Punjab 439

20. Assam

21. Rajasthan

22. Uttar Pradesh

23. Mizoram 221 No Funds have been released to BMCs

24. Nagaland 10

25. Odisha 439

26. Tamil Nadu 16

27. Bihar No BMCs have been constituted

28. Haryana

29. Jammu and Kashmir

Source: Compilation of Replies received in Chandra Bhal Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors., Original Application No 347 of 2016, National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Data as on October 2017)

9

4. Status of Collection of Fees by BMCs

The BD Act empowers BMCs to levy charges by way of fees from those collecting biological resources for commercial purposes from their territorial juris-diction. However, analysis reveals that as of Octo-ber 2017, BMCs in only Uttarakhand and Tripura have manged to levy and collect fees. No fees have been levied by BMCs in Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Him-achal Pradesh, Kerala, Manipur, Meghalaya, Naga-land, Odisha, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal. Data is not available for the states of Rajasthan, Ut-tar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Telangana, Jharkhand and Karnataka15. This clearly implies that BMCs at large have failed to exercise their independent powers of levying fees. Only one BMC in Uttarakhand (BMC Dudhai) has collected fees so far. BMC Dudhuai in Sahaspur block in Uttarakhand’s Dehradun districthad in one of its meetings decided to impose a collection fee equivalent to 1% of the total market value of the bio-logical resources being procured by the user. The BMC earned Rs. 1, 235 as collection fee for the first time from the extraction of lemongrass. The BMC had later earned Rs. 50more via collection fee. This money is deposited in the LBF but there is no information as to where the money is be-ing spent. Further, 9 BMCs in the State of Tripura had collected Rs. 7.97 lakhs via fees16. However, there have been no details made available by the Board on the structure followed while levying fees or the utilisation of the amount collected so far.

Collection of fees ensures financial self-reliance of the BMC which can enable them to build fi-nances to take up conservation and promotion of biodiversity in the areas falling within their juris-diction. The NBA in its guidelines has further specified that levy of fees is an area for the capacity building and skill development of BMC members17. However, given that BMCs at large have failed to exercise their independent power, it does raise a question on whether such capacity building is taken by SBBs and BMCs. Further, while NBA had issued Guidelines on the Operationalization aspect of the BMCs, it may have recommended a broad set of guidelines that may be used by the BMCs for deciding their fees structure.

5. Status of PBR Preparation PBR preparation is mandatory under BD Act and it is the primary responsibility of every BMC. Analysis reveals that only near 7% of BMCs have prepared their PBRs18. This implies that more than 93% have failed to perform their mandatory responsibility of preparing comprehensive bio-diversity registers

15 Compilation of Replies received in Chandra Bhal Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, Original Application No 347of 2016 National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi

16 Reply Affidavits filed by Uttarakhand and Tripura State Biodiversity Board in Chandra Bhal Singh Vs. Union of India and Others., Original Application No 347 of 2016, National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi

17 Part (c) of Section1.11: Capacity Building on BD Act and BMCs: Guidelines for Operationalization of Biodiversity Manage-ment Committees, issued by National Biodiversity Authority, 2013

18 Compilation of Replies received in Chandra Bhal Singh Vs. Union of India and Others., Original Application No 347 of 2016, National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi

PROJECT ON ORGANIC FARMING OF TRADITIONAL RICE VARIETIES IN BMC JHALAGONDHI, KURAI BLOCK, SEONI DISTRICT, MADHYA PRADESH

MRI

DHU

TAND

ON

10

EXAMPLES OF A FEW ‘ACTIVE’ BMCs The above analysis implies that even though BMCs are yet to be constituted in more than 80% of the local bodies, those constituted have largely remained on paper and are yet to become opera-tional. This is primarily due to the lack of basic financial support from higher authorities, failure of BMCs to build their own finances by way of levying fees and lack of capacity building of BMCs by SBBs and NBA. Most BMCs are yet to prepare a PBR. Still, there have been cases where BMCs have taken up conservation of biodiversity and have also demanded a share in the benefits earned when local biological resources were accessed for commercial use.

For example, BMC Dudhai in Uttarakhand’s Dehradun districthas been successful towards controlling illegal sand mining in River Swarna (which flows through Dudhai village). River sand mining had adversely affected the local agricultural fields. However, post BMC cre-ation and through unanimous community support and continuous night patrolling and strict vigilance by the residents, sand mining within Dudhai village has come to an end. Further, given the economic value to the village from resin extracted from Chirpine (Pinus roxburghii)3, the BMC has been actively involved with the forest department by increasing local preparedness for forest fires. It has created fire lines which prevents fire from spread-ing and sensitized villagers regarding the same (UK SBB 2017)

In the context of conservation, the case of BMC Keoti Gram (Keoti Gram Panchayat, Rewa district Madhya Pradesh) is equally relevant. The BMC had filed a petition in National Green Tribunal (NGT) against illegal mining and unauthorised construction in their village which was causing damage to the Keoti village forest. The BMC’s primary demand was immediate stoppage on all construction activity and demolition of construction already carried out. Owing to high biodiver-

sity value of dense Keoti Forest and presence of waterfall, it also demanded declaration of Keoti Forest as a Biodiversity Heritage Site (BHS) under BD Act. The Tribunal directed that no sort of mining, construction or altera-tion of habitat will be allowed in Keoti village. With respect to BHS, the MP SBB was directed to formulate guidelines for BHS and take strategies to identify biodiversity rich sites and ensure their conservation (Biodiversity Management Committee Keoti Vs Union of India and Others 2016).

A few BMCs in Kerala have also worked towards local ecosystem conser-vation. Most notable is the case of conservation of Sasthamkotta Lake (a Ramsar Site and the largest freshwater body in Kerala) by a joint BMC. The lake flows through three village panchayats in Sasthamkotta Block: Sasthamkotta, West Kallada and Mynagapally. A BMC was constituted with members from all three panchayats. This BMC has been acting as an envi-ronmental watch group in the locality and has raised voice against excessive withdrawal of water by the Kerala Water Authority (KWA) (Mithrambika, Laladhas, & Nilayangod 2017). The BMC president in May 2015 had writ-ten to the managing director of KWA highlighting the need to impose curbs on the unscientific exploitation of water. The lake had been drying up and

ground water table had gone down in neighbouring areas. The letter directed the KWA to reduce its water intake by 40% within a month and to pay the joint BMC a certain percentage of the value of extracted water to fund local biodiversity conservation. The joint BMC had threatened legal action in case the KWA failed to respond and take necessary action (T Nandakumar 2015).

In a similar case, BMC of Kinanoor Karinthalam Gram Panchayat in Kerala’s Kasargod district had rejected a proposal for establishment of a soda water manufacturing plant. The proposed plant would have affected the water availability in the area (Laldhas 2013). In another case, BMC of Kadanad Gram Panchayat in Kottayam district had directed the village panchayat council to reject proposal for a granite quarrying and stone crushing unit, due environmental concerns. However, the Panchayat Council gave the permission to the proposed unit. Questioning the same, BMC which wrote to Kerala SBB asking for an environmental impact assessment. However, these

KEOTO FALLS, REWA DISTRICT, MADHYA PRADESH

FLIC

KR

11

oppositions notwithstanding, after BMC elections, the president changed, and the project was put back on track (Sudhi, 2016). Given these cases from Kerala, it is relevant to note an order issued by Principal Secre-tary, Environment department of Kerala which has au-thorized BMCs to function as ‘Environmental Watch Groups (Mithrambika, Laladhas, & Nilayangod 2017)’. The BMCs have been directed to constantly monitor and alert the authorities regarding violations of envi-ronment laws and unauthorised sand mining and illegal quarries (T Nandakumar 2015).

Lastly, it is relevant to note the case from Arunachal Pradesh where several BMCs in West Kameng, Tawa-ng and Lower Subansiri districts with guidance from UNDP and GB Pant Institute of Himalayan Environ-ment and Development had established strict rules to manage their community forests. These rules prohib-ited activities like illegal hunting, marketing of wildlife in local markets, unauthorized extraction/ collection of forest resources, collection of river bed sand and use of electrocution and bleaching powder/chemicals for fishing. These rules further empowered BMC to levy charges for collection of fine fees of Rs 5,000 to Rs 10,000 for any person caught violating, accessing or collecting any biological resources for commercial purposes from the community forest (Ravindran 2013). However, it needs to be checked if these BMCs and their established rules are still operational or whether they were active only for the projct duration.

Besides, conservation related case studies, there have been cases where BMCs have de-manded a share in commercial benefit arising out of their local biological resources. For example, BMC Dudhai issued notice to the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation for sharing the benefits obtained from sale of timber of trees felled from the Reserved For-est as part of silvicultural operations carried by them. The contention made by the BMC was that though ownership of reserved forest lies with the forest department, BMC has jurisdiction over the reserved forest that falls within the territory of Dudhai gram pan-chayat. Therefore, as per BD Act, 2002 the BMC can levy charges from those accessing/col-lecting biological resources (here, dead dry trees removed from local RF) for commercial purposes (here, sale of timber by Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation through auction, allotment of industries and retail sales). The exact formula for levying the fees is still being worked by the BMC and the Uttarakhand SBB (Deputy Director UK SBB 2017). In another instance, BMC Mahanadi Panchayat along with the Andhra Pradesh SBB had demanded royalty payments of 1-2% of sales revenue earned from the sale of BT. Cotton seeds. These seeds were manufactured by Monsanto and its Indian subsidiary, Mahyco. The manufacture of BT Cotton seeds entailed making the local cotton varieties insect tolerant via injection of CRY 1 AC, a protein found in bacterial Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt.). As per BD Act, micro-organisms such as bacteria are biological resources and genetic intervention is a commercial purpose, therefore, prior permission from SBB is mandatory. Once, the approv-al is granted, the company needs to sign an access and benefit sharing agreement with the Board. Once these benefits are paid, the share of BMCs (from whose territorial jurisdiction the biological resource is found) is minimum 95%. In this case, the bacteria was collected by Mahyco from the soil falling within the territorial jurisdiction of Mahanadi village. On the company’s refusal to pay royalty/benefits, the BMC along with the Board issued a legal demand notice for the same and threatened legal action in case of failure of the company to pay the royalty/benefits. The BMC Mahanadi had decided to collect an accession fee of Rs. 300 lakhs from the multinational seed company (AB SBB 2009) (Joseph & Sukumar 2008). The present status of the case is unknown.

THE DUDHAI BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE IN UTTARAKHAND HAS BANNED ILLEGAL SAND MINING AND REVIVED RIVER ECOSYSTEMS

UNDP

/FLI

CKER

12

CONCLUSION Barring the sheer inadequacy with respect to extent of BMC constitution, those constituted so far have largely remained on paper due to their non-functionality at the local level and a lack of basic funding. While the procedure to be followed for BMC constitution is provided for in the BD Rules, 2004, it is important for NBA and SBBs to ensure capacity and skill building of BMCs so that not only they are able to generate their own funds, but are also able to ensure their own functionality and perform roles and responsibilities to accomplish the larger purpose for which they are constituted for in the first place.

NOTES 1. As per Clause 1 of Article 243 B of Indian Constitution, the term local body in rural areas means Pan-

chayats constituted at village level, intermediate level and district level. Further, as per clause 1 of Article 243 Q of Indian Constitution, the term local body in urban area means Nagar Panchayats (constituted for a transitional area, i.e. an area in transition from a rural area to an urban area), Municipal Council (for a smaller urban area) and municipal corporation (for a larger urban area).

2. The petition was filed to highlight the gross non-implementation of the provisions of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and Biological Diversity Rules, 2004”. The Petition made the Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change, Government of India (MOEF&CC), National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) and respective State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs). In order to highlight the status of implementation of the Act in the petition information was obtained from the respective SBBs under Right to Information Act (RTI) with respect to compliance of certain important provisions which are of mandatory nature under the Act and Rules specifically, number of Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) constituted, number of People’s Biodiversity Registers (PBRs) prepared by BMCs, amount of fees collected by BMCs and grants and loans made to the Local Biodiversity Fund (LBF) of the BMC. Given the shocking and surprising facts about the non-compliance of the provisions of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and Rules, from the replies received from the 15 SBBs the applicant had prayed the Tribunal to direct the authorities to take steps to ensure that the provisions of the Act are implemented.

3. Resin extracted from the Pine trees is auctioned through the Forest Department resulting in a fixed royalty which is deposited in the Van Panchayat account and spent for carrying plantations and village development works based on the priorities as decide by villagers on communal basis.

4. This section is based on the field visit was taken by LIFE in July 2017 to Uttarakhand to understand the working and functioning of BMCs and preparation of PBRs in the state. The visit entailed meeting the following: Officials of Uttarakhand State Biodiversity in Dehradun, Technical Support Groups constitut-ed for Almohra (Lok Chetna Manch) and Pithoragarh (Theatre for Education in Mass Society) district, Forest Range Office of Gangolihat Range of Pihtoragrh district and BMCs of Champa (Champ Gram Panchayat, Hawalbagh Block, Almohra district), BMC Majheda (Munakot Block, Pithoragarh district) BMC Nakina (Pithoragrh Block, Pithoragarh district), BMC Simalkot (Gangolihat Block, Pithoragarh district) and BMC Kothera (Gangolihat Block, Pithoragarh district).

REFERENCES 1. AB SBB (2009): “Biopiracy and Bioprospecting,” Biodiversity News of Andhra Pradesh Special Isssue No

1, pp 4-5, http://apbiodiversity.ap.nic.in/Data%20for%20website/newsletters/Biodiversity_News_Spe-cial_2009.pdf

2. BMC Champa (2017): “Activities undertaken by BMC Champa,” Interview by LIFE, July 2017

3. BMC Kothera (2017): “Activities taken by BMC Simalkot,” Interview by LIFE, July 2017

4. BMC Majheda (2017): “Activities taken by BMC Majheda,” Interview by LIFE, July 2017

5. BMC Nakina (2017): “Activities taken by BMC Nakina,” Interview by LIFE, July 2017

6. Deputy Director UK SBB (2017): “Constitution of BMCs in Uttarakhand,” Interview by LIFE, July 2017

13

7. Deputy Director UK SBB (2017): “Fund Allocation to BMCs in Uttarakhand,” Interview by LIFE, July 2017

8. Deputy Director UK SBB (2017): “Initiatives taken by BMC Dudhai,” Interview by LIFE, July 2017

9. Ex-Member Secretary MP SBB (2017): “Constitution of BMCs in Madhya Pradesh,”Interview by LIFE, July 2017

10. Forest Range Office Gangolihat Pithoragarh (2017): “Funds Allocated to BMCs under Gangolihat Range” Interview by LIFE, July 2017

11. Joseph, Lison., & Sukumar, CR. (2008): “Monsanto Battles Biopiracy Claims,” Livemint, 30 October, https://www.livemint.com/Home-Page/TidET8fQHloGQCfwaSIIcI/Monsanto-battles-biopiracy-claims.html

12. Laldhas, KP. (2013): “Annual Report of Kerala State Biodiversity Board 2012-2013,” Thiruvanatha-puram: Kerala State Biodiversity Board, pp 36, http://www.keralabiodiversity.org/images/pub/re-port_2012-2013_english.pdf

13. Member Secretary HP SBB (2017): “Constitution of BMCs in Himachal Pradesh,” Interview by LIFE, July 2017

14. Mithrambika, N. B., Laladhas, K. P., & Nilayangod, P (2017): “Decentralized Governance for Sustainable Development,” In K. Laladhas, P. Nilayangode, & V. O. Oommen, Biodiversity for Sustainable Develop-ment (pp. 165-176). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017.

15. Nandakumar, T. (2015): “Mechanism to Check Compliance of Norms by Quarries,” The Hindu Ker-ala, 7 September, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/mechanism-to-check-compliance-of-norms-by-quarries/article7624094.ece

16. NBA (2013): “Guidelines for Operationalization of Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs),” Chennai: National Biodiversity Authority. http://nbaindia.org/uploaded/pdf/Guidelines%20for%20BMC.pdf

17. President Lok Chetna Manch (2017): “Constitution of BMCs in Amohra district, Uttarakhand,” Inter-view by LIFE, July 2017

18. President Lok Chetna Manch (2017): “Fund Allocation to BMC Constituted in Almohra district, Ut-tarakhand,” Interview by LIFE, July 2017

19. President Theatre for Education in Mass Society (2017): “Fund Allocation to BMCs Constituted in Pithoragarh district, Uttarakhand,” Interview by LIFE, July 2017

20. President Theatre for Education Mass Society (2017): “Constitution of BMCs in Pithoragarh district, Uttarakhand,” Interview by LIFE, July 2017

21. Ravindran, Iren. Stephen (2013): “Application of Traditional Knowledge and Customary Use of Biodi-versity into Community Based Resource Management and Governance of Community Conserved Area, Arunachal Pradesh, India,” SAARC Forestry Journal, 2013, pp 88-89. http://www.sfc.org.bt/images/journal2013.pdf

22. Sudhi, K.S (2016): “Panchayat says No To Quarrying,” The Hindu Kerala, 25 July, https://www.the-hindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/panchayat-says-no-to-quarrying/article2794954.ece

23. T Nandakumar (2015): “KWA to Reduce Lake Water Intake,” The Hindu Thiruvananthapuram, 1 May, https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Thiruvananthapuram/kwa-told-to-reduce-lake-water-intake/ar-ticle7161026.ece

24. UK SBB (2017): India Biodiversity Awards 2016-Nomination Form by BMC Dudhai; (Shared by Dhanan-jay Prasad, Deputy Director UK SBB)

25. UK SBB (n.d.): “BMC List” . Retrieved October 2017, from Uttarakhand State Biodiversity Board Web-site : http://www.sbb.uk.gov.in/files/Documents/bmc_list.pdf

CASES CITED 1. Chandra Bhal Singh Vs. Union of India and Others (2016): Original Application Number 347 of 2016,

National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi

2. Biodiversity Management Committee Keoti Vs Union of India and Others (2016): Original Application No 06 of 2014 (National Green Tribunal Central Zone dated 4 May.

14

PRINCIPAL OFFICE

N-71, Lower Ground Floor, Greater Kailash - I, New Delhi -110048

www.thelifeindia.org.in

REGIONAL OFFICE

AC-160, Sector-1, Salt Lake, Kolkata- 700064

Flat No.5, Gulmohar Court, Lane-B, Koregaon Park, Pune – 411001

SUGGESTED CITATION : LIFE (2017) : "Policy Brief on Biodiversity Management Committee (BMCs)" , New Delhi : Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment

DUDHWA NATIONAL PARK, LAKHIMPUR KHERI, UTTAR PRADESH

DR R

K SI

NGH