Who Owns Nature's Wealth?

The world's greatest biological treasures are often found not in laboratories or research institutions, but in forests, wetlands and indigenous communities that have nurtured them for centuries. Yet, history offers countless examples of these resources being commercialised without the knowledge or consent of those who safeguarded them. India's First National Report on the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) is, therefore, more than a routine policy document. It raises a fundamental question of justice: Who should benefit when nature becomes profitable?

The Nagoya Protocol, a legally binding agreement under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), seeks to answer that question. It establishes a framework under which governments, researchers and companies can access genetic resources only after obtaining Prior Informed Consent (PIC) and negotiating Mutually Agreed Terms (MAT) with the providers of those resources. More importantly, it ensures that the economic benefits arising from their use whether through pharmaceuticals, biotechnology or agriculture pare shared fairly with local communities that have conserved them.

At its heart, the Protocol is not merely about biodiversity; it is about correcting a historical imbalance.

For decades, indigenous knowledge has quietly powered scientific breakthroughs. Medicinal plants used by tribal communities have inspired life-saving drugs. Traditional farming practices have contributed to crop improvement. Herbal remedies, passed down through generations, have entered commercial markets worth billions of dollars. Yet the communities that protected this knowledge have rarely received recognition, let alone economic returns. The Nagoya Protocol attempts to replace this extractive model with one based on partnership and equity.

India's first national report offers encouraging evidence that this principle can move beyond legal theory. In Madhya Pradesh, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries paid benefit-sharing fees for access to Cocculus hirsutus, a medicinal plant being studied for dengue treatment. The proceeds were channelled through the Madhya Pradesh Minor Forest Produce Federation, supporting conservation efforts and local livelihoods. Similarly, Indian Oil Corporation Limited contributed benefit-sharing payments to the Uttar Pradesh State Biodiversity Board for research involving agricultural residues in bioethanol production.

These examples demonstrate that commercial innovation and community rights need not exist in opposition. Scientific research can flourish while ensuring that those who have long protected biological resources receive a fair share of the benefits.

However, the journey from principle to practice remains far from complete.

One of the most persistent challenges lies in tracing the origins of biological resources. Medicinal plants, herbs and forest produce often pass through multiple traders before reaching industries or research institutions. By the time they enter commercial supply chains, identifying the original source community becomes exceedingly difficult. Without traceability, equitable benefit-sharing becomes an administrative aspiration rather than an operational reality.

Documentation presents another obstacle. Differences between domestic regulations and international reporting requirements frequently delay approvals and compliance. Many biodiversity boards continue to rely on manual processes for preparing compliance certificates, slowing implementation and increasing transaction costs. For communities with limited legal or technical expertise, navigating these procedures can be daunting.

Awareness remains an equally significant concern. Many indigenous communities are unaware of their rights under the Access and Benefit Sharing framework. Technical terminology, legal complexity and limited availability of regional-language documents often prevent meaningful participation. Ironically, those whom the Protocol seeks to empower are sometimes the least equipped to engage with its mechanisms.

There is also a pressing need to address the challenges posed by Digital Sequence Information (DSI). Advances in biotechnology increasingly allow researchers to utilise genetic data stored in digital databases without physically accessing biological samples. While this accelerates scientific research, it also raises difficult questions. If companies develop commercial products using digitised genetic information, should the communities that originally conserved those resources still receive benefits? The answer will shape the future relevance of the Nagoya Protocol in the age of genomics and artificial intelligence.

The way forward requires stronger institutional innovation. A fully digital ABS portal could simplify applications, automate approvals and generate compliance certificates more efficiently. Standardised valuation methods would make benefit-sharing more transparent and predictable. Translating regulations into regional languages would encourage greater community participation, while digital tracking systems could improve supply-chain traceability. Equally important is the creation of a comprehensive national repository that integrates biodiversity records, ABS agreements and compliance data into a single platform.

Yet technology alone cannot resolve what is ultimately a moral question.

Conservation succeeds when local communities perceive forests, biodiversity and traditional knowledge as assets worth protecting rather than resources vulnerable to exploitation. Fair benefit-sharing creates precisely that incentive. When indigenous communities receive tangible economic returns from conservation, biodiversity ceases to be merely an ecological objective; it becomes a source of sustainable livelihoods.

India's network of more than 2.76 lakh Biodiversity Management Committees provides an institutional foundation that few countries possess. If effectively strengthened, these local institutions can transform biodiversity governance from a top-down regulatory exercise into a participatory model rooted in community stewardship.

The publication of India's first National Report on the Nagoya Protocol is therefore significant not because it marks compliance with an international treaty, but because it reflects a broader shift in thinking. It recognises that conservation cannot succeed through exclusion. Those who have protected nature for generations must become equal partners in its economic future.

In an age where biological resources are increasingly becoming strategic assets, the true measure of progress will not be the number of patents filed or products commercialised. It will be whether the communities that have quietly safeguarded nature's wealth finally receive the recognition, respect and rewards they have long deserved.