Skip to main content

Biodiversity act 2002

 The Biodiversity act 2002

The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 was born out of India’s attempt to realize the objectives enshrined in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 1992 which recognizes the sovereign rights of states to use their own Biological Resources.

Biodiversity:

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.


Biological Resources:

The biological resources means plants, animals, and micro-organisms or parts thereof, their genetic material and by-products (excluding value-added products) with actual or potential use or value, but does not include human genetic material.


The Biological Diversity Act, 2002:

The act was enacted in 2002, it aims at the conservation of biological resources, managing its sustainable use, and enabling fair and equitable sharing benefits arising out of the use and knowledge of biological resources with the local communities.


Salient Features of the Act:

The Act prohibits the following activities without the prior approval from the National Biodiversity Authority:

Any person or organization (either based in India or not) obtaining any biological resource occurring in India for its research or commercial utilization.

The transfer of the results of any research relating to any biological resources occurring in, or obtained from, India.

The claim of any intellectual property rights on any invention based on the research made on the biological resources obtained from India.

 

The act envisaged a three-tier structure to regulate the access to biological resources:

The National Biodiversity Authority (NBA)

The State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs)

The Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) (at the local level)

 

The Act provides these authorities with special funds and a separate budget in order to carry out any research project dealing with the biological natural resources of the country:

It shall supervise any use of biological resources and the sustainable use of them and shall take control over the financial investments and their return and dispose of those capitals as correct.

 

Under this act, the Central Government in consultation with the NBA:

Shall notify threatened species and prohibit or regulate their collection, rehabilitation, and conservation

Designate institutions as repositories for different categories of biological resources

 

The act stipulates all offences under it as cognizable and non-bailable.

 

Any grievances related to the determination of benefit sharing or order of the National Biodiversity Authority or a State Biodiversity Board under this Act shall be taken to the National Green Tribunal (NGT).

 

The other laws that NGT deals with, include:

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974,

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977,

The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980,

The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981,

The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986,

The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991


Exemptions from the Act

The Act excludes Indian biological resources that are normally traded as commodities.

Such exemption holds only so far the biological resources are used as commodities and for no other purpose.

 

The act also excludes traditional uses of Indian biological resources and associated knowledge and when they are used in collaborative research projects between Indian and foreign institutions with the approval of the central government.

 

Uses by cultivators and breeds, e.g. farmers, livestock keepers, and beekeepers and traditional healers e.g. voids and hakims are also exempted.


The National Biodiversity Authority (NBA)

The National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) was established in 2003 by the Central Government to implement India’s Biological Diversity Act (2002).


It is a Statutory body that performs facilitative, regulatory, and advisory functions for the Government of India on the issue of Conservation and sustainable use of biological resources.

Biodiversity  Heritage Sites (BHS):

Under Section 37 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 the State Government in consultation with local bodies may notify the areas of biodiversity importance as Biodiversity Heritage Sites.


The Biodiversity Heritage Sites are the well-defined areas that are unique, ecologically fragile ecosystems – terrestrial, coastal, and inland waters and, marine having rich biodiversity comprising of any one or more of the following components:

Richness of wild as well as domesticated species or intra-specific categories

High endemism

Presence of rare and threatened species

Keystone species

Species of evolutionary significance

Wild ancestors of domestic/cultivated species or their varieties

Past preeminence of biological components represented by fossil beds

Having significant cultural, ethical, or aesthetic values; important for the maintenance of cultural diversity (with or without a long history of human association with them)
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more