India Emerges as World Leader in Issuing Nagoya Protocol Access Certificates for Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge

The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, through the National Biodiversity Authority, announced on 24 May 2026 that India has attained the pre‑eminent position worldwide in the issuance of certificates granting access to genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge under the Nagoya Protocol, thereby surpassing all other signatory nations in both quantity and procedural regularity.

The Nagoya Protocol, adopted in 2010 as a supplementary agreement to the Convention on Biological Diversity, obliges Parties to establish transparent and mutually agreed terms for the utilisation of biological material, while ensuring that benefits derived therefrom are equitably shared with the custodians of the originating ecosystems and cultural practices.

In India, the authority responsible for the operationalisation of this international commitment, the National Biodiversity Authority, administers the Access and Benefit‑Sharing (ABS) framework through a system of digital certificates that prescribe conditions of use, duration, and monetary or non‑monetary compensation to the communities identified as holders of the requisite traditional knowledge.

Official statistics released by the authority indicate that the aggregate number of certificates granted during the fiscal year 2025‑26 exceeded those issued by Brazil, South Africa and the United Kingdom combined, thereby providing a quantitative testament to India's administrative vigour and its concerted effort to align domestic biodiversity governance with the aspirations of the global regime.

Critics, however, have cautioned that while the volume of certificates may reflect procedural efficiency, the substantive adequacy of benefit‑sharing arrangements, the transparency of community consent processes, and the capacity of local custodians to monitor compliance remain insufficiently documented, thereby exposing a potential discrepancy between the laudable rhetoric of equitable sharing and the lived realities of indigenous stakeholders.

In a statement issued by the Ministry, the Secretary‑General of the authority asserted that each ABS certificate is accompanied by a rigorously vetted benefit‑sharing plan, that community representatives are consulted through legally recognised mechanisms, and that the government remains committed to periodic audits designed to reconcile any gaps between the recorded terms and the actual disbursements.

Nevertheless, observers note that the procedural registers publicly available through the authority's portal disclose only cursory summaries of the benefit‑sharing components, thereby limiting the capacity of civil‑society watchdogs to verify whether the stipulated monetary compensation reaches the intended beneficiaries in a timely and accountable manner.

The juxtaposition of India's unprecedented issuance statistics with the paucity of verifiable outcomes thus invites a measured contemplation of whether the current regulatory architecture sufficiently balances the twin imperatives of facilitating scientific innovation and safeguarding the rights of knowledge‑holding communities, a balance that the nation's constitutional commitment to protecting indigenous heritage ostensibly demands.

Does the existing framework of the National Biodiversity Authority, as exercised in the unprecedented volume of Nagoya Protocol certificates, provide a legally enforceable mechanism that obliges the State to disclose detailed benefit‑sharing outcomes, thereby permitting affected communities and independent auditors to assess compliance with the stipulations enshrined in both domestic law and international treaty obligations? Is the Government’s reliance on digital registers, which presently contain only summary data, sufficient to satisfy the transparency standards demanded by the Convention on Biological Diversity’s monitoring provisions, or does it indicate a systemic reluctance to make granular financial information publicly accessible for scrutiny? To what extent might the rapid escalation in certificate issuance, celebrated as evidence of administrative efficiency, inadvertently diminish the diligence of due‑process safeguards, such that the substantive rights of traditional knowledge holders are compromised in favour of expedited commercial exploitation? What remedial legislative or policy measures could be instituted to bridge the apparent gap between the quantitative triumph of certificate issuance and the qualitative assurance that benefits are equitably distributed, thereby aligning India’s proclaimed leadership with the ethical imperatives of biodiversity stewardship?

Can the fiscal allocations earmarked for benefit‑sharing under the ABS regime be audited independently to verify that public funds are not being diverted or underreported, and if so, which statutory bodies possess the jurisdiction and expertise to conduct such examinations without political interference? Might the principle of administrative discretion, as invoked by the Ministry in expediting certificate approvals, be reconcilable with the constitutional guarantee of public participation, especially where consent from indigenous communities is asserted yet not demonstrably evidenced in the official record? What legal recourse, if any, remains available to individuals or NGOs who perceive that the State has fallen short of its obligations under the Nagoya Protocol, and does the current judicial framework provide an effective avenue for redress that balances sovereign policy considerations with the enforceable rights of knowledge custodians? In light of the documented disparity between the proclaimed volume of access certificates and the paucity of verifiable benefit‑sharing outcomes, should legislative amendments be contemplated to mandate real‑time public disclosure of all benefit transactions, thereby furnishing citizens with the means to test official claims against incontrovertible evidence?

Published: May 25, 2026

Published: May 25, 2026