Marine Biodiversity - The Missing Link In India’s ABS Framework
Author: LawSphereX
Category: General Law
Published:
Updated:
MARINE BIODIVERSITY: THE MISSING LINK IN INDIA’S
ABS FRAMEWORK
Revaa P.G, Presidency University, Bengaluru
ABSTRACT
India’s Biological Diversity Act, 2002 is a landmark framework for the purpose of conserving biological resources, regulating access and for one of the most important aspects that is equitable benefit sharing. While it is widely applied to the terrestrial ecosystems, its relevance with respect to marine biodiversity has remained majorly overlooked. For generations together, the fishing and coastal communities in India have lived in close connection with the sea not just for sustenance but for their daily source of income. Their routine work revolves around wide varieties of marine resources that include finfish such as tuna, mackerel, sardines, and pomfret, crustaceans like shrimp and crabs, molluscs including clams, mussels, squid, sea cucumbers and pearl oysters.
What once began as a subsistence activity has now gradually transitioned into a day-to-day trade driven practice with all these resources forming the very backbone of the local markets, small scale industries and exports. Over time, these resources have been normalised as a part of livelihood so much so that the larger factors holding economic and ecological values have been majorly overlooked leaving these communities with no equitable benefit sharing while they survive merely on the income they’ve made by selling their catches and daily collection. This article focuses on three critical issues. Firstly, it delves into the ABS regime for the land-based biodiversity and how it is rarely applied on the fishing communities that harvest them despite all the marine resources that are being exploited.
Secondly, it deals with the communities’ limited institutional capacity, lack of awareness about their rights that is locking them out of the decisions related to the very resources that sustain them. Thirdly, it highlights various loopholes in governing the fisher communities’ rights and access to fair benefit sharing despite there being so many frameworks for it. In conclusion, the article reviews the potential reforms such as government schemes, education, awareness and policies that treat fishers as rightful partners more than beneficiaries. Keywords: Marine biodiversity, Equitable benefit sharing, Coastal communities, Traditional knowledge
Introduction
India is a country that is deeply tied to its seas. It has a coastline that extends up to 7,500 kilometres, it also has two major island groups and rich fishing grounds that makes the ocean more than just water. It has been a source of food, culture, livelihood and spiritual connection for thousands of people. Alongside the cultural and ecological value it holds, marine ecosystems also consist of an extraordinary variety of species, from commercially significant fish and shellfish to special kinds of seaweed, sponges, corals and microorganisms that have pharmaceutical potential.
A large number of Islands along the Indian coast in the Gulf of Mannar, Gulf of Kutch, Lakshadweep and Andaman group and the vast mangroves ecosystems along the coast of Goa, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal constitute rich marine biodiversity supporting variety of species of corals, sponges, ornamental fishes, crustaceans, molluscs and plants. 1 Collectively, these form what we refer to as the marine bioresources which is even better known as the wealth of the seas that sustain both economies and communities. The importance of these resources cannot merely be stated in words. The coastal communities in states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat and West Bengal depend heavily on fishing activities for the purpose of survival.
Apart from fishing, countless industries ranging from nutraceuticals and pharmaceuticals to aquaculture, seaweed farming and even biotechnology, extract raw materials from the marine environment. This commercial use brings with it a very crucial question, how do we ensure that those who have protected and relied on these ecosystems for generations actually benefit from the profits being made through the usage of these resources? In the year 2002, India passed the Biological Diversity Act2 with an ambitious vision. The main objectives of the Act were to sustainably conserve the diverse biological resources of the country, regulate access to the biological resources and most importantly, promote fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of their use.
This Act was passed as a legislative response to India’s commitments under the Convention on Biodiversity in 19923, which specifically mentioned that biodiversity is a gift of nature while simultaneously backing it up 1 K. K. Joshi, M. S. Varsha & V. L. Sruthy, Marine Biodiversity of India- Status and Challenges 9 (Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute 2015
2 Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (India), Act No. 18 of 2003 (Feb. 5, 2003).
3 Convention on Biological Diversity, June 5, 1992, 1760 U.N.T.S. 79.
as a source of culture, knowledge and economic value of the society. It promised to be a critical link to balance environmental protection with environmental conservation. The Act therefore views resources as assets that the local communities have sustainably managed for generations which further enables them to have a rightful share in the benefits. The BDA, 2002, has in fact been essential in the governance of biodiversity in India for over
20 years now. However, the major issue with it is that its scope is largely based on terrestrial
ecosystems that include forests, agricultural biodiversity, medicinal plants and wildlife. The tribal communities have been the centre of discussions when it comes to aspects related to benefit sharing. The oceans represent centuries of interaction between humans and nature, specifically the coastal communities that rely on the sea which acts as their source of food, provider of income to their families and a foundation of traditional knowledge that has been passed down across generations. While the BBNJ Agreement creates a global pool, India must ensure that coastal communities, researchers, and conservation projects gain tangible benefits from participation. 4 The value that the Marine Biodiversity holds in India transcends beyond the economic charts. Fisheries and aquaculture contribute significantly to the national resources through exports with items like shrimp, tuna seaweed etc.
Small scale industries and local markets are largely dependent on marine resources. From fishes sold at dawn in the village markets to mussels and clams harvested from the coastal stretches or seaweed gathered by women in Tamil Nadu and Gujarat, marine resources have become a major part of the economic chains in the current times. The concept of Access and Benefit sharing was incorporated as the means of ensuring that the local communities don’t just end up being passive bystanders but active custodians of biodiversity. The basic idea behind such a concept was that when industries, corporations or researchers use biological resources for various purposes, a part of the profits or benefits they make out of it must be given to the communities either in the form of royalties or non-monetary benefits such as training, infrastructure or technology transfer.
Fishers who harvest tuna, women who collect seaweed or divers who gather pearl oysters are rarely acknowledged as 4 India Water Portal, Governing the Blue Commons: What the High Seas Treaty Means for India’s Coastal Communities (June 12, 2023) knowledge holders deserving of benefit sharing. Their relationship with the marine resources is seen as livelihood and not as a form of biodiversity stewardship. India’s marine ecosystems are more than just biodiversity hotspots, they are lifelines for millions, protectors of coasts, and drivers of economic growth. 5 This comes down to the central question and the driving force of this article: why are coastal and fishing communities excluded from the benefit-sharing framework despite their undeniable role in sustaining and utilizing marine biodiversity? The answer to that however, is not straightforward.
A part of it lies in the structure of the Biodiversity Act, that doesn’t explicitly mention marine ecosystems. The other part of the reason arises from the social and institutional gaps. The majority of them are unaware about their rights and as a result, they hold a weak representation in all the decision-making processes and also due to the normalization of their daily activities as routine labour rather than ecological services. An even bigger part of it lies in the inequalities since scientific research and corporate activity are recognized as contributors to biodiversity-based innovation, while traditional practices rooted in lived experiences are brushed aside as ordinary livelihood.
This article argues that overlooking marine biodiversity within the ABS framework not only undermines the spirit of the BDA but also raises questions regarding the inequities faced by fishing and coastal communities. If the Act is truly to achieve its promise of equitable benefit sharing, it must extend its reach into the seas and recognize that biodiversity is not just confined to forests. Marine ecosystems are equally vital, and the people who depend on them are equally deserving of recognition, protection, and a fair share in the benefits generated through its use. In this context, the article seeks to bring the “overlooked oceans” into a much sharper focus.
It intends not only to highlight a legal blind spot, but also to advocate for a more just, sustainable, and inclusive legal framework, valuing marine biodiversity as much as terrestrial biodiversity and giving community voices and rights their place in the conservation and development aspects. Section I: The ABS Regime under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 Initially when India passed the Biological Diversity Act 2002, the vision was not just limited 5 Sibu Kumar Tripathi, Why India Urgently Needs to Save Its Marine Biodiversity, India Today (May 23, 2025) to protecting the plants, animals and the ecosystem from overexploitation, it was also about recognizing the rights of the communities who have lived alongside these resources for generations and played a significant role in gathering information and knowledge about their sustainable use.
In order to protect these rights, Access to Benefit sharing was introduced under the Act. The primary objective of this mechanism was to act as a balancing scale between those who make use of such resources like corporations, industries, researchers and those who sustain them like the local and traditional communities. Access to benefit sharing as the name suggests, is a very straightforward principle which states that when biological resources are being utilized for commercial or research purposes, a part of the profits arising out of such commercialization needs to be shared with the local communities that nurture and conserve them. These benefits aren’t limited to monetary forms only.
While royalties, profit sharing percentage may form a part of monetary benefit sharing, the law has been deemed to be flexible enough to incorporate non-monetary benefits such as providing the communities with transfer of technology, infrastructural support and training on sustainable developments. This is to ensure that the communities don’t just act as raw material suppliers but also actively take part as stakeholders. With this Act also came a tiered system of authorities, namely, the National Biodiversity authority at the national level whose role is to regulate access and grant permission for usage of resources by foreign entities to ensure equitable benefit sharing. Next, the State Biodiversity Boards, they approve access to users from India and also act as an advisory authority to the NBA.
Finally, the BMCs are constituted for the grassroot level such as villages, panchayats and municipalities to record local knowledge, maintain registers of biological resources and serve as representatives of the communities in the ABS framework. Theoretically it’s an organised structure to recognize the voices and rights of the communities at the base and the ensuring oversight at the top. For instance, let’s say that a pharmaceutical company wants to make use of a plant consisting of medicinal properties with an intention to commercialise it at a later stage, the company is obligated to seek permission for such use from the appropriate authority. In case the plant is specifically located in the community’s region, the BMCs must play an active role in consulting with them regarding such use and make necessary arrangements relating to benefit sharing.
If the knowledge regarding certain plants is passed down to the tribal group from generation to generation, such knowledge is not considered as “free” but as a part of intellectual property. This means that the tribal group’s knowledge is an intellectual property in itself and they are the rightful owners of that very intellectual property. In this way, the ABS framework is meant to eliminate older systems wherein industries simply extracted the natural resources without giving back to the people who made their use possible. However, when we look at it practically, this framework heavily revolves around terrestrial ecosystems, from the number of recorded cases, documented registers to benefit sharing arrangements arising out of forest products, medicinal plants and agricultural biodiversity.
The tribes are known to have a vast knowledge regarding various herbal remedies, farmers for conserving the plant varieties and local communities for using plants for ritual and medicinal purposes which form the very core of this discourse altogether. This is understandable because the conservation movements in India majorly have strong connections with the forests, land and agriculture. Additionally, the policies and activism around “forest rights” and “farmers rights” led to more attention being drawn towards land-based biodiversity when the law came into existence. The potential of a legal framework on ABS to secure benefits from use of biological resources has not fully been explored so far. This limits the range of economic and social benefits that are channelled back to the communities.
6 The fishing communities have perfected the art of reading tides, different seasons, the movements of the fishes, choosing the right seaweed that could be used for food and sale, for over centuries. But such knowledge is barely recognised as ecological expertise, let alone being protected. By overlooking this significant aspect, the ABS framework leads to inequality. Industries and corporations exploiting marine resources reap a good number of profits whereas the ones that harvest, conserve and sustain and hold onto such knowledge are left with little to nothing. The law’s silence on marine biodiversity isn’t just a technical gap but it’s a blind spot that continues to marginalize thousands of coastal citizens. Unless this imbalance is addressed, they will continue to remain invisible in law and have no access to any benefits that could potentially sustain them.
6 Indo-German Biodiversity Programme, Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) Partnership Project 2 (2022).
Section II: Indian legal frameworks governing fisheries and their gaps The coastal regions of India are homes to a million small scale fishers whose entire livelihood depends on marine biodiversity. There are several laws governing the fishing activities and various policies that are meant to protect the resources and the ones relying on them such as the Indians Fisheries Act 1897, State Marine Fishing Regulation Acts, the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011, the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, and even policy documents like the National Policy on Marine Fisheries, 2017, and finally the Mainstreaming Biodiversity into Coastal and Marine Fisheries Report, 2018. Despite the existence of these instruments, when we examine all of them closely, we can see that the rights and interests of the fishing communities are only recognised in theory and paper.
The Indian Fisheries Act, 1897 This is a colonial framework with very limited vision and one of the earliest legal instruments that dealt with fisheries. This Act is majorly a regulatory statute. 7 It provides the government with powers to restrict fishing activities, prescribe seasons and punish in case any violations occur. It lacks any provision that secures the rights of the fisherfolk or provides them with equitable benefit sharing. Even though the Act is considered to be a regulatory statute, it treats fishers more as subjects that can be controlled and less as rightful stakeholders of resource management. Since there is a clear absence of community-based participation, it shows that the law’s essential objective was to control exploitation rather than empower the ones that depend on these resources for the purpose of survival.
State Marine Fishing Regulation Act Many coastal states of India such as Tamil Nadu and Kerala eventually came up with their own laws through the enactment of the State Marine Fishing Regulation Act8 in order to control the fishing practices and reduce the conflicts between mechanised and traditional boats. These Acts include provisions that seem to protect the small-scale fishers, like restricting the trawlers in shallow waters. However, these protections are administrative in nature, they don’t specifically
7 Indian Fisheries Act, 1897, Act No. IV of 1897 (4 Feb. 1897), archived at India Code
8 Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1983, Act No. 8 of 1983 (4 Mar. 1983) (Tamil Nadu) & Kerala Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1980 (Ker. ) (enacted 24 Nov. 1980) highlight the fisherfolk’s legal rights. Some aspects that this particular framework focuses on includes regulating fishing zones, issuing licenses and maintaining order at sea. They don’t grant fishers a voice in how resources are managed, most importantly they don’t offer benefit sharing opportunities when marine biodiversity is commercially used. Hence, through this framework, we can see that traditional fishing is recognised but they fail to create enforceable community rights for the same. Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011 The CRZ Notification of 20119 recognises the traditional coastal communities and aims to safeguard their livelihoods from unregulated coastal developments.
However, the protection provided under this Notification mostly extends to land based activities which include storing nets or drying fish and like any other framework related to the coastal communities, it does not emphasize on the broader access of rights. The fisher communities are still excluded from major decisions regarding industrial activities, tourism and projects related to infrastructure that directly impact their livelihoods. Hence, the CRZ only provides spatial protection, not socio-economic empowerment that is actually necessary. National Policy on Marine Fisheries, 2017 After the CRZ Notification, came the National Policy on Marine Fisheries, 201710 which brought along with it a progressive move by acknowledging the socio-economic struggles and hardship of the small-scale fishers while emphasizing on sustainable fishing that the previous frameworks failed to cover.
However, it remains as a mere Policy and not a law. It sets aspirational goals suggesting to improve the livelihoods of the fisherfolks and ensure equitable access to benefit sharing but it does not create rights that can be enforced. Again, this comes down to an intent without enforcement. Without legislative back up and strong mechanisms, the objectives of the aforesaid policy remain declaratory in nature. Implementation can only happen if there is a strong administrative will, absence of which has left many fishers vulnerable even in the current times. 9 Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011, S. O. No. 19(E), Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Sec. 3 (6 Jan. 2011) 10 Govt. of India, Dept. of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries, National Policy on Marine Fisheries, 2017 (notified 28 Apr.
2017) Mainstreaming Biodiversity into Coastal and Marine Fisheries Management, 2018 In the year 2018, India released the report “Mainstreaming Biodiversity into Coastal and Marine Fisheries Management”11 which recognised the need to integrate biodiversity conservation with fisheries governance. The main issue with this document is that it lacks clear strategies that show the inclusion of local fishers in biodiversity-related decisions or benefit sharing frameworks. It doesn’t recognise fisher communities as key stakeholders but only emphasises the need to address challenges such as overfishing, pollution and climate change. Across all these frameworks revolving around fisheries and marine biodiversity, we could see the constant repetition of one pattern, laws and policies mention fishers but rarely empower them.
The absence of explicit recognition of traditional marine knowledge and ABS mechanisms leave them out of the conservation economy. In a nutshell, the Indian Fisheries Act and state MFRAs regulate without empowering, the CRZ Notification protects land but not livelihoods, the BDA, 2002 speaks of benefit-sharing but overlooks marine realities, and the 2018 mainstreaming document acknowledges the issue without providing solutions. Therefore, in practice, the fisher communities are the most visible yet least protected stakeholders in India’s coastal governance which proves that the law has yet to truly reach the shore.
Recommendations for Fair Rights and Benefit Sharing for Fishing Communities in India Even though India has a number of laws and policies related to fisheries and marine resources, the people that depend on the sea for their basic livelihood, such as the small-scale and traditional fishers are always left behind. Through various aspects of this article, we have come across issues where the voices of these communities are barely heard while making important decisions regarding marine resources and the benefits arising out of them that we emphasize so much on, rarely reaches them. Therefore, to fix these loopholes and gaps, the following recommendations are to be taken into consideration: Firstly, the fisher communities must be directly involved in the decision-making process about marine resources.
At present, laws and government programs are mostly planned by officials without taking advice from the people who actually work in the sea every day. Fishers know 11 Ctr. for Biodiversity Policy & Law (CEBPOL), National Biodiversity Authority, Mainstreaming Biodiversity into Coastal & Marine Fisheries (2018) the sea better than anyone else, they know its seasonal changes, what practices can be undertaken to meet with sustainability etc. This way the laws and policies would be more practical and fairer. Secondly, fishers should have clear rights to access and share benefits that arise out of marine resources. Many development projects such as ports and industries, take away their fishing areas without giving them any share of the benefits.
There should be a legal system that explicitly guarantees fishers the right to access these waters and ensures that when marine resources are commercially used through deep-sea fishing, aquaculture or research, the local fishing communities receive a fair share of the respective profits. With this, the basic idea of “Access to Benefit Sharing” is successfully fulfilled. Thirdly, the government schemes should reach the actual fishers, not just the large operators or middlemen. As mentioned earlier, there are many programs for fishermen’s welfare and support but many of them, especially the women and the inland fishing groups, are not aware of their rights. Hence, the government should come up with simple, straightforward and transparent systems where benefits, insurance or even financial aid can directly reach the fishers without any corruption or delay.
Next, education and awareness are some of the most important factors. Many fishers till this day, are not completely aware of their legal rights under the Indian Fisheries Act, the Coastal regulation Zone notifications and the Biological Diversity Act which essentially talks about the benefit sharing provisions. To overcome this gap, regular workshops, local meetings and legal awareness drives should be held to help them understand how they can access support and claim legal rights. Finally, the policies should treat fishers not as beneficiaries, but as rightful partners in resource management. They have played a consistent role in preserving marine biodiversity for generations through their traditional knowledge.
By recognizing their contribution through formal rights and fair benefit sharing, not only will it protect their livelihoods, but it will also make India’s marine ecosystem more sustainable and inclusive. Conclusion India’s seas tell a story of survival, tradition and quiet exclusion. For generations, the fisher communities have tirelessly safeguarded the marine ecosystems through lived knowledge and sustainable practices. Even then, when it comes to laws and policies, their presence fades into the background. The language of law protects the waters, not those who work in them. The core failure lies in how the policies view the ocean as a resource that can be controlled rather than a livelihood that is meant to be nurtured. Benefit sharing in the marine sphere continues to remain a distant promise even now.
The 2018 effort to mainstream marine biodiversity was only a step toward inclusion, it never truly grounded itself in community realities. Without legal recognition of their rights or even direct participation in resource decisions, fishers remain outsiders in a system that has been built on their very labour. The Access to Benefit Sharing framework should be reassessed to value traditional knowledge in the spheres of marine biodiversity and strictly ensure that profits arising from marine resources flow back to those who sustain them. If India’s marine future is meant to be just and sustainable, the people of the coast must stand at its centre. Empowering them is not only about fairness but it is the most effective to protect the ocean itself. It isn’t just an optional reform, but an urgent necessity.
Only with the help of these measures will the tide of progress finally reach those who have always lived by the shore.