Bolstering the Implementation Framework for Biodiversity Regulations

Bolstering the Implementation Framework for Biodiversity Regulations

The Biodiversity Act, 2002 in India, designed to conserve biological diversity, regulate access to biological resources, and ensure equitable benefit-sharing, faces significant challenges in enforcing marine biodiversity conservation, particularly in maritime zones.

The Act lacks clear and strong enforcement powers for officers empowered under Section 61, such as the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) and State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs). These officers lack coercive powers like arrest, search, and seizure, and their investigative capacity and field-level enforcement infrastructure are limited [1].

Section 55B of the Act allows authorities to enter land, vehicles, or premises for inspection, investigation, and survey, but these powers do not specifically or robustly target biodiversity enforcement, especially marine biodiversity [1]. Enforcement in maritime zones is further hindered by logistical constraints and the absence of a dedicated enforcement cadre trained in criminal procedure or forensic methods relevant to biodiversity [1].

Recent amendments, such as the 2023 Biological Diversity (Amendment) Act and the 2025 NBA Regulations, focus on easing compliance and benefit-sharing rather than enhancing enforcement coercive powers or specific protections for marine biodiversity [2]. The Coast Guard is now enabled, in principle, to exercise enforcement powers under the BDA in India's maritime zones, but the lack of a well-defined enforcement framework limits their ability to enforce biodiversity conservation and protection.

The incident involving the container ship MSC Elsa 3, which reportedly sank off the Kerala coast on May 24, highlights the need for a more robust enforcement framework to address potential impacts on marine biodiversity from environmental disasters in marine zones [4].

To ensure effective implementation of its conservation objectives, the BDA must confer specific and actionable enforcement powers upon the existing institutions, and new institutional arrangements or coordination mechanisms may be necessary [6]. The BDA's silence on whether officers empowered under Section 61 are entitled to seek the assistance of other general law enforcement agencies and whether general law enforcement agencies are under a legal obligation to assist them can severely hinder the effectiveness of the said enforcement architecture [7].

Professor Jacob Joseph, a Professor of Law at Saveetha School of Law, SIMATS, Chennai, emphasizes the importance of robust institutional frameworks and effective enforcement mechanisms for conserving and protecting biodiversity, particularly marine biodiversity, in the years to come [8]. He highlights the critical gap in the BDA's silence on specific enforcement powers for biodiversity conservation and protection, particularly in scenarios like the MSC Elsa 3 incident [5].

Marine spaces present unique challenges for biodiversity governance, requiring distinct legal and institutional approaches compared to terrestrial ecosystems [9]. The BDA's extension to the exclusive economic zone, continental shelf, and contiguous zone in 2023 lacks institutional or procedural mechanisms for biodiversity governance and enforcement in marine spaces [3].

In conclusion, the current enforcement framework under the Biodiversity Act, 2002 lacks strong, clear, and specialized enforcement provisions tailored for marine biodiversity in India's maritime zones. It relies largely on general investigatory powers without coercive authority and faces institutional constraints that hamper effective protection and conservation in the marine context [1][3]. Robust institutional frameworks and effective enforcement mechanisms are essential to conserve and protect biodiversity, particularly marine biodiversity, in the years to come.

References: 1. Environmental Conservation Organisation (ECO) 2. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change 3. Down To Earth 4. The Hindu 5. The Wire 6. Indian Journal of Environmental Law 7. Bar & Bench 8. The News Minute 9. The Wire

1. The lack of clear, coercive powers in the Biodiversity Act, 2002, such as the ability to arrest, search, and seize, hampers the effectiveness of officers like the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) and State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs) in dealing with climate-change issues related to marine biodiversity.
2. The enforcement of marine biodiversity conservation policies and legislation in maritime zones is hindered not only by the absence of coercive powers but also by logistical challenges and the need for a dedicated enforcement cadre trained in forensic methods relevant to biodiversity.
3. The recent amendments to the Biodiversity Act, like the 2023 Biological Diversity (Amendment) Act and the 2025 NBA Regulations, have not focused on enhancing enforcement coercive powers or specific protections for marine biodiversity, instead focusing more on ease of compliance and benefit-sharing.
4. To conserve and protect marine biodiversity effectively, it's crucial to strengthen the institutional framework and enforcement mechanisms in the Biodiversity Act, 2002, especially in the provision of clear, actionable enforcement powers, and possibly new institutional arrangements or coordination mechanisms. This is important to address the current gap in the Act's silence on specific enforcement powers for marine biodiversity conservation and protection, as highlighted by Professor Jacob Joseph.

Read also: