S PaulrajThe Tamil Nadu Biodiversity Board (TNBB) is failing to achieve its statutory goals, with 13,600 biodiversity management committees (BMC) existing largely on paper and failing to engage local communities in the preparation of people’s biodiversity registers (PBR). Despite some access and benefit sharing collections, the system is hindered by bureaucratic bottlenecks, limited enforcement against corporations, and a reliance on overextended administrative staff rather than leveraging existing village forest committees of the forest department.The Biological Diversity Act, 2002, mandates establishment of BMC at every local body in India. The objective is the conservation of biological resources, sustainable utilisation of its components and to ensure that benefits arising from access are used to fulfil the goals of the Act and/or shared with the benefit-claimers. BMCs in India embody the spirit of local self-governance.However, across various states, the execution of the Act’s provisions — particularly benefit-sharing with local populations — has progressed at a snail’s pace. In Tamil Nadu, active implementation was only triggered in 2017 with the notification of the Tamil Nadu Biological Diversity Rules, almost 15 years after the central legislation was passed. Yet, even after this milestone, the implementation process continues to struggle to achieve its core objectives.A critical evaluation reveals that the TNBB’s reported progress is unsubstantiated. These committees are non-compliant with the TN Biological Diversity Rules, 2017, as designated panchayat members are unaware of their roles and no statutory meetings have occurred, rendering authentic PBR compilation impossible.The Board’s access and benefit-sharing mechanism functions as a centralizd levy, with its most recent `75 lakh in revenue derived almost exclusively from a few bio-resources such as red sanders rather than diverse local resources. This approach undermines the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, by failing to incentivize local conservation, a situation exacerbated by weak enforcement and significant untapped revenue from large-scale bio-resources harvesting firms whose annual revenue turnovers exceed `5 lakh (baseline amount fixed for mandatory contribution as per the latest amendment to biological diversity rules, 2025).TNBB’s underperformance stems from an operational flaw: a 10-member staff depends on overburdened local developmental departmental officials, rendering field-level management ineffective. A superior strategy involves leveraging the forest department’s extensive network of village forest committees for a primary executive role, aligning with national biodiversity authority guidelines to integrate BMCs with existing local conservation bodies.In addition, collaborating with NGOs to recruit and train local volunteers as community resource persons is vital for conducting effective BMC sessions and executing PBR documentation. Although certain NGOs have delivered remarkable results in this arena, the board has taken no specialized steps to systematically deploy their expertise across the state, leaving a critical institutional resource completely untapped.TNBB’s statutory compliance is equally compromised regarding its internal meetings and leadership structure. While Section 11 of the biological diversity rules mandates that the board must convene at least twice a year, meetings are held only once annually.A major irregularity lies in the appointment of the state’s forest minister as board chairperson. According to TN Biological Diversity Rule 3: “The chairperson shall be appointed by the govt in terms of clause (a) of sub-section (4) of Section 22 of the Act either on deputation of a person not below the rank of principal secretary or by selection from outside the govt.”Tamil Nadu and Meghalaya are the only two states to have appointed a forest minister as board chairperson, a clear violation of Rule 3. Consequently, systemic statutory violations compromise TNBB’s constitution and operational functioning.Under the existing system of TNBB management, it will seldom be possible to reach the masses and fulfil the primary objectives of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. TNBB must operate with greater transparency regarding BMC operations and ABS disbursements. Without a critical, immediate, and structural shift, the entire programme will remain trapped in the state of a neglected child.The solution may exist within the state’s own conservation history. During my career as district forest officer, we implemented the Tamil Nadu afforestation programme (TAP) involving local communities by forming village forest committees. It allowed the villagers to sustainably harvest forest produce in exchange for protecting it — all governed by a plan drawn up in consultation with the committees. The model worked because it gave local people a direct stake in conservation, backed by a dedicated administrative structure built for the job.BMCs are the non-forest counterpart of those village committees, tasked with conserving and sustainably using bio-resources outside forest boundaries. Yet unlike the village committees, they have been placed under the joint charge of revenue officials and block development officers, neither of whom have the bandwidth to prioritise biodiversity work over their existing development mandates. This structural mismatch, rather than any flaw in the law itself, may be the central reason BMCs remain dormant while forest-based committees flourished.A change of custodian is the need of the hour. Transferring primary responsibility for BMC formation and functioning to the forest department — utilizing its existing field network, technical expertise, and demonstrated success with village forest committees — would align with national biodiversity authority guidelines calling for integration of BMCs with established local conservation bodies. Freed from being a secondary duty for revenue and block development officers, and instead anchored to a department with conservation as its core mandate, BMCs could finally begin to function as intended.(The writer is a former Indian forest service officer of the Tamil Nadu forest department)
