1. “Conserving Biodiversity, Defending Traditional
Knowledge: 25 years of resisting biopiracy”
Round Table on
“Preventing Biopiracy: Protecting
Traditional Knowledge”
on 4th & 5th of April 2012,
Navdanya,
New Delhi – 110 003
Environment Support Group
Bangalore
www.esgindia.org

2. Discovering Brinjal
Biopiracy
• Like most others, we were
examining the environmental and
social implications of B.t. Brinjal
particularly in the backdrop of the
Bt cotton experiences, and
concerns of organic farmers
• When we wondered to who does
the cotton that was accessed, and
now brinjal, belong. Especially
considering that by 2010, about
90% of cotton seed market had
been monopolised by Mahyco’s B.t.
Cotton

3. • When contacted, National Biodiversity Authority openly acknowledged Brinjal
that the regulatory agency had not approved access to local varieties of
cotton now brinjal. Thus, confirming that the entire operation was in
violation of Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992 and Biological
Biopiracy
Diversity Act, 2002.
• Such non compliance amounted to a serious crime and an act of bio
piracy.
• Close review of all minutes of NBA confirmed the fact that at no point in
its history, 2003-2010, the Authority had ever addressed the issue of
legitimate access to indigenous varieties of brinjal. (The same agency,
however, found time to discuss at length if its members’ dentistry costs
could be reimbursed by the Government!)
• This was alarming as what was at stake here was not merely commercially
accessing local varieties of brinjal, most of which are endemic in very local
geographies, but that they were also being genetically modified and
commercially commmodified by American multinationals
(Monsanto/Mahyco) and universities (Cornell), with funding support from
American Government (USAID), through a front company – Sathguru.
• Indian Universities were being used as conduits to access local genetic
material, and also to undertake field trials. (UAS-Dharwad, Tamil Nadu
Agricultural Univ, Indian Inst. Of Vegetable Research-Lucknow)
• We thought all this was relevant to the ongoing discussion on B.t. Brinjal,
in the context of public consultations organised by the then Environment
minister Mr. Jairam Ramesh.
• Most thought we were raising a bogus alarm!

4. April 2005 Agreements
1.Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd.
(Mahyco), Indian subsidiary of Monsanto (Owner
of Cry I AC gene, inserted into Brinjal) How were 12
2.University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwar
(allowed access to 6 local varieties, including
farmer bred)
Brinjal Varieties
3.Tamilnadu Agricultural University (4 varieties of
brinjal)
taken?
4.Indian Vegetable Research Institute, Varanasi
(8 varieties, incl. 2 hybrids)
5.Sathguru Management Consultants Pvt Ltd
6.Cornell University (Cry I AC gene patent)
7.US AID
Sub-licensee Agreements for accessing local
varieties of Brinjal into which the patented B.t.
gene was inserted at Mahyco lab in Maharashtra.
The B.t. Brinjal product is a commodity and
property of Mahyco/Monsanto.
Karnataka varieties accessed are Malpur Local,
Manjari Gota, Kudachi Local, Udupi Local, 112 GO
and Pabkavi Local
No compliance whatsoever with Biological
Diversity Act 2002

5. 190 plants declared Normally Traded
Commodities
• We also discovered another shocking act of
negligence on the part of MoEF and NBA who
without any public consultation notified 190 plants
as Normally Traded Commodities per sec 40 of BD
Act
• Of the 190 plants, 15 species were found to be
highly endangered, a fact confirmed by IUCN.
• There is absolutely no regulation on trade in
biological resources in India. Once listed as NTC,
the weak regulatory framework completely exposes
the bioresources to over-exploitation, and potential
extinction of species.
• The case of a fish Puntius denisonii, also known as
Miss Kerala, is indicative of the threat that exists.
• Miss Kerala, discovered as a collector’s item in the
1996 Rome Aquarium Congress, has by 2010 come
close to extinction due to commercial trade.
• IUCN has now placed it on the Red List - nearing
extinction.
• If endangered plants are removed from the purview
of the BD Act will they not meet the same fate?

7. Brinjals in Karnataka
• About 50 varieties of brinjal are available in Karnataka, of
which Matti Gulla is one. It is known for its low moisture
content, which makes it ideal for delicacies and ensures its
long shelf life.
• It is sacred because of its legendary origins attributed to
Vadiraja, one of the seers of the Dwaita school, who
supposedly gave its seeds to the inhabitants of Matti to
sow, and grow out of poverty.
• With a Global Indicator tag, marking Matti as the exclusive
growing place of the Matti Gulla, the first harvest of this
jade-and-moss green striped brinjal from this tiny hamlet
is traditionally taken to the Udupi Srikrishna temple – as it
is considered the Lord’s favourite vegetable.
• Sit down for a meal at the temple, and it'll show up on
your leaf, shallow fried with a freshly-ground masala of red
chilly, curry leaves, mustard, methi and coriander seeds. It
could also be served as a fragrant “bolu huli”, cooked with
tur dal as base and seasoned with hing to counter its
astringency.
• Is inserting a transgene into Matti Golla an ethically
correct decision, particularly considering that it is a sacred
offering in a temple revered for its vegetarian purity?

8. ESG exposed Brinjal Biopiracy in
February 2010
• ESG formally raised brinjal bio piracy and the 190 plants
NTC issues in the last public consultation on B.t. Brinjal
held by Jairam Ramesh on 6th February 2010
• He publicly ridiculed this submission.
• Two days later, in his unprecedented decision ordering
moratorium on environmental release of B.t. Brinjal, he
specifically chose to rebut the biopiracy claims – evident
in the 1st footnote of his decision.
• What was worrying was that neither the Government
and its instrumentalities, nor farmers and environment
action groups focussing any attention on this gross
violation of laws and acts of bio piracy
• Troubled by this, we filed Formal Complaints with the
Karnataka Biodiversity Board, MoEF and NBA
in February 2010, on both biopiracy and 190 plants
(NTC) issues
• The Board systematically investigated the issues raised,
and repeatedly confirmed its intent to prosecute
violators on biopiracy.
• No concurrent action was evident from NBA or MoEF
through 2010 and much of 2011.
• The Board repeatedly sought advise from National
Biodiversity Authority but did not get any support till
about April 2011

9. Is NTC clause a gateway to species
extinction?
• "India Losing Rare Medicinal Plants",
published on the front page of The Asian
Age, 14th February, 2010, in which
Jairam Ramesh is quoted to have said
that "a five-year moratorium should be
placed on the export of all raw
materials in order to save these plants
from extinction” while admitting
“annually, Rs. 800 crores worth of rare
medicinal plants are being exported in
raw form. These plants then get re-
imported back into the country as
medicines which are sold at much higher
prices.“
• Yet no action has been taken to review
listing 190 plants as Normally Traded
Commodities – over two years since we
filed the complaint against the decision

10. Prosecution confirmed in Parliament
• Jairam Ramesh completely ignored our biopiracy complaint
throughout his term.
• This forced us to approach Parliamentarians in a public campaign,
and many, cutting across party lines, took up the issue.
• CPI, Samajvadi Party, BJP, Janata Dal (S) and others took up the
issue with the MoEF and demanded to know from Jayanti
Natarajan, who succeeded Jairam Ramesh, to confirm why action
was not being initiated on the ESG complaints.
• Under pressure, NBA finally confirmed in a meeting held in June
2011 that it would initiate prosecution of Monsanto/Mahyco and
others involved on biopiracy charges, based on ESG’s complaint.
• Natarajan, in he submission to Parliament, said the prosecution is
the joint responsibility of National Biodiversity Authority and State
Biodiversity Boards (Karnataka, Tamilnadu and Uttar Pradesh)
NBA resolution, 20 June 2011:
• “A background note besides legal opinion on Bt brinjal on the
alleged violation by the M/s. Mahyco/M/s Monsanto, and their
collaborators for accessing and using the local brinjal varieties for
development of Bt brinjal with out prior approval of the competent
authorities was discussed and it was decided that the NBA may
proceed legally against M/s. Mahyco/ M/s Monsanto, and all
others concerned to take the issue to its logical conclusion.”

11. Parliament told Monsanto will be
prosecuted on biopiracy charges
Finding of NBA on BT. BRINJAL
9th September 2011
National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) has received
a complaint from M/s. Environment Support
Group, an NGO on the alleged violation by M/s.
Mahyco / M/s. Monsanto and their collaborators
for accessing and using the local brinjal varieties
for development of Bt Brinjal. NBA has decided to
proceed as per law against the alleged violators on
the basis of reports of the State Biodiversity Board
for accessing and using the local brinjal varieties
without prior approval of the competent authority.
This information was given by the Minister of State
for Environment and Forests (Independent Charge)
Shrimati Jayanthi Natarajan in a written reply to a
question by Shri M.P. Achuthan And Shri D. Raja in
Rajya Sabha today.

12. Karnataka Capitulates to Biotech
Industry Pressure
• Warmed by NBA’s much delayed, yet affirmative,
support to prosecute Monsanto and others, Karnataka
Biodiversity Board began to initiate follow up action.
• Meanwhile, not willing to take any chances, ESG
worked with farmers to issue private citizen suit
notices on regulators to force them to take action.
• NBA now seemed very serious to initiate criminal
prosecution against Monsanto and others.
• In a shocking volte face, Karntata Board in its January
2012 meeting chaired by tainted former Karnataka
Environment Minister Krishna Palemar, decided to
abandon prosecution of Monsanto/Mahco on grounds
of biopiracy, and what are very lame reasons.
• Mr. Kaushik Mukherjee, IAS, Addl. Chief Secretary and
Head of Dept. of Ecology, Environment and Forests of
Karnataka, Chief Custodian of Biodiversity in
Karnataka, apparently pushed for this reversal.
• This was Karnataka’s way to demonstrate its
enthusiasm in welcoming biotech companies
• This decision came just before Bangalore Bio 2012 – a
major conclave of biotech companies.

13. And now NBA Capitulates?
Decision taken by NBA in its 22nd Meeting held
on 22nd November 2012
•22.10 (g) Case on Bt brinjal
•The Secretary, NBA presented the status of
action being taken on the issue of responding
to a complaint of misappropriation of brinjal by
M/s Mahyco. Two official members and one
non-official member suggested no legal action
be taken since the issue was merely a research
collaboration that was exempted under the
purview of the Act. The Chairman then
provided the current legal interpretation of the
case. Based on this, the members authorised
the Chairman to seek necessary legal opinion in
the matter and decide accordingly. The
Chairman has informed the members that the
issue on hand is purely that of possible
misappropriation of local brinjal varieties and
has nothing to do with biotechnology per se
and/or its application.
Action: Secretary, NBA

14. Who Owns Natural resources? Who
uses? Who decides? Who benefits?
• The people are the owners and the
State is the custodian
• However, in practice, the State has
arrogated to itself the power of
ownership
• Movements and struggles to
reclaim control of natural resources
and commons have been patchily
successful

15. “The State shall, in particular, direct its
policy towards securing
(a)that the citizens, men and women
equally, have the right to an adequate
means of livelihood;
(b)that the ownership and control of the
material resources of the community are
so distributed as best to subserve the
common good;
(c) that the operation of the
economic system does not result
in the concentration of wealth and
means of production to the
common detriment”
Article 39 of the Constitution of India.

16. Emerging Policies and
Trends
Globalisation induced polices
• Push for high growth rate in GDP terrms
• FDI and private sector participation
• But skews relationships of ownership,
traditional use and control of natural
resources.
Strong influencing factors:
• Govindarajan Committee on Investment
Reforms, 2002
• National Environmental Policy, 2006
• National Water Policy, 2002
• National Agricultural Policy, 2000
• National Mineral Policy, 2008

17. How to fix the problem in a GDP based economy?
World Investment Report, 2009
“Government could … promote contract
farming between TNCs and local farmers
in the direction of enhancing farmers' predictable
income, productive capacities and benefits from
global value chains.”
However, to deal with the extensive adverse
impacts:
“...that deal with the need for international
community (to) devise a set of core
principles transparency in large-scale land
acquisitions, respect for existing land rights, the
right to food, protection of indigenous peoples,
and social and environmental sustainability”.

18. “Increasingly, transnational corporations are
engaging with developing and transition World Investment
economies through a broadening array of
production and investment models, such as Report 2011
contract manufacturing and farming, service
outsourcing, franchising and licensing. These
relatively new phenomena present
opportunities for developing and transition
economies to deepen their integration into
the rapidly evolving global economy, to
strengthen the potential of their home-
grown productive capacity, and to improve
their international competitiveness.
Unlocking the full potential of these new
developments will depend on wise
policymaking and institution building by
governments and international
organizations. Entrepreneurs and businesses
in developing and transition economies
need frameworks in which they can benefit
fully from integrated international
production and trade”.
BAN Ki-moon
Secretary-General of the United Nations
Figure 1. Top 10 recipients and sources of FDI inflows in developing
Asia, 2009, 2010 (Billions of dollars)

19. The Mantra for growth
• Developing countries
should have Open Door
policy to TNCs
• Pave way for FDI with
minimal licensing and
regulation of operations.
• Mobilise domestic
resources - infrastructure,
skilled labour and finance
• Technocratic institutional
support, not
representative and
accountable to public

20. International and National
laws protecting biodiversity
Convention on Biological diversity, Rio, 1992.
International and Legally binding treaty.
Convention has three main goals:
•conservation of biological diversity (or
biodiversity);
•sustainable use of its components; and
•fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from
genetic resources
Convention’s Objectives:
•Develop national strategies for the conservation
and sustainable use of biological diversity.
Indiá’s Compliance Legislations:
National Biological diversity Act 2002
National Biological Diversity Rules 2004

21. Violating Farmers Rights under Access
and Benefit Sharing
 Collaborators have
comprehensively failed to comply
with Rule 14 of the Biological
Diversity Rules, relating to
“Procedure for access to
biological resources and
associated traditional knowledge”
 They have also attempted to
escape their liabilities under Sec.
21 of the Act, which guarantees
due rights to local communities
under the Access and Equitable
Benefit Sharing Protocol, a
principle objective of Convention
on Biological Diversity, 1992, to
which India is a signatory.

22. Regulator or Individual action to save
biodiversity from Biopiracy?
 State and National Regulatory
agency duty bound to act against
violators per Sec. 61 (A) of the
Biodiversity Act.
 Any independent person or benefit
claimer can also initiate action
against violator per Section 61 (B)
of the Act, giving notice on
regulator of intention to do so.
 If no action is taken by regulator
within a period of 30 days of
receiving notice, benefit claimant
can independently move the
appropriate court in accordance
with law.

23. Offences and Punishment
Violations Punishment
Sections 3, 4 and 6 Imprisonment upto 5 years and/or fine upto Rs. 10
lakhs. Additional fine where damage exceeds Rs. 10
lakhs
Sections 7 and Section 24 (2) Imprisonment upto 3 years and/or fine upto Rs. 5
lakhs
Contravention of any direction of Central and State First offence: Fine upto Rs. 1 lakh
Governments and NBA and SBB Subsequent offence: Fine upto Rs. 2 lakhs
Continuous offence: Rs. 2 lakhs everyday when
default period continues
• All offences under the Act are cognisable (violators can be arrested
without warrant) and are also non-bailable.
• When companies are violators, the company and officers in-charge
are accountable for the violation.
• Punishments under the Biological Diversity Act are in addition to
those already provided in laws protecting forests (Forest
Conservation Act) and wildlife (Wildlife Protection Act).
• Provisions of Forest Rights Act further apply.

24. State Shelters Monsanto while it Hosts
the CBD (COP)11
• Protecting India's biodiversity is the
collective responsibility of
Biodiversity Management
Committees at the
District Level, State Biodiversity
Boards and the National Biodiversity
Authority.
• State Biodiversity Boards and the
National Biodiversity Authority have
powers to initiate prosecution against
violators, through the officials of
the State Forest Departments and
others.
• Decision to not implement the law
against violators is outrageous in a
year when India will host the 11th
Conference of Parties on the
Convention on Biological Diversity in
October at Hyderabad.