UNEP – GEF – MoEF: ABS Project

Report on

National Consultation Meeting on

Economic Valuation of Bio-Resources for
Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS)

9th& 10th December 2013, Chennai

National Biodiversity Authority

1
 About the National Consultation Meeting

A National Consultation Meeting on the Economic Valuation of Bio-resources for Access

and Benefit Sharing (ABS) was held on 9th and 10th December, 2013 at the National
Biodiversity Authority (NBA), Chennai. Around seventy participants from the fields of
environmental economics, agricultural economics, business management, ecology, and
environment and biotechnology participated in this consultation. A brief concept note about
the consultation can be found in Appendix 1.

The Objective of the two day consultation meeting was to assess and review the methodology
suggested by the NBA for bio-resources valuation, with special reference to the Access and
Benefit Sharing (ABS) component and to obtain expert opinion on using the methodology in
the field.

On the first day, apart from the opening plenary, two thematic sessions (containing 4
presentations) and a group discussion were conducted. The second day started with the group
presentations on the group discussion. Subsequently, few participants presented proposals on
using the methodology in the field. The workshop ended with a closing plenary (see the
program of the consultation in Appendix 2).

Day 1
Opening Plenary

Mr. Achalender Reddy, Secretary, NBA, welcomed the

experts and the participants. He explained the significance
of the national consultation in detail, and the objectives of
the Biological Diversity Act, particularly, the Access and
Benefit Sharing provisions.

2
Prof. U. Sankar, Emeritus Professor, Madras School of
Economics, Chennai, delivered the key note address on
“Economics and Access and Benefit Sharing: Overview”
(text of the address is provided in Appendix 3). In his key
note address, Prof. Sankar highlighted issues such as:
significance of biodiversity and management efforts at the
global and national levels, imperfect nature of the bio-resources market, undefined or poorly
defined property rights to most of the bio-resources, non-excludability and non-rivalry
character, recent trend of transformation of bio-resources from non-merit (public goods) to
merit goods (private goods), valuation of biodiversity / bio-resources and challenge, NBA’s
requirements, and suggestions for the valuation of bio-resources.

A special publication titled “Economic

Valuation of Bio-resources for Access and
Benefit Sharing” was launched. This
publication (written by Prakash Nelliyat and
Balakrishna Pisupati) includes various
aspects related to bio-resources valuation in
the ABS regime, and consists of the
following sections: (a) Introduction, (b)
Classical Approach, followed by Environmental Economics in Valuing Ecosystems, (c) How
Bio-resources Valuation for ABS Differs from the Ecosystem Valuation? (d) Why is the Real
Value Estimation of Bio-resources Significant? (e) Need for a Paradigm Shift in Valuation
for ABS, (f) Development Process of the Valuation Methodology of Bio-resources in NBA,
(g) Possible Approaches / Methodologies for the Valuation of Bio-resources Drafted by
NBA, for ABS Purposes, and (h) Conclusions.

Dr. Subramaniyan, Member, NBA, provided special address, wherein

he traced the evolution of NBA’s growth and infrastructure
development. He expressed his gratitude to the NBA Chairman for
the additional infrastructure, and for guiding the effective
implementation of the Act.

3
 Dr. Balakrishna Pisupati, Chairman, NBA provided special
remarks. He highlighted the work of NBA thus for on
economic valuation and ABS and requested participants to
suggests ways of translating the economic potential of our
bio-resources into real.

Mr. Ishwar Poojar thanked all the speakers in the inaugural section
and all the participants for their interest and time.

Thematic Session - 1 (Presentations)

Bio-resources Valuation for ABS

After the opening plenary a thematic session titled “Bio-resources Valuation for ABS” was
held. This session was jointly chaired by Professor U. Sankar and Professor M. N. Murty,
South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics (SANDEE). Two
papers were presented in this session.

The first paper (Bio-resources Valuation for

Access and Benefit Sharing) was presented
by Dr. Prakash Nelliyat, NBA. The
presentation highlighted various issues
related to the economic valuation of bio-
resources and the process of development
of methodology for bio-resources valuation
for ABS purposes.

Professor Paul P. Appasamy made his presentation on

“Challenges in the Valuation of Bio-resources for Benefit
Sharing”. In his presentation, various ABS operational
challenges were explained in detail. He suggested the need
to consider the following that (a) the methodology must be
easy to apply by the NBA secretariat, (b) NBA cannot
undertake a research exercise for each case (hence some

4
general approach is required), (c) Information requirements from the user must not be
cumbersome and must be time bound, and (d) Terms for benefit sharing have to be mutually
acceptable (MAT), fair and equitable and most importantly the methodology should deal with
ABS issues and their implementation.

Professor M. N. Murty
(Chairperson) congratulated
both the speakers and stated
that the central issue in
valuation is the market failure
and the undefined property
rights for bio-resources.
Hence, he suggested that the
communities’ rights have to
be safeguarded. ABS related
valuation is a new area, and entirely different from the classical environmental economics
subjects, which is taught in the universities he said.

Thematic Session - 2 (Presentations)

Sector Specific Valuation of Bio-resources

During Thematic Session-II on “Sector Specific Valuation of Bio-

resources” that was chaired by Professor Rita Pandey, National
Institute of Public Finance and Policy, New Delhi, two presentations
were made.

The first presentation was made by Dr.

Suneetha, UNU-IAS, on the topic “Economic
Valuation for ABS: Conceptual Issues”. This
presentation attempted to lay down the
conceptual framework for valuation related to
ABS. Dr. Suneetha concluded her

5
presentation with a question; ABS towards what? In this regard she proposed at the first level
(community), rights over the resources and knowledge being important, which determines
their various development options. At the second level (national) asserting the sovereignty,
securing/conserving national assets and resources, and economic development are the criteria.
At the third level (international) equitable terms of trade and conservation objectives are
significant.

Dr. G. Haripriya, IIT, Mumbai made

a presentation on “Valuing the
Genetic Material in Forest”. The
presentation covered a wide range of
issues including: explanation and
definitions of biodiversity, value of
biodiversity at different levels: local,
regional, national and international,
biodiversity is one of the very poorly
understood natural resources and is being lost rapidly as a result of human activities, social
significance of biodiversity, pricing of genetic materials, bio-resources case marginal benefit
and marginal cost curve are not known, different approaches towards the value of genetic
diversity, data requirement for valuing bio-resources, assumptions, and bio-prospecting
values of Indian forests.

After the presentations, Dr, Rita Pandey opened the floor for discussion. Dr. M. N. Murty,
Dr. Nandan, Dr. Kurian Joseph, Dr. Venkatachalam, Dr. Indira Devi, Dr. Pramod Kant, Dr
Amit, Dr. Raghuveer and Dr. Richard raised questions and concerns on: benefit distribution
criteria for different stakeholders, possibilities on valuing the bio-resources based on the land
value, easiness in estimating the scarcity rent - information rent and endemic rent, simple
solutions for complex issues, quality concerns of bio-resources, specificity in
scarcity/information rent, complexity of valuation based on the end product price, need for a
simple and understandable model, and problems in considering the abiotic models for finding
the solutions for biotic models.

6
 Session – 3
Group Discussion /Work Dealing with Sectors (Methodology Development)

Group 1

Participants were divided into three groups,

based on the themes assigned for the
discussion (Table 1). The group were
requested to discuss appropriate
methodologies for valuing the bio-resources
coming under different heads. The group
conveners concerned, chaired the discussions
and all the group members participated
actively in the discussions and came up with key findings.

Group 2 Group 3

7

Group 1
Theme:
Bio-Pharmaceuticals -
modern drugs,
Nutraceuticals/Personal care
Products & Cosmetics
Convener
Dr. K. R. Ranganathan
Group Members
Dr. U. Sankar
Dr. Paul Appasamy
Dr. Rita Pandey
Dr. Lakshmanan
Dr. Nitin K. Sawant
Dr. Kurian Joseph
Dr. Raghuveer,
Dr. (Mrs). Juliet Selvi
Dr. W. Richard Thilagaraj,
Dr. Sudha Premnath
Dr. Sachidananda Mukherjee
Dr. S. R. Senthil Kumar
Dr. B. Andrews
Shri. Anu Nagar
Ms. J.Juliet Jesline
Mr. Srinivas Reddy
Table 1
Group Discussion: Details
Group 2 Group 3
Theme: Theme:
Agriculture Bio- Academia / R&D (non-
technology (Seed / commercial scientific
Related), Crop research)
protection Products and
AYUSH
Convener Convener
Dr. K. R. Ashok Dr. M. N. Murty
Group Members Group Members
Dr. Lawrence Surendra Dr. Haripriya
Dr. P. Indira Devi Dr. Ashir Mehta
Dr. Amit Agarwal Dr. N. S. Bist
Dr. C. S. Shylajan Dr. Narendran Kodandapani
Dr. K. S. Neelakantan Dr. Aeshita Mukherjee Wilske
Ms. Tashina Esteves Dr. K.S. Neelakantan
Dr. C. Thomson Jacob Dr. Nandhan Nawn
Dr. Somnath Hazra
Dr. Sukanya Das
Dr. J. S. Sindhu
Dr. Promode Kant
Dr. Chandrasekaran
Dr. Murari LalThakur
Dr. Shailesh Dodiya
Dr. Rudra Prasad Das
Dr. Prakash Nelliyat
Ms. Alphonsa Jojan
8
 Day 2
Session – 4
Group Conveners’ presentation and Discussion

On the second day, Dr. Balakrishna

welcomed Dr. Naresh Kumar, who is the
chairperson of the ABS Expert Committee in
NBA, and also requested him to chair
session 4 (Group Conveners’ presentation
and discussion). Subsequently Dr. Paul
Appasamy reminded to the participants, that
the aim of the debate is not to do the
valuation for bio-resources in the
conventional way, but to come up with an appropriate method that can be used by the NBA
secretariat and SBB members when dealing in ABS application.

Subsequently, Dr. Naresh Kumar, detailed the practical difficulties being faced by the ABS
expert committee when processing and finalizing the applications.

Dr. K. R. Ranganathan, convener of group 1,

provided a detailed presentation where he
highlighted: ‘replacement cost’ could be considered
as a broader methodology for estimating the value of
bio-resources in ‘Bio-Pharmaceuticals - modern
drugs, Nutraceuticals / Personal care Products &
Cosmetics’. For convenience, applicants in this
category were classified under 2 types: current
users and potential users. The current users are
further classified as; (a) beneficiary: producer
(supplier) and collector (seller) and (b) beneficiary: collector. Potential users are further
classified as; (a) beneficiary: gave information, producer, and collector (seller) and (b)
beneficiary: gave information collector (seller). Further, in each categories methodology for
estimation, payment details and payment nature were suggested.

9
Dr. Naresh, Dr. Amit, Dr. Kumar and Dr. Subramaniyan sought certain clarifications
pertaining to the mode of payment needed to be followed by the pharmaceutical companies
(parent companies vs. the units), traditional knowledge associated with medicinal plants,
assumptions and their prioritization in the valuation model.

Presenting the outcome of Group 2, the convener of the

group, Dr. Ashok mentioned that in agriculture
biotechnology and crop protection products, R&D cost and
the uncertainty in success is huge. Hence bio-prospecting
the methods should be the fixed proportion of the profit (2-3
per cent) throughout the commercial life of the product or
patent period. The Payment schedule could be: initial
payment [access payment + the agreed percentage of the
every previous year profit]. For botanicals the approach could be: [(NPV of the profit x
proportion of the contribution of the bio-resource in quantity terms) x 2 to 3 %]. The payment
schedule could be: Initial payment [access payment) + the agreed percentage of the every
previous year profit].

After the presentation, Dr. Haripriya, Dr. Nandan, Dr. Indira Devi, Dr. Lawrence Surendra,
Dr. Kumar and Dr. Aeshita raised their concerns on issues regarding the valuation of
agricultural bio-resources.

Later Dr. M. N. Murty, the convener of Group 3, and Dr.

Nandan (a group member) presented their findings which
include: importance of information in bio-prospecting and
the need for maintain a
bio-resources data
base, researcher as a
stakeholder in the
product cycle, and researchers entitlement or due share.
The research related issues were divided in to 3 levels,
(information appropriation/collection, processing of
information to new knowledge - basic research and
application of basic research) and a benefit sharing model was proposed.

10
After the presentations, Dr. Ravichandran, Dr. Ashir Mehta, Dr. Suneetha and Dr.
Sachidananda Mukherjee raised certain issues including the researcher and community link,
the uniqueness of non-commercial research, and the research based benefit sharing
experiences in foreign universities.

Finally, Dr. Naresh Kumar summed up the session, and stated that it was a wonderful event,
where all the group conveners provided very useful findings, and NBA will take it up further.

Session – 5
Taking the Methodology to the Field: Options

This session was chaired by Dr. Paul P Appasamy. He stated that NBA needs to know the
practicability of the proposed recommendation by the group. In this regard, he suggested
interested participants who can help taking up small studies on certain bio-resources
valuation in their states or areas, but it was not necessary that all studies are only from the
project states. 7 experts presented their proposals along with their background, experiences,
and reasons or interests, in conducting the study.

Details about the proposed case studies are given in Table 2.

11
 Table 2
Details about the Proposed Case Studies
S. No Name Organization Proposed case study topic / task

1 Dr. Rita Pandey National Institute of Economic instruments for bio-resources

Public Finance and valuation
Policy (NIPFP), (Identifying: (a) what should be the
New Delhi. charge for bio-resources, (b) mechanism
for equitably benefit distribution).

2 Dr. Ashir Mehta Department of Valuation of bio-resources from the Tall

Economics, Baroda wetland in Mensa with the help of WTP
University, Gujarat and WTA.

3 Dr. Ravichandran Department of Identification of various stakeholders

Environmental who are involved in various value added
Management, products derived from Thulasi, and fix
Bharadidasan the fair price for benefits sharing
University, Tamil
Nadu.
4 Dr. Indira Devi Department of Valuation of medicinal plants used by the
Agriculture Economics, Ayurveda sector in Kerala (with the
Kerala Agriculture collaboration of Kerala SBB and Kerala
University, Ayurveda Drug Manufactures
Kerala. Association)

5 Dr. Somnath Hazra Senior Consultant “NTFPs valuation for ABS”

(Environment and
Forest),
CITRAN Consulting
Group,
Kolkatta

6 Dr. N. S. Bist Department of Valuation of medicinal plants for a better

Economics, share for the tribal community (who
Himachal University, collect medicinal plants): A case study
Himachal Pradesh in Chamba District,
Himachal Pradesh

7 Dr. Amit Agarwal Natural Remedies, Valuation of Selected Medicinal Plants

Bangalore Using by the Natural Remedies

After the presentations, a few other participants provided their comments. The Chairman,
NBA expressed his excitement in the proposed case studies presented by the participants, and
appreciated their interest.

12
 Closing Plenary

Dr. Raghuveer, Dr. Kumar and Dr. Kurian Joseph provided their additional comments on the
consultation.

After this, the Chairman NBA addressed the

audience in which he shared some of his
experiences with UNEP on the financial
initiatives, role of banks and other financial
institutions in biodiversity management and
‘equator principles’. Further, he explained
NBA’s initiatives in developing networks with
different stakeholders and bankers, and their outcomes. He also indicated the challenges in
bringing the bio-resources based companies under the domain of the Biological Diversity
Act.

Professor Sankar, in his closing remarks, indicated the

need for proper communication among various
stakeholders, and the urgency for interdisciplinary or
multidisciplinary approaches. He also stated that it is
important to come up with multiple instruments, to solve
a complex problem like the valuation of natural resources.
He evinced confidence that definitely one can come up with an appropriate methodology for
the valuation of bio-resources for ABS purpose.

The meeting ended with a word of thanks to all the participants (see participants’ list in
Appendix 4).

13
 Appendix 1

National Biodiversity Authority

UNEP – GEF – MoEF ABS Project

“Strengthening the Implementation of the Biological Diversity Act and Rules with focus on its
Access and Benefit Sharing provisions”

Two Days National Consultation Meeting on

ECONOMIC VALUATION OF BIO-RESOURCES FOR

ACCESS AND BENEFIT SHARING (ABS)

9 – 10 December, 2013 (CHENNAI)

Brief Concept Note

The project on “Strengthening the Implementation of the Biological Diversity Act and Rules with
focus on its Access and Benefit Sharing provisions”deals with assessing and quantifying the economic
value of biological resources, using appropriate methodologies to determine benefit sharing, which
will help in better implementation of the Biological Diversity Act, and inform national decision
makers on prioritizing conservation. The project is an attempt towards mainstreaming and
strengthening the Access and Benefit Sharing(ABS) process in India.

The identification of bio-resources or genetic resources, with potential for ABS from selected
ecosystems, such as forests, wetlands and agriculture, and their valuation (estimation of the real value)
is an important task in this project. Developing standardized economic valuation methods for valuing
bio-resourcesin finalizing the ABS agreements is the major activity under this head. The project is
implemented in 5 states in India (Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Sikkim, Himachal Pradesh and
Gujarat) with the collaboration of the State Biodiversity Boards and Biodiversity Management
Committees.

The Biodiversity Act (2002) defines Bioresources / biological resources as: plants, animals and micro-
organisms or parts thereof, their genetic material and by-products (excluding value added products)
with actual or potential use or value, but not human genetic material Generally, large quantities of
variousbio-resources are collected or extracted from the ecosystems, which human beings can directly
or indirectly use either as food, medicines or biomass. These resources are also used in research and
development which lead to the innovation of new consumer productsand trade, and act as the basic
raw-material or input in manufacturing many products.

Biodiversity provides large number of goods, which enhance human welfare. Apart fromproviding
various non-marketed services. Forests provide number of resources (goods) as timber and non-timber
forest products. These goods include timber, fuel wood, fodder, non-timber forest products, food
items (honey, mushrooms, fruit, and other edible plants, game), genetic resources and cultural
resources. Most of these resources are used as an input factor for manufacturing various value added
products, having a huge market potential.

14
Inland and coastal wetland systems are the buffer zone of diversity of species. Coastal ecosystems can
provide goods such as, fish and shellfish, fish meal (animal feed), seaweeds (for food and industrial
use), salt, genetic resources and cultural resources. The goods provided by the freshwater ecosystem
are fish, genetic resources and cultural resources. Wetland species (animals and plants) have
economic value and ABS potential.

The primary goods provided by the agriculture and grassland ecosystems include; food crops, fiber
crops, crop genetic resources, other crops (energy, fodder, etc), cultural resources, and livestock
(food, hides, fiber). Agricultural products or outputs have a huge market and business potential, and
play a significant role in manufacturing different food items and achieving food security.

Most of our natural ecosystems (forests, rivers, estuaries, oceans, etc.) are common property
resources. The market for this resources are imperfect. The current market price at the collection point
does not represent their real or true value or price but only an exchange rate that is arbitrarily assessed
or fixed. In other words, due to the market imperfections, ecosystem goods are ‘under - priced’. In the
case of ecosystem goods, particularly those obtained from common property, the demand, supply and
price mechanisms do not function effectively as they do in the case of other commodities. That is also
information asymmetry between providers and buyers. Providers/sellers have limited knowledge and
information about both the “price” and “value” of a product. Normally, information is disclosed by
both the parties (sellers and buyers). In the exchange, the users of ecosystem goods / bio-resources
(the companies or their representatives) have better knowledge about their significance and value than
the providers. The providers (local communities) are often exploited by the traders and companies,
who make substantial profits from the business.

In this context, the valuation of bioresourcesis a fundamental step towards determining the real value
of bioresources, and operationalizing the “Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS)”, one of the objectives
of the Biological Diversity Act of India. With 193 countries around the world agreeing on an
international protocol related to ABS – the Nagoya Protocol on ABS – under the Convention of
Biological Diversity (CBD), the time has come for environmental economists, planners and
governments to understand and apply principles of economics on the ground to achieve the objectives
of ABS. The National Biodiversity Authority is currently working to develop a workable model to
address unambiguous valuation methods towards valuing biodiversity goods.

Different methods for bioresources valuation, include: (a) Value Chain Analysis and Identification of
Economic / Resource Rent, (b) The “Maximum Willingness to Pay” Approach, (c) Application of the
Appropriate Economic Instruments: (tax, cess, charges, royalty etc.), (d) Minimum Support Price for
Bio-resources and (e) Collectors’ Willingness to Accept and Minimum Livelihood. However, the
experts proposed that “value chain analysis and identification of economic / resource rent” of bio-
resources based product is more appropriate in estimating the real value of bio-resources. Further it is
significant to develop case specific and / or separate formulae for valuing bio-resources based on their
nature, availability, potential uses etc. where the scarcity and endemicity of the bioresources are taken
in to account (Table - 1).

To develop a methodology or protocol for the valuation of bioresources, a two days National
Consultation Meet has scheduled on 9 - 10December, 2013 at Chennai. The purpose of the meeting is
to assess and review the methodology suggested by NBA and obtain expert opinion related to bio-
resources valuation for ABS in consultation with a selected group of environmental economist and /
or other key biodiversity stakeholders and managers in the country.

15
 Table 1

Proposed Valuation Methods Derived from the Expert Committee Meeting (13th July 2013)

Sl. Category of Bio-resources Possible Methodological Approach Payment Detail

No

Bio Pharmaceuticals Initial payment + payment at the

1 A (modern drugs) Scarcity Rent (SR) + Information Rent time of product development +
(IR) (share a proportion attributable payment at marketing stage.
(Population status, to the product).
A1 Rare Endangered and Monetary + Non- Monetary (for
Threatening (RET), Endemic Rent (ER) endemic and RET)
Abundant,
Endemic)
Initial payment + payment at the
time of product development +
Bio-technology (Seed /
2 Information Rent (IR) - share a payment at marketing stage
Agriculture Related), Land
B proportion attributable to the
races, Microbes,
product. Monetary + Non- Monetary (for
endemic and RET)

Information Rent (IR) (share a One time

proportion attributable to the
C Crop protection products
product).

Based on the proportion of Net One time

Present Value (NPV) of the profit x
3 D Botanicals (AYUSH) the contribution of input to the out
put

Based on the proportion of NPV of One time

Nutraceuticals / Personal the profit x the contribution of
E
Products cosmetics input to the out put

Academia / R&D (non- Onetime fee + renegotiation change One time

4 F commercial scientific in intent
research)

The major issues and sub-topics will be covered during the national consultation include:
1. Bio-resources market: barter to global economy
 Livelihood potential of bio-resources
 Scenario in a subsistence economy
 Development of bio-technology and bio-prospecting
 Commercial utilization of bio-resources vs. sustainability of biodiversity
 Bio-piracy
 Innovative ideas towards biodiversity management, ABS as an option: Myth and Reality
2. Need for identifying “real/true value” of the bio-resources for ABS agreements
 Biological Diversity Act and Rules in India and ABS process
 Experiences and challenges
 Complexity in fixing the benefit sharing criteria
 Common property resources character of bio-resources and market distortion
 Significance of real value estimation
 Criteria to be considered

16
  Providers vs. users and negotiation process
3. Methodology for using the economic valuation in deciding ABS permits
 Bio-resources valuation – differences from ecosystem valuation
 Need for a paradigm shift in valuation
 Draft methodology developed by NBA
 Scope for further improvement and any new methods
 Practicability and operational challenges
 How to overtake the challenges
4. ABS an incentive mechanism and source of financing for biodiversity
 Incentive to community for conservation and sustainable use of biological resources.
 Operationalization process
 Institutional mechanisms
 ABS an internal financial sources towards biodiversity management
5. ABS Potential bio-resources and bio-prospecting in the changing world
 ABS mechanism in practical sense
 ABS relevant bio-resources
 Criteria for identification
 Bio-prospecting: past and present scenario
 Benefit drain from the developing to developed world
 Ethical and moral significance of ABS.

6. Developing a data base covering the economic valuation information

 Data requirement for bio-resources valuation (volume and depth)
 Traditional knowledge vs. modern Research and Development
 How to gather those data?
 Cooperation from different stakeholders, particularly industries
 Reliability and accuracy
 Database management.
Pre- workshop Activities
With a focus to achieve maximal inputs from all participating experts at the meeting, we are
requesting you to provide a brief commentary on the following issues in no more than one page and
identify at least one case study you could potentially undertake to use the methodology for valuing
biodiversity goods for ABS purposes.
Issues to be covered in the one page note:
 Your assessment of dealing with ABS issues from an environmental economist
perspectives.
 Your comment on the details suggested in the draft methodology prepared by NBA.

We would appreciate receiving your inputs on or before 20th November, 2013 to help us prepare a
consolidated commentary that will be circulated during the workshop.

Your inputs can be sent to Dr.PrakashNelliyat( Email: paecogef@nbaindia.in ).

Looking forward to seeing you in Chennai!

17
 Appendix 2

National Biodiversity Authority

UNEP – GEF – MoEF ABS Project
Strengthening the Implementation of the Biological Diversity Act and Rules
with focus on its Access and Benefit Sharing Provisions

Program
Two Days National Consultation Meeting on

ECONOMIC VALUATION OF BIO-RESOURCES FOR

ACCESS AND BENEFIT SHARING (ABS)

Date : 9 - 10 December, 2013 Venue: Conference Hall, NBA

th
Day 1 (9 December, 2013)
09.30 - 10.00 Registration

10.00 11.00 Opening Plenary

Welcome Address : Sri. C. Achalender Reddy IFS, Secretary, NBA

Keynote Address : Prof. U. Sankar, Emeritus Professor,

. Madras School of Economics
Economics and ABS: Overview

Launch of Special Publication: “Economic Valuation of Bio-resources for

Access and Benefit Sharing”

Special Remarks : Dr. S. Subramaniyan, Member, NBA

Special Remarks : Dr. Balakrishna Pisupati, Chairman, NBA

Vote of Thanks : Mr. Ishwar Poojar, Project Manager, UNEP-GEF-ABS

. Project NBA.

11.00 - 11.30 Tea / Coffee Break

18
11.30 - 13.00 Thematic Session – 1 (Presentations)
Chairpersons: Dr. U. Sankar & Dr. M. N. Murty
Title: Bio-resources Valuation for ABS
Speakers
1. Dr. Prakash Nelliyat
2. Dr. Paul P. Appasamy
13.00 - 14.00 Lunch Break
14.00 - 15.30 Thematic Session – 2 (Presentations)
Chairperson: Dr. Rita Pandeyr
Title: Sector Specific Methodologies for Bio-resources Valuation:
Concept and Approach

Speakers
1. Dr. S. Suneetha
2. Dr. G. Haripriya

15.30 - 15.45 Tea / Coffee Break

15.45 - 17.00 Session – 3: Group Discussion / Work
Dealing with Sectors (Methodology Development)
Sectors Convener
1. Bio-Pharmaceuticals - modern drugs,
Nutraceuticals/Personal care Products & cosmetics Dr. K. R. Ranganathan

2. Agriculture Bio-technology (Seed / Related), Crop

protection products and AYUSH Dr. K. R. Ashok

3. Academia / R&D (non-commercial scientific research) Dr. M. N. Murty

19.30 - 21.00 Dinner: Piano Hall, Hotel Savera

Day 2 (10th December, 2013)

10.00 11.30 Session – 4
Chairperson: Dr. Naresh Kumar
Group Conveners’ presentation and Discussion
11.30 11.45 Tea / Coffee Break
11.45 13.00 Session – 5
Taking the Methodology to the Field: Options
Chairperson: Dr. Paul P. Appasamy

(Those participants interested to conduct field work on valuation of selected

bio-resources can make a brief presentation)

13.00 - 14.00 Lunch Break

14.00 - 15.30 Closing Plenary

15.30 - 15.45 Hi -Tea

19
 Appendix 3:
Keynote Speech

BIODIVERSITY ECONOMICS AND ACCESS AND BENEFIT SHARING: AN OVERVIEW

U. Sankar
Madras School of Economics

1. Introduction
Biodiversity represents the variety of life on earth. It includes species diversity, genetic diversity and
ecosystem diversity. Biodiversity is related to the distribution of these to the threshold levels of the
populations of the species represented. Alarmed with the rapid decline in biodiversity and recognizing
its importance to human wellbeing, the international community adopted the Convention on
Biodiversity in 1992. Its major objectives are: the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable
use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilizationof
genetic resources, including by appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriate transfer of
relevant technologies, taking into account all rights over those resources and to technologies, and by
appropriate funding.

These three objectives are inter-linked. An ABS regime, in addition to ensuring equitable sharing of
the benefits by the providers of biological resources and associated traditional knowledge, must
ensure sustainable development in terms of its three pillars-economic, social and environmental.
National Environment Policy, 2006 states that ‘the dominant theme of this policy is that while
conservation of environmental resources is necessary to secure livelihoods and well-being of all, the
most secure basis for conservation is to ensure that people dependent on particular resources obtain
better livelihoods from the fact of conservation, than from degradation of the resource. The policy
also seeks to stimulate partnerships of different stakeholders, i.e. public agencies, local communities,
academic and scientific institutions, the investment community, and international development
partners, in harnessing their respective resources and strengths for environmental management’.

Section 2 deals with alternative classifications of biodiversity and certain characteristics of

biodiversity for valuation and access and benefit sharing. Section 3 covers the ABS provisions in the
Biological Diversity Act, 2002 an in the Nagoya Protocol and illustrate which ABS schemes are
preferable in different contexts. Section 4 contains concluding marks.

2.Classification of biodiversity
(i) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

a. Provisioning services such as food , timber, water;

b. Regulating services that affect climate, water quality, floods ,diseases;
c. Cultural services that provide recreational ,aesthetic and spiritual services; and
d. Supporting services such as soil formation, photosynthesis and nutrient cycling.
[Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis,
Island Press, Washington D.C]
(ii) Geoffrey Heal (2000)
Biodiversity provides or enhances

a. Eco system productivity – the higher the diversity the higher productivity.

b. Insurance: important defense against disaster in the form of new diseases ,e.g. In the seventies the
International Rice Research Institute located a variety of wild rice that was not used commercially but
which was resistant to the grassy stunt virus.
c. A source of knowledge e.g. learning from natural organisms how to make chemicals that have
important and valuable properties, bioprospecting, inter generational genetic pool.
d. Ecosystem services: Cases in which the full diversity of organisms in an ecosystem is required for
that system to provide services as the removal or addition of even a single type of organism can have
far-reaching consequence, e.g. keystone species
20
 [G.Heal (2000), Biodiversity as a Commodity, Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, Academic Press]
(iii) Economic classification
(a) Private good (well defined and enforced property rights, excludability and rivalry)
* Marketed in perfect market. Perfect market no market power for single buyer or seller, no
external costs (or external costs fully internalized in market prices), perfect information, no
uncertainty
* Marketed in imperfect market. Imperfection because of market power, product
differentiation, asymmetric information, uncertainty, myopia)
* Marketable but market does not exist because of (1) ill-defined and poorly enforced property
rights to a natural resource and (2) high transaction cost.
Property rights must be clear, well defined and enforceable for markets to function efficiently.
Most biological resources are under common property open access regime. In this case, exclusion is
infeasible or very costly and there is rivalry. Hence it is potentially subject to depletion or degradation
when its use is beyond the sustainable yield. Ostrom develops an institutional approach to the study of
self-organization and self governance in common property resource situation. [ElinarOstrom (1990),
Governing the Commons: The Evolution of institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge U. Press].
Coase explains the meaning of transaction cost: ‘In order to carry out a market transaction it is
necessary to discover who it is that one wishes to deal with, to inform people that one wishes to deal
with and on what terms, to conduct negotiations leading to a bargain, draw up the contract, to
undertake the inspection needed to make sure that the terms of contract are being observed, and so on.
These operations are often extremely costly, sufficiently costly at any rate to prevent market many
market transactions that would be carried out in a world in which the pricing system worked without
cost. [Ronald Coase, The Problem of Social Cost, Journal of Law and Economics, 3, University of
Chicago Press].
(b) Merit and de-merit goods (equity, negative externalities)
(c) Collective goods /club goods limit access, community rights
(d) Public goods: local, regional, global (non- excludability, non- rivalry. Certain private /merit
goods become public goods via public choice. Technological change and regulations can make a
public good private.
(e) Biodiversity may have an intrinsic value, and
(f) Biodiversity may have incommensurable values. There are certain values e.g. cultural and
spiritual, which may be beyond measurement because the units of measurement are not obvious
and there are no acceptable valuation techniques.
Note: For valuation of biological resources the following are also relevant:
(a) The first is the distinction between weak sustainability and strong sustainability. Weak
sustainability assumes substitution between natural capital and man-made capital. Intra generational
equity requires non-declining aggregate (natural, human and physical) measure of capital. Strong
sustainability assumes limits to substitution between natural and other forms of capital. Some forms
of natural capital are essential for sustainability and in case of irreplaceable assets they must be
preserved.
(b) The second is the difference in the approach of ecologists who recognize the rights of both
humans and other forms of life, and others who follow anthropogenic approach.
(c) In cases of certain environmental investments e.g. climate mitigation, eco-restoration, costs are
incurred now but the benefits may accrue after a very long time and hence the net benefit may
become negative if the market rate of interest is used for discounting. We need a non-market
approach e.g. public investment or government regulation or global agreement to solve the problem.

Under MEA classification, only for a subset of provisioning goods e.g. food, timber markets exist
and are reasonably perfect. For water, equity considerations result in government interventions like
ensuring supply regardless of cost of service. For non-timber forest products, the markets are either
imperfect or do not exist because of information asymmetry between the providers and users, and
high transaction costs of creating and operating markets. For certain non-consumptive ecosystem
services eco-tourism has become a viable option. For a few supporting and regulating services,
payment for ecosystem services is an option and it is being applied.

21
 Market creation and operation is a challenge, but it is needed to realize a reasonable price for a
biological resource. Institutional measures are needed for organizing collection, sorting, storage, and
technological support for value addition, creation of voluntary producers and marketing
organizations, product certifications /labeling, establishment of micro credit institutions and
organizations for linking the providers with buyer groups. We need an institution to ensure
sustainable production within ecological limits. See Community based Experiences on Access and
Benefit Sharing: Case Studies, published by National Biodiversity Authority (2012). These studies
give the context, the providers, the users, the facilitators, benefits shared, conservation of
biodiversity and the ABS link. NBA dissemination paper, ‘Valuation of Bio-resources for
Operationalizing Access and Benefit Sharing Mechanism: Search for Methodology’, by P. Nelliyat
and B.Pisupati (2013)is a useful reference.

4. Access and benefit sharing

The Biological Diversity Act

Regarding determination of equitable benefit sharing by the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA),
the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 contains the following provisions:

21(1) The NBA shall while granting approvals under section 19 (undertaking certain activities ,
research or commercial utilization or for bio survey and bio utilization or transfer the results) or
section 20 (transfer any biological resources or knowledge) ensure that the terms and conditions
subject to which approval is granted secures equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the use of
accessed biological resources, their by-products, innovations and practices associated with their use
and applications and knowledge relating thereto in accordance with mutually agreed terms and
conditionsbetween the person applying for such approval, local bodies concerned and the benefit
claimers.

21 (2) NBA to determine the benefit sharing in the following manner:

a. grant of joint ownership of IPRs to the NBA or to the benefit claimers;
b. transfer of technology;
c. location of production, R&D units;
d. association of Indian scientists, benefit claimers and the local people with R & D in biological
resources and bio-survey and bio-utilization;
e. setting up of venture capital fund for aiding the cause of benefit claimers;
f. payment of monetary compensation and other non-monetary benefits to the benefit claimers as the
NBA may deem fit.

Nagoya Protocol
1. Monetary benefits may include, but not be limited to:
(a) Access fees/fee per sample collected or otherwise acquired;
(b) Up-front payments; [ desirable when there is no risk or user willing to bear the risk]
(c) Milestone payments; [ desirable when value addition takes place at different stages and contracts
are enforceable]
(d) Payment of royalties; [ desirable for patents and other IPRs, issue determination of royalties]
(e) Licence fees in case of commercialization;

• (f) Special fees to be paid to trust funds supporting conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity;
(g) Salaries and preferential terms where mutually agreed;
(h) Research funding;[ generation of new knowledge , revival and application of traditional
knowledge in partnership with locals]
(i) Joint ventures; [involving providers, users and research institutions]
(j) Joint ownership of relevant intellectual property rights [ takes care of uncertainty and risk ]

22
2. Non –monetary benefits may include, but not be limited to:

(a) Sharing of research and development results; [benefits to locals]

(b) Collaboration, cooperation and contribution in scientific research and development programmes,[
facilitator role for value addition, product quality improvement, technical skill]
(c) Participation in product development;[ access of indigenous knowledge]
(d) Collaboration, cooperation and contribution in education and training;[ skill development
(e) Admittance to ex situ facilities of genetic resources and to databases;
(f) Transfer to the provider of the genetic resources of knowledge and technology under fair and most
favourable terms, including on concession and preferential terms where agreed, in particular,
knowledge and technology that make use of genetic resources, including biotechnology, or that are
relevant to the conservation and sustainable utilization of biological diversity;[ enabling environment
for the providers becoming entrepreneurs/producers, enhancing product quality]
(g) Strengthening capacities for technology transfer;
(h) Institutional capacity-building;
(i) Human and material resources to strengthen the capacities for the

Administration and enforcement of access regulations

The policy also seeks to stimulate partnerships of different stakeholders, i.e. public agencies, local communities,
academic and scientific institutions, the investment community, and international development partners, in
harnessing their respective resources and strengths for environmental management.
The access and benefit sharing schemes envisage many different situations and cases. We may group them
under

1. When the markets for bio resources are competitive, the products are available in many places, the products
have substitutes and there is no sustainability issue, the NBA may charge a fixed access fee, taking into account
the willingness to pay of the users,

2. When the bio resource has no close substitute, when its future value (after patent. Commercialization) is
unknown; milestone payment/royalty is preferable,

3. When a bio resource is unique and its production requires the associated traditional knowledge, partnership
between the providers and the users with technical support from research institution and a facilitating role by
NGO is desirable,

4. When a resource has the potential of significant value addition but its value is unknown now to the providers
and the facilitators, competitive bidding can help in eliciting its value, and

5. When there is a need for reviving traditional varieties, improving yields via R&D, value addition , market
access and development, and sustainable management of the resources, community –based producers
organizations/ self-help groups with facilitators for technical, credit, training and market support is needed.

4. Conclusion

The following conclusions emerge from this overview.

1. The type of ABS regime for a biological resource is context specific, depending on the characteristics of the
resource, its availability in other regions, existence of substitutes, marketability and perceived potential use.

2. For sustainable management of biological resources and ensuring better livelihood opportunities for the
providers and the locals, participation of the providers in the process of getting patent/ commercialization, or/
and enhancing opportunities for local production with community based producers’ groups along with technical
, credit, training, and marketing support is needed.

3. Valuation of biological resources for ABS must be cautious because not all values of biological resources can
be measured and if there is uncertainty in the valuation it must be indicated, and when they are measurable,
even for partial realization of these values we need both market and non-market approaches ( regulation,
community based institutions for cost sharing and benefit sharing); in case of public goods and merit goods the
corresponding values must be realized by public provision.

23
 Appendix 4
Participants List
Participants from Outside Chennai
1 Dr. G. Haripriya
Professor,
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences,
IIT, Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400 076
Email : haripriya@hss.iitb.ac.in
Phone Numbers: 022-2576-7382/7350 (Office),
022-2572-8863(Home) Fax: 91-22-2572-3480
Mobile: 09930124553
3 Dr. Nandan Nawn
Assistant Professor in Economics,
West Bengal National University of Juridical
Sciences, LB 12, Salt Lake City, Sector III
Kolkata-700098, Email: nnletter@gmail.com
O) (033) 2335 0765 / (R) (033) 2334 5444
Mobile: 094335 09812
5 Dr. Sachidananda Mukherjee
Assistant Professor,
National Institute of Public Finance and Policy,
18/2, Satsang Vihar Marg, New Delhi -110067
Tel.No. 26569303, 26569780,. Email:
sacchidananda.mukherjee@nipfp.org.in
Phone: 26569303 Ext – 132, Fax: 91-11-
26852548, Mobile: 09868421239
7 Smt. Anu Nagar
Associate Professor,
Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy
Dehradun.
Mobile: 09967677804
9 Dr. Rita Pandey
Professor,
National Institute of Public, Finance and
Policy, 18/2, Satsang Vihar Marg, New Delhi-
110067. Tel.No. 26569303, 26569780,
26569784. Mobile: 9717964100
Email: rita.pandey@nipfp.org.in
Phone: 26569303 Ext – 104
11 Dr. Narendran Kodandabani
Senior Scientist,
The Asian Nature Conservation Foundation
(ANCF), C/o Centre for Ecological Sciences,
3rd floor, Biological Sciences Building,
Indian Institute of Science,
CV Raman Avenue, Bangalore 560012
Email: naren@ces.iisc.ernet.in
Tel: 91-897-184-3610
13 Dr. M. Ravichandran
Professor & Head,
Department of Environmental Management
Bharathidasan University, Tiruchi - 620 024.
E-mail: muruguravi@yahoo.co.in
Phone: +91-431-2407071, Fax : +91-431-
2407045/2407050. Mobile:9842525728
24
2 Dr. N. S. Bist
Honorary Director,
Population Research Centre (PRC)
Himachal Pradesh University,
Summer Hill, Shimla, PIN 171 005
Email: nsbist@sify.com
Phone: 0177-2831960 (Tel/Fax)
Mobile: 09418055089/9418055089
4 Dr. Ashir S. Mehta
Associate Professor,
Department of Economics
The Maharaja Sayajirao Baroda University
Baroda.
Email: ashirmehta@rediffmail.com
Mobile: 09898259403
6 Dr. Promode Kant, IFS
Director, Institute of Green Economy
C-312 Defence Colony, New Delhi 110024
Email : promode.kant@gmail.com
promode.kant@igrec.in, Phone 91-11-
46103509, Fax 91-11-46103509
Mobile :09873437021
8 Dr. M. N. Murty,
Professor (Rtd.), Institute of Economic Growth
Delhi University Enclave, Delhi - 110007
Email: mn.murty71@gmail.com
Phone:977-1-5003222,91-11-25275873
Mobile: 09891288806
10 Dr. Naresh Kumar
Professor,
National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education
and Research, Sector-67, SAS Nagar
Punjab 160062
Email: nareshsahajpal@yahoo.co.in
Mobile: 09779616899
12 Dr. Amit Agarwal
Director (R&D),
Plot No. 5B, Veerasandra Industrial Area,
19th K.M. Stone, Hosur Road,
Electronic City (Post), Bangalore - 560 100,
Email: research@naturalremedy.com
Mobile: 08040209999/9845008951
+91-80-4020 9817
14 Dr. C. S. Shylajan
Associate Professor( Economics),
IBS Hyderabad, Donthanapally,
Shankarapalli Road, Hyderabad- 501203
Email: info@ibsindia.org
shylajan@gmail.com
Mobile: 9440070524
15 Dr. P. Raghuveer, IFS 16 Dr. Kumar Kakumanu
Addl PCCF/Director, Managing Trustee, Tiger First
A.P. Forest Academy Dulapally, Survey No:68, Brahmanpally, AchampetTq,
Director General (CEFNARM), Mahbubnagar Andhrapradesh – 509 375
Hydrabad- 500014 Email: kumar@tigerfirst.org,
E.mail: praguveer84@gmail.com tigerfirst.india@mail.com,
Mobile: 9440816217 Mobile: 09441915924
17 Dr. Sudha Premnath 18 Dr. Lawrence Surendra
Teacher & Ecologist Professor, Planning Commission Unit
Valley School of Krishnamurthy Foundation DOS in Economics’University of Mysore
Infantry Road Infantry Road, Bangalore, Mysore.
Phone: 080- 22869094, Mobile: 09008362493 Mobile: 9449852551
Email:keepkfi@yahoo.com Email: Lawrence.surendra@gmail.com
office@thevalleyschool.info
19 Dr. Somnath Hazra 20 Dr. Nitin K. Sawant
Sr. Consultant (Environment & Forest) Member Secretary,
CITRAN Consulting Ltd Goa State Biodiversity Board, C/o. Department
GC-80, Ground Floor, Sector – 3 of Science, Technology & Environment
Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 106. Email: Opposite to Saligoa Seminary, Bardez,
somnath.hazra@ctranconsulting.com Goa-403511. Mobile: 09822483535
Mobile: 9668847049 Email: nitinnature@yahoo.co.in
21 Dr. N. Ramagopal 22 Dr. P. Indira Devi
Professor and Head, Director, Centre for Excellence in
Department of Economics, Annamalai Environmental Economics
University, Annamalai Nagar - 608 002 College of Horticulture
India. t : 91 -04144 - 238248/263/796 Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur
M: 9894122341 Pin : 680 656. Email: induananth@gmail.com
Email: adamsmithjmkeynes@gmail.com Phone: 0487-2438327, M: 9447416875
23 Dr. K. R. Ashoke 24 Ms. Tashina Estives
Professor of Agricultural Economics, Research Assistant, Centre for Sustainable
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Technologies, Indian Institute of Science,
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641003 Bangalore. Mobile: 9449730818
Mobile:9443001852,
Email:ashoke10tnau@yahoo.com
25 Dr. Mohamad F. Sessay 26 Dr. Murari Lal Thakur
UNEP/DGEF - Nairobi, State Project Coordinator, Himachal Pradesh
Kenya Biodiversity Board, 34, SDA Complex,
Phone: +254 20 7624294 Kasumpti, Shimla - 171009. Ph:0177 -
Fax: + 254-20-762-4041/4042 2621992, Mobile : 09857547111
Email:mohamed.sessay@unep.org Email: mlthakur75@gmail.com
27 Dr. Aeshita Mukerjee Wilske 28 Dr. Shailesh Dodiya
Project Coordinator, Scientific/ Technical Assistant Gujarat State
Gujarat State Biodiversity Board Biodiversity Board, AranyaBhavan, Sector- 10,
AranyaBhavan, Sector- 10, Opp. St. Xavier’s Opp. St. Xavier’s School, Gandhinagar,
School, Gandhinagar, Gujarat – 382 010 Gujarat – 382 010 Ph:079 - 23257404,
Ph:079 - 23257404, M: 9662101179 Email : shailesh.unep-gef@gsbb.in
Email:aesharne@gmail.com Mobile: 7698143726
29 Dr. Rudra Prasad Das 30 Mr. Srinivas Reddy
Scientific/ Technical Assistant Technical Assistant
PouraBhawan (4th Floor), State Biodiversity Board
FD-415A, Sector - III, Bidhan Nagar, 6th Floor, Chandra Vihar Complex, M. J. Road,
Kolkata - 700106. Nampally, Hyderabad - 500 001.
Ph:033 - 23352731 / 23352702 Ph: 040 - 24602870,
Mobile: 919830517019 Mobile: 918008883882/8177512684
Email: rudraprasaddas@hotmail.com Email:dudyalasrinivas@gmail.com

25
Participants from Chennai
1 Dr. U. Sankar,
Emeritus Professor, Madras School of
Economics, Chennai- 600 025.
Email: usankar@mse.ac.in
Mobile: 9380160830, Tel - (91) 044 - 22354847
3 Dr. S. Suneetha,
UNU-IAS, Japan (Stationed at Chennai)
Flat No. 1, Arun Apartment, New No:5, IV
Cross Street, Trust Puram, Kodambakkam
Chennai-24. Email: suneethams@yahoo.com
Mobile: 9840574184
5 Dr. L. Venkatachalam
Associate Professor
Madras Institute of Devpt Studies,
79, Second Main Road, Gandhinagar, Adyar,
Chennai - 600 020. E-mail: venkat@mids.ac.in /
venkatmids@gmail.com. Tel: 0091-44-
24412589 / Extn: 305 . Mobile: 9940378763
7 Dr. Rasheed (Rtd)
Professor, I.I.T, Delhi
No.24, II Cross, CLRI Nagar, Neelangarai
Chennai. Mobile: 9445840697
9 Dr. K. R. Ranganathan
Former Member Secretary CPCB
Flat. No. 6, Ramana Apartments
21, Nathamuni Street, T. Nagar, Chennai – 17
Email: rangan2117@yahoo.co.in
Phone: 044-28152631
11 Dr. R. Chandrasekaran (Rtd)
Professor & Head (Statistics)
159/10 Ambedkar Street
Anandapuram, East Tambaram
Chennai- 600059. Email:drrcmcc@gmail.com
Mobile : 9884201734
13 Dr. Sukanya Das
Assistant Professor, Madras School of
Economics, Gandhi Mandapam Road,
Behind Government Data Center, Kottur,
Chennai - 600 025. Email : sukanya@mse.ac.in
Tel - (91) 044 - 22300304
15 Dr.Arivudai Nambi
Director. Climate Change Programe
M.S.Swaminathan Research Foundation,
Taramani Chennai-113. Email:
anambi@mssrf.res.in, Mobile: 9840783603
Participants from National Biodiversity Authority, Chennai
1 Dr. Balakrishna Pisupati
Chairman, National Biodiversity Authority
5th Floor, TICEL Biopark
Taramani Link Road, Taramani
Chennai- 600113. Ph: 044- 22542777
3 Dr. S. Subramaniyan
Non Official Member, National Biodiversity
Authority, No.54, VGP Golden Sea View, Part-
II, 2nd Main Road, 5th Cross Street,
Palavakkam, Chennai – 600 041
2 Dr. Paul P. Appasamy,
Visiting Professor, Madras School of
Economics, Chennai-600 025.
Email: ppasamy@gmail.com
Phone: 8056175283, 9487846501
4 Dr. Neelakantan,
Retired Forest Officer
new no 27,old no 8,Sivaji street,
T. Nagar, CHENNAI 17.
Email: neelaksn@gmail.com
Mobile:9952033209
6 Dr. (Mrs) Juliet Selvi Veerabadran
Project Head-Viral Vaccine
HBL HLL Biotech Limited
TICEL Biopark Campus
Taramani, Chennai-113.
Email: selviveerabadran@yahoo.co.in
julietselvi@lifecarehll.com
8 Dr. J. S. Sindhu
Assistant Professor, M Jain College
Chennai-114. Email: sindhu_js@yahoo.com,
amjaincollege.info. Mobile: 9445291981
10 Dr.Kurien Joseph
Professor, Centre for Environmental Studies
Anna University,
Chennai.Email: kuttiani@vsnl.com
Phone: 2220 3192 (Off)
Mobile: 9840393229
12 Dr. W. Richard Thilagaraj
Assistant Professor, Department of
Biotechnology, School of Bioengineering,
Kattankulathur Campus, SRM University.
Email:richardthilagaraj.w@ktr.srmuniv.ac.in.
Mobile: 9840712683
14 Dr. S. R. Senthil Kumar
Evolva Biotech Private Limited
4th Floor, TICEL Biopark , Taramani
Chennai -600 0113. Tel.: +91-44-4297 1050
Email: pmmurali@evolva.com
Mobile: 9566281311
16 Mr. A. Bhoopalan
Research Scholar
Department of Education
Madras University, Chennai.
Email: aboopalan@yahoo.com
2 Shri. Achalender Reddy, IFS
Secretary, National Biodiversity Authority
5th Floor, TICEL Biopark
Taramani Link Road, Taramani
Chennai- 600113. Ph: 044- 22542777
4 Sri . Ishwar Poojar
Manager, UNEP-GEF –MoEF- ABS Project
5th Floor, TICEL Biopark
Taramani Link Road, Taramani
Chennai- 600113. Ph: 044- 22542777
26
5 Dr. Prakash Nelliyat
Project Associate (Economic Valuation),
National Biodiversity Authority
5th Floor, TICEL Biopark
Taramani Link Road, Taramani
Chennai- 600113.Phone: 044- 22542777
Mobile: 09840165462
7 Ms. Alphonsa Jojan 8 Dr. B Andrews
Jr. Project Consultant (Legal),
National Biodiversity Authority
5th Floor, TICEL Biopark
Taramani Link Road, Taramani
Chennai- 600113.
9 Mr. Brian 10
Legal Executive,
National Biodiversity Authority
5th Floor, TICEL Biopark
Taramani Link Road, Taramani
Chennai- 600113. Ph: 044- 22542777
11 Ms. Rhoda Reena Peters 12
Project Assistant, GEF- Direct Access Project
(NBSAP) , National Biodiversity Authority
5th Floor, TICEL Biopark
Taramani Link Road, Taramani
Chennai- 600113. Ph: 044- 22542777
13 Ms. Srilakshmi
Technical Executive,
National Biodiversity Authority
5th Floor, TICEL Biopark
Taramani Link Road, Taramani
Chennai- 600113. Ph: 044- 22542777
6 Dr. Thomason Jacob
Expert Consultant,
National Biodiversity Authority
5th Floor, TICEL Biopark
Taramani Link Road, Taramani
Chennai- 600113.
Sr. Consultant (Traditional Knowledge),
National Biodiversity Authority
5th Floor, TICEL Biopark
Taramani Link Road, Taramani
Chennai- 600113.
Ms.Vidhya Shankar
Jr. Project Consultant (Legal),
National Biodiversity Authority
5th Floor, TICEL Biopark
Taramani Link Road, Taramani
Chennai- 600113.
Mobile: 9600125445
Ms. Juliet Jesline
Project Consultant (Economic Valuation)
National Biodiversity Authority
5th Floor, TICEL Biopark
Taramani Link Road, Taramani
Chennai- 600113. Ph: 044- 22542777

Journalists from the Media

1 Mr. Rahul 2 Mr. Albin Mathew

News Today, Chennai. The New Indian Express
Phone:044-22504000 Chennai. Mobile: 9962294200
3 Mr. A. Selvam 4 Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy
All India Radio Chennai. Photographer, Dinakaran
Phone: 24985252 Chennai Mobile: 9176658730
5 Mr. A. Cosmos 6 Mr. P. Opply
Doordarsdhan, Chennai. The Hindu’Chennai.
Ph: 9444565148 Phone: 28576300
7 Mr. C. Shivakumar 8 Mr. M. Karunakaran
The New Indian Express Photographer
Chennai. Mobile: 9962510541 The Hindu, Chennai. Mobile: 9841567133
9 Mr. C. Prathab 10 Mr. M. Saravanan
Dinamalar, Chennai. Dinakaran Reporter, Chennai
Mobile: 9788428617 Mobile:9940014685

27
Photo Gallery

28