|
SNo. |
Name and Address |
Phone/ Fax/ Email |
|
1. |
Dr.B. S. Dhillon,
Director of Research,
Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana 141 004, Punjab
|
Tel
91-161-240 1221
drpau@pau.edu |
|
2. |
Prof. P. S. Ramakrishnan,
Jawaharlal Nehru University,
New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi |
Tel: 011 – 2671 7676
psr@mail.jnu.ac.in |
|
3. |
Prof. T. C. Narendran,
Systematic Entomology Laboratory,
Department of Zoology, University of Calicut,
Calicut-673 635 |
Tel: 91-494-240 1144 / 419; Fax: 91-494-240 0269
drtcnarendran@yahoo.com |
|
4. |
Dr. G. S. Lavekar,
Director,
Central Council for Research in Ayurveda & Siddha,
61-65, Institutional Area, Opp. D Block, Janakpuri,
New Delhi |
Tel
: 91-11-2852 8262
ccras_dir1@nic.in |
|
5. |
Dr. Yogesh S. Shouche,
National center for Cell Science,
Pune University Campus, Ganeshkhind,
Pune-411 007. |
Tel: 91-20-256 0922(o)
Fax: 91-20-2569 2259(o)
yogesh@nccs.res.in |
|
6. |
Dr S. Kannaiyan
Chairman
National Biodiversity Authority, Chennai |
|
|
7. |
Dr K. Venkataraman
Member Secretary
National Biodiversity Authority, Chennai |
|
|
8. |
Dr Hemal Kanvinde
Consultant
National Biodiversity Authority, Chennai |
|
|
9 |
Ms. Tijitha Anand
Consultant
National Biodiversity Authority, Chennai |
|
|
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
WELCOME ADDRESS: Dr. K. Venkataraman, Member Secretary, NBA
Dr. K. Venkatraman welcomed all the members of the Expert
Committee to the NBA. He elaborated on the importance of
collaborative research in the increase of our knowledge and
how in many ministries guidelines are not in place. He said
that the full day deliberations would be useful to NBA to
fulfill its agenda and duties and also that the NBA would
assist the committee in every way possible in order to ensure
that its task is achieved.
Top
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Prof. Dr. S. Kannaiyan, Chairman, NBA
Prof. Dr. S. Kannaiyan introduced the Biological Diversity Act
(BD Act) 2002 to the members of the Expert Committee and
specially clarified the sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act that
deal with access, research result transfer and collaborative
research, respectively. He explained the process used by the
ICAR to develop their guidelines and how scientists were given
an opportunity to express their views through many interactive
sessions in the four Bureaus of the ICAR. He explained that a
similar procedure would help in getting diverse views on
collaborative research and the committee would come out with a
robust document. He also invited the members to suggest names
of experts who would be able to contribute towards the
development of a policy guideline for the country. He then
asked the committee chairman to take charge of the meeting.
Top
OPENING REMARKS: Dr. B. S. Dhillon, Chairman, EC on
Collaborative Research
Dr. B. S. Dhillon welcomed the committee members, explained
the importance and complexity of the task assigned to the
committee. He added that the ICAR deals only with domesticated
biodiversity, with the help of four Bureaus, and said that
this committee had a greater challenge as it has to address
the entire biodiversity represented in India. He stated that
the International Treaty on Plant genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture, CBD and other international obligations are
also to be kept in view. He requested the committee members to
give suggestions freely.
Top
DISCUSSION
POINTS
1. Discuss Section 5 of the BD Act 2002 and any other relevant
section for this committee
The committee discussed the section 3, 4 and 5 of the BD Act
2002. It deliberated on the definition of the term body
corporate and types of private organisations. It was
highlighted that any company whether Indian or foreign which
had a share capital from foreign country would need to get the
approval from NBA to have any access to biological diversity
as per the Section 3 of the BD Act.
The committee also deliberated on the “such institutions” of
Section 5 and decided that this applied to all Government
Departments and institutions.
Dr. S. Kannaiyan explained how third party transfers which are
done without the knowledge of the Indian Government is a great
loss to the people of our country. Hence all transfers of
India’s biodiversity and knowledge thereof should be monitored
and need stringent regulations.
There was a general discussion on who should be involved in
the preparation of the guidelines. Dr. K. Venkatraman
reiterated that all the relevant ministries that deal with
Biodiversity should have guidelines in place and these
ministries should be listed and involved in the preparation of
the guidelines. Else they should be encouraged to prepare
independent guidelines for the activities of their ministries
and the NBA would assist in technical matters and in any other
way in necessary. Dr. G. S. Lavekar proposed that Department
of Ayush would like to develop such guidelines and would
appreciate some help from the NBA.
Dr. T. C. Narendran was concerned that at present the
repositories of germplasm/ specimen do not favourably consider
loaning specimen for studies to outstation universities and
institutes, while the repositories abroad are more willing to
share their information and specimens. He said that this needs
to be rectified.
Dr. P. C. Ramakrishnan explained the importance of the
traditional knowledge value systems in villages and how new
technologies are eroding these value systems. He said that
these guidelines should ensure that the local people’s
knowledge is safeguarded. He also reiterated that all local
communities should be aware of the BD Act and the guidelines.
Top
2. Discuss the documents available and the ICAR Draft
Guideline on Germplasm Exchange
The meeting material contained a few guidelines/ agreements
developed by ICAR and two other government departments, an NGO
and an International Research Agency (Appendix I). These
documents were reviewed in minute details so as to cull out
the relevant sections and principles and use them for the
Indian National guidelines.
Top
3. Discuss the “terms of reference” given to this committee to
find out ways in which to meet the terms. -- The way forward
The terms of reference given to the committee were discussed
and to see that the same are kept in view during deliberations
and what more needs to be done so that the committee may
fulfill the objectives.
Term of reference:
|
 |
Develop guidelines to address collaborative research in
accordance with Section 5 of BD Act viz; bilateral or
multilateral research approved by the Government of
India (Note: Whether there is policy Guideline by the
Government of India? Whether the Biodiversity Act has
incorporated into already existing guidelines? Whether
there is a need to prepare a new set of guidelines?)
It was
decided that the NBA should approach all the relevant
ministries and obtain the present guidelines under which
collaborative projects are approved. The NBA should also
gather information on the types of collaboration/ titles
of collaborative projects underway in India that are
related to biodiversity. |
|
|
|
|
|
Develop guidelines in accordance with Section 5 of BD
Act, for collaborative research amongst organisations,
universities, departments etc involving foreign
institutions (In view of the increased focus by outside
agencies/organisation on certain groups of organisms
such as salt tolerant varieties and insects, the
committee may consider tightening of norms for
collaborative research).
The draft guidelines (Appendix II) address the above
concern. The committee discussed whether there was a
need to differentiate in the collaborating
institutes/bodies. It was decided that the policy
guidelines developed by this committee will apply to all
bodies/institutes that undertake collaborative projects,
i.e., it shall apply to all. |
|
|
|
|
|
Develop guidelines in accordance with Section 5 of BD
Act, for accredited or approved bodies and industry;
between industries and research organizations supported
by the Government; industries and research
organizations; between academic institutions within
India and abroad.
It was decided that since the guidelines would apply to
all collaborating institutes, there was no need to make
distinction between the natures of the collaborators.
However, a request from industry in foreign countries
should be routed through the Government of that country.
The committee emphasized the need to ensure that third
party transfers and benefit sharing issues are
adequately addressed. |
|
|
Develop guidelines in accordance with Section 5 of BD
Act, for non-collaborative research (collections) under
the following three categories viz; flora, fauna and
microorganisms of soils. sediments and genetic material
from dead organisms.
Dr K.
Venkatraman explained that the term “from dead
organisms” was added to emphasize that dead parts
harbour a lot of microbial diversity and can be used to
isolate DNA and should not be treated as inanimate
objects. The committee decided that the above was not
within their purview since they do not deal with
collaborative research. |
|
|
|
|
|
Develop guidelines for sharing of data and ongoing
research in accordance to the Act.
The
committee felt that the ongoing research projects of
collaborative nature will be taken care of; and if are
of non–collaborative nature, then these projects do not
fall in the purview of the committee.
Dr. K. Venkatraman explained the different committees
that are functioning and some are proposed to be formed
in the forthcoming NBA meetings. He also explained that
some of the other committees will address other issues.
This committee can send their recommendation to the
other committees. He said that at present the NBA does
not have an implementing body and the forest department
of the State Govt. may be used as the enforcement agency
for the NBA. |
Top
4. Discussions
on any other matters
A few names were recommended by the experts to be included in
the interactive sessions and in the next meeting of the expert
committee as needed.
|
1. |
Dr S.
N. Sharma, Head, RPDP, CSIR, New Delhi |
|
2. |
Dr Ravi
Khetripal, Head, Plant Quarantine , NBPGR, New Delhi
|
|
3. |
Dr. Roy
Choudhury, Dept. Of Zoology, Univ. of Calcutta,
Ballygunge Circular Road, Kolkata |
|
4. |
Prof.
Anantharaman, Dept. of Life Sciences, Manipur
University, Impal |
|
5. |
Dr. R.
P. Gupta, Research Co-ordinator, College of Basic
Sciences, PAU, Ludhiana |
|
6. |
Dr.
Tapan Chakravarthy, IMC Chandigarh |
|
7. |
Dr
Bharat Desai, School of International Studies, JNU |
|
8. |
Dr.
C.L.L. Gawda, Program Leader, Crop Improvement, ICRISAT,
Pattencheru A.P. |
|
9. |
Dr V.
K. Joshi, Medicinal Plant |
|
10. |
Dr S.
Saxena, Division of Germplasm Conservation, NBPGR, New
Delhi. |
Top
Recommendations
The committee discussed various issues and decided as follows:
| 1. |
To merge the salient
features of the documents discussed in the meeting and
the ICAR document in order to prepare the first draft of
the guidelines. |
| 2. |
To organize interactive
sessions with relevant scientists and policy makers,
once the first draft of the guidelines are finalised by
this committee. |
| 3. |
To send communications to
the relevant ministries on the importance of developing
their own guidelines and defining their priority areas
for undertaking collaborative research. |
| 4. |
To communicate to them the
ways in which NBA will support their efforts.
|
| 5. |
To gather information on
the ongoing collaborations relating to research in
biological diversity. |
Top
Concluding Remarks: Dr. B. S. Dhillon, Chairman, EC on
Collaborative Research
The Chairman thanked all and one for their cooperation and
inputs to the deliberations and suggested that the next
meeting should be on any Saturday in April 06.
Vote of Thanks: Dr. Hemal Kanvinde, Member Secretary,
EC on Collaborative Research, proposed the vote of thanks.
|
