Access & Benefit Sharing Provisions Under Biodiversity Conservation Law in Australia & Its Implications for India




Indigenous People, Bio prospecting., Biodiversity Conservation, Access & Benefit Sharing, Traditional Knowledge


Australia played a major role in the developing ABS framework under biodiversity conservation law. Australia is a megadiverse country with complex ABS experience and possessed huge support from the biodiversity stakeholders. Australia has adopted the regulations regarding access benefit sharing under article 15 of CBD, 1992. The Australian legislation is in compliance with PIC and MAT. The agreement reaffirms faith in CBD, 1992, Bonn Guidelines, 2001 and Nagoya Protocol, 2009. The government system of Australia is a constitutional federation which is made up of six sovereign governments, two autonomous territories, and a national government. It has a ‘common law’ system adopted from Britain. Australia’s experience is extensive with ABS to draw lessons about developing an effective institutional mechanism for public and private sector with equitable benefit sharing in scientific and commercial access. The access and benefit sharing provisions under biodiversity conservation law in Australia have potential impact to design its national laws and policies for India by synergizing environmental law and intellectual property rights in a sustainable framework.


Metrics Loading ...


Wolfgang E. Burhenne, ‘Biodiversity: The Legal Aspect’ XXII (5 and 6) Environmental Policy and Law, 324-25 (1992)

Nomani, Md.Zafar Mahfooz., ‘Sustainable Development Law In Public Policy Context: Teasing Illusions, Pragmatic Explanations & Prognostic Alternatives’, K.M.Baharul Islam et al, (Ed.) Public Policy Agenda: Decrypting Sustainability for India, Bloomsbury, New Delhi:197-208 (2016)

Christian Prip, G. Kristin Rosendal,, The Australian ABS Framework: A Model Case for Bioprospecting?, 42(2014).

Nomani, Md.Zafar Mahfooz., ‘WTO, TIRIPS Agreement And Protection of Plant Variety: Imperatives And Implication for Indian Intellectual Property Regime’, A.K. Kaul& V.K. Ahuja (Ed.) Law Relating To Intellectual Property Rights: Retrospect & Prospect, Pp. 117-133, University of Delhi, Delhi. (2001)

Nomani, Md. Zafar Mahfooz. & Rahman F., ‘WTO, India & Regional Trade Blocks’, in Jamil Ahmad et al (Ed.) WTO, India & Regionalism in World Trade, New Century Publications, New Delhi1-38(2011)

Christian Prip, G. Kristin Rosendal,, “The Australian ABS Framework: A Model Case for Bioprospecting?”

Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992. Articles 1, 8(j), 15, 16, and 19, available at: (last visited on August 15, 2017).

Nomani, Md. Zafar Mahfooz., ‘ABS Models of Intellectual Property Rights under Biological Diversity Convention and Bonn Guidelines: A Critical Appraisal under India Perspective’, Vol. 2, Journal of the Faculty of Juridical Sciences, Mody Institute of Technology and Science, pp. 91-106.(2010)

Ad Hoc Open-Ended Working Group on Access And Benefit-Sharing, Compilation Of Submissions By Parties On Experiences In Developing And implementing Article 15 Of The Convention At The National Level And measures Taken To Support Compliance With Prior Informed Consent and Mutually Agreed Terms Addendum submission By Australia[Fifth Meeting Montreal, 8 - 12 October 2007Item 3 Of The Provisional Agenda*]

Nomani, Md. Zafar Mahfooz., ‘Biological Diversity, IPR & Sustainable Development: A Critical Appraisal of Access & Benefit Sharing Models of U.S., Australia & India’ VI (11 & 12) International Journal of Environmental Consumerism, 40-55(2010)

Geoffrey Burton, ABS: ABS Law And Administration In Australia, 94, Revista Internacional de Direito De Cidadania, Australia (2009)

Objective 2.8 of the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity, 1996.

Supra note 11 at 95.

Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade available at: (last visited on August 5, 2017)

Australian Government, Geosciences Australia; available at:, (last visited on August 5, 2017).

The Nationally Consistent Approach for Access to and the Utilization of Australia’s Native Genetic and Biochemical Resources was adopted by the Australian Council of Governments in October 2002. available at:

Regulation 8A.03, Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Regulation,2000

Regulations 8-A, Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Regulation, 2000

Queensland Government, Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Justice Agreement, (2000)

AIMS - Queensland Government Agreement, Biotechnology Benefit Sharing Agreement Between Aims And The State Of Queensland, on July 26th 2000 []

Supra note 11 at 97.

Australia Access Benefit Sharing, available at: (Visited on July 29, 2017)

Supra note 11 at 94.

Virginia Marshall, “Negotiating Indigenous ABS Agreements in Genetic Resources and Scientific Research”, 14 (2013)

Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy and Development, Towards a Queensland Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Ten Year Partnership: About the Ten Year Partnership []

Queensland Government, Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Justice Agreement, (2002) []

Regulation 8A.10 of Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Regulations, 2000 deals with informed consent:

If the access is sought for a biological resource which lies in an area that is indigenous people’s land and if an access provider and owner of the land is same or a native title holder for the land, it is required for the owner or native title holder to give informed consent to a benefit-sharing agreement concerning access to the biological resources.

In considering whether an access provider has given informed consent to a Benefit sharing agreement, the Minister must think about the accompanying issues:

a. whether the access provider had sufficient learning of these Regulations and could take part in sensible transactions with the candidate to allow the benefit sharing agreement;

b. whether the access provider was given sufficient time:

i. to think about the application for the permit, incorporating time to counsel with important individuals; and

ii. if the organic assets are in a region that is indigenous individuals' territory and an access provider for the assets is the proprietor of the land, to counsel with the customary proprietors of the land; and

iii. to arrange the benefit-sharing assertion;

c. if the biological resources are in an zone that is indigenous people’s property and an access provider for the assets is the proprietor of the land and is represented by a land council — whether the perspectives of the land council about the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) have been looked for;

d. if access is sought to the biological resources of an area in relation to which native title exists — the views of any representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander body or anybody performing the functions of a representative body, within the meaning of the Native Title Act 1993, for the area about the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b);

e. whether the access provider has received independent legal advice about the application and the requirements of these Regulations

The Minister may be fulfilled that informed consent has been given by any native title holders who may be affected by the issue of a permit if the benefit-sharing agreement:

a. is a registered indigenous land use agreement, under the Native Title Act 1993, for the area; and

b. authorises the action proposed to be taken under the permit; and sets out the native title holders’ consent to the issue of the permit.

Partnerships Queensland (2004): Partnerships Queensland: The Way Forward for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Queenslanders, []

Conservation of Biodiversity By Traditional Knowledge Holders/Local Communities:

M. Ahmedullah et al., Endemic Plants of the Indian Region, I Botanical Survey of India; Calcutta: 261 (1987)

Mittermeier Russell, ‘Biodiversity Hotspots’, In: Zachos Frank, (Eds.) Global Biodiversity Conservation: The Critical Role of Hotspots, Springer Berlin Heidelberg; Berlin, Heidelberg, 3-22(2011)

V.B. Mathur, India’s Fifth National Report to Convention on Biological Diversity. Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change. Government of India, 5:10( 2014)

Shiva V. S., H. Afsar. G.B. Jafri, and R. Holla-Bhar, The Enclosure and Recovery of the Common: Biodiversity, Indigenous Knowledge and Intellectual Property Rights. Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology. New Delhi. 163-174(1997)

Nomani, Md. Zafar Mahfooz. & Rahman F., ‘Bio Piracy of Traditional Knowledge Related Geographical Indications: A Select Study of Some Indian Cases’, III(3) Manupatra Intellectual Property Reports (MIPR), F/135-152(October,2016)

Nomani, Md. Zafar Mahfooz. & Rahman F., Intellection of Trade Secret and Innovation Laws in India’, 16(4)Journal of Intellectual Property Right, (2011) Pp341-350 [ISSN 0971-7544]:

Nomani, Md. Zafar Mahfooz., ‘Environment Agriculture and Challenges of Bio-Piracy: A Blue Print of Indian Sui Generis Legal Order’, 1(2) Indian Journal of Environmental Law, Bangalore 3-22, (2000)

T.Greaves, ‘Tribal Rights’, in S. Brush and D. Stabinsky (Eds.), Valuing Local Knowledge: Indigenous People and Intellectual Property,4 (1996). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.[] See also: Greaves, T. (ed.) (1994). Intellectual Property Rights for Indigenous Peoples: A Source Book, (1994). Society for Applied Anthropology, Oklahoma City, USA.



How to Cite

Mehdi Amirmahmoudi & Md. Zafar Mahfooz Nomani. (2018). Access & Benefit Sharing Provisions Under Biodiversity Conservation Law in Australia & Its Implications for India. Legal Research Development, 2(IV), 35–46.