Protecting Unique Ecosystems: Biodiversity Heritage Sites (BHS) in India

India is one of the world’s 17 mega-diverse countries, hosting an extraordinary range of ecosystems, species, and genetic diversity. But conserving this wealth isn’t just about large national parks or tiger reserves. A lesser-known but equally important conservation tool exists under Indian law – Biodiversity Heritage Sites (BHS). These are designated areas of ecological importance that protect unique and fragile ecosystems, often with deep cultural ties to local communities. As of 2024, India has notified 45 such sites across 16 states, each safeguarding irreplaceable biological resources.

What are Biodiversity Heritage Sites? 🔗

Biodiversity Heritage Sites are well-defined areas recognised for their outstanding ecological value. They cover terrestrial, coastal, inland water, and marine ecosystems that harbour rich biodiversity. Unlike national parks or wildlife sanctuaries that primarily focus on wildlife protection, BHS take a broader view – they protect not just species, but also the ecological processes, traditional knowledge systems, and cultural practices linked to biodiversity in a given area.

The concept was introduced under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, which India enacted following its commitments under the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The Act came into force in 2003, followed by the Biological Diversity Rules in 2004, establishing a complete legal framework for biodiversity governance in the country.

India’s first BHS was the Nallur Tamarind Grove in Bengaluru, Karnataka, notified around 2007. This grove, believed to be a relic of the Chola dynasty from nearly 800 years ago, set the precedent for how India would go on to protect its diverse biological heritage at the local level.

Criteria for BHS designation 🔗

Not every ecologically important area qualifies as a Biodiversity Heritage Site. The selection criteria are specific and science-driven. An area must be a unique and ecologically fragile ecosystem that possesses one or more of the following characteristics:

Richness of wild and domesticated species: The site should display significant variety in both wild species and domesticated or cultivated varieties, including intra-specific diversity. This means an area with many local crop landraces or livestock breeds could qualify alongside a forest teeming with wildlife.

High endemism: Sites with a concentration of species found nowhere else – endemic species – receive priority. Endemism signals that a specific ecosystem has evolved in relative isolation, making its biodiversity irreplaceable.

Presence of rare and threatened species: Areas hosting species classified as rare, endangered, or threatened are strong candidates. This also includes keystone species and species of evolutionary significance, such as wild ancestors of domesticated crops and cultivated plant varieties.

Fossil beds and evolutionary heritage: Sites with past pre-eminence of biological components – represented by fossil beds, for instance – can be designated as BHS for their evolutionary and scientific importance.

Cultural, ethical, and aesthetic values: This is where BHS stands apart from most conservation designations. Areas that hold cultural significance for local communities, that carry ethical importance in maintaining cultural diversity, or that have a long history of human association with the natural environment are also eligible. Sacred groves, for example, often meet this criterion.

Legal framework and the designation process 🔗

The legal foundation for BHS lies in Section 37 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. This section empowers state governments to notify areas of biodiversity importance as Biodiversity Heritage Sites. The process is designed to be consultative and community-driven rather than top-down.

How a site gets designated 🔗

The designation process begins at the grassroots level. Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs), which operate at the local body level (panchayats, municipalities), are typically the first to propose potential sites. The State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs) may also invite suggestions from communities, gram sabhas, and other local institutions.

Once a potential site is identified, the process involves several steps. Public discussions are held among local bodies, gram sabhas, and urban ward committees regarding the proposal, including its implications such as possible restrictions on resource use. These discussions aim to include all sections of society with proper gender and social representation.

After approval by the relevant gram sabhas or urban local bodies, the SBB issues a preliminary notification specifying the boundaries of the proposed BHS. Surveying and mapping may be required at this stage. Following expert evaluation, local consultations, and the approval of a management plan by the SBB, the state government issues the final notification in the Official Gazette.

The three-tier governance structure 🔗

India’s biodiversity governance operates through a three-tier system. At the national level, the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA), headquartered in Chennai, advises state governments on the selection and management of BHS. At the state level, SBBs coordinate the identification and notification process. And at the local level, BMCs handle on-the-ground documentation through People’s Biodiversity Registers (PBRs) and participate in site management.

Under Section 37(2), state governments can frame rules for the management and conservation of BHS in consultation with the central government. Importantly, Section 37(3) mandates that state governments must also frame schemes for compensating or rehabilitating any person or community economically affected by a BHS notification.

Management of Biodiversity Heritage Sites 🔗

Day-to-day management of a BHS falls to the Biodiversity Management Committee or another appropriate local institution designated by the relevant local body. When a BHS extends across more than one local jurisdiction, a dedicated BHS Management Committee is constituted to coordinate conservation efforts.

These management committees are expected to represent all sections of local communities, especially those most dependent on natural resources and those who have traditionally conserved the area. Their primary responsibility is to prepare and implement a management plan covering a period of five to ten years. The SBBs facilitate the implementation of these plans, which can include activities such as ecosystem regeneration, revival of degraded habitats, and reintroduction of threatened or locally extinct wildlife where feasible.

A Monitoring Committee with a three-year tenure reviews the implementation of the management plan and recommends improvements. This built-in review mechanism is meant to ensure that conservation efforts remain dynamic and responsive to changing conditions.

One critical feature of the BHS framework is that designation does not automatically restrict the prevailing practices and usages of local communities. The intent behind BHS is to enhance the quality of life of local populations through conservation measures, not to displace or restrict them. This community-first approach distinguishes BHS from more restrictive conservation categories like national parks.

Community impact and cultural significance 🔗

BHS are not just ecological conservation tools – they serve as bridges between nature and culture. Many designated sites are areas where communities have maintained traditional conservation practices for generations.

Sacred groves and cultural heritage 🔗

Several BHS include sacred groves – patches of forest that local communities have protected for centuries as part of their cultural and religious traditions. The Gupteswar Forest in Odisha’s Koraput district, for instance, lies adjacent to an ancient Shiva temple and contains sacred groves that have been traditionally worshipped by local communities. The site spans 350 hectares and hosts a remarkable diversity of flora and fauna, including threatened medicinal plants like Indian trumpet tree and Indian snakeroot.

Livelihood and eco-tourism benefits 🔗

BHS designation can open doors for eco-tourism and sustainable livelihood opportunities. When a site gains recognition for its ecological uniqueness, it can attract responsible tourism that generates income for local communities without degrading the ecosystem. The framework encourages this approach as a way to align conservation goals with economic development.

BHS also play a role in preventing bio-piracy – the unauthorized commercial exploitation of biological resources and associated traditional knowledge. By documenting local biodiversity through People’s Biodiversity Registers and bringing these resources under a legal protection umbrella, BHS help secure the rights of communities over their biological heritage.

Contributions to broader goals 🔗

At a larger scale, BHS contribute to India’s commitments under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which calls for conserving and effectively managing at least 30% of terrestrial, inland water, and marine areas by 2030 (the “30×30” target). BHS also directly support the UN Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 14 (Life Below Water), and SDG 15 (Life on Land). These sites contribute to regional climate resilience through carbon sequestration and water regulation, while serving as living laboratories for biodiversity research.

Conservation challenges 🔗

Despite the strong legal backing and community-centred design, BHS management in India faces several persistent challenges.

Limited awareness and documentation 🔗

Public knowledge about BHS remains low compared to better-known conservation categories like national parks or tiger reserves. Scientific documentation of many sites is incomplete, which limits effective protection and makes it harder to argue for conservation when development pressures arise.

Urbanization and land-use conflicts 🔗

Several BHS face pressure from expanding urban areas, infrastructure development, and industrial projects. India has seen instances of protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement driven by infrastructure, mining, and industrialization. BHS, which often lack the same level of legal enforcement as national parks, can be particularly vulnerable to such pressures.

Inconsistent funding and community engagement 🔗

Not all states allocate consistent financial resources to BHS management. In many cases, Biodiversity Management Committees at the local level operate with minimal budgets and limited technical capacity. While the legal framework envisions active community participation, the reality is that many BMCs remain under-resourced and under-supported.

Fragmentation and connectivity 🔗

BHS are often isolated pockets of biodiversity within larger landscapes that may be heavily modified by human activity. Without adequate landscape-level planning to ensure connectivity between protected areas, these sites risk becoming ecological islands where species populations remain small and genetically vulnerable. Conservation scientists emphasize the need to move from a species-centric approach to area-based management that connects diverse ecosystems across broader landscapes.

Strategies for effective preservation 🔗

Addressing these challenges requires a multi-pronged approach that strengthens both the legal framework and on-the-ground implementation.

Strengthening documentation and research 🔗

Comprehensive biodiversity assessments – covering flora, fauna, and microorganisms – are essential for every BHS. Regular monitoring helps detect changes, identify emerging threats, and guide adaptive management. Partnering with research institutions can bring much-needed scientific expertise to local conservation efforts.

Building local capacity 🔗

Capacity-building programs for BMC members, forest officials, and local conservationists are critical. Training in biodiversity monitoring, management plan preparation, and sustainable livelihood practices can transform BMCs from paper bodies into effective conservation actors. Ensuring adequate financial support from state governments is equally important.

Integrating BHS with landscape-level planning 🔗

BHS should not be treated as isolated patches. Linking them with other protected areas, community-conserved areas, and corridors can create functional ecological networks. This landscape approach is particularly important in biodiversity hotspots like the Western Ghats and the Eastern Himalayas, where multiple BHS could form part of a larger conservation mosaic.

Promoting collaborative governance 🔗

Effective BHS management requires collaboration among government agencies, NGOs, research institutions, and most importantly, local communities. The governance process must be not just consultative but genuinely collaborative, democratic, and empowering – actively working to address existing power imbalances and ensure that resource-dependent communities have a real voice in decisions that affect their livelihoods and surroundings.

Leveraging technology and awareness 🔗

Digital tools can support BHS management through improved mapping, remote sensing for habitat monitoring, and online platforms for People’s Biodiversity Registers. At the same time, public awareness campaigns – targeting schools, local media, and digital platforms – can raise the profile of BHS and build broader public support for biodiversity conservation.

Notable Biodiversity Heritage Sites across India 🔗

India’s BHS span a remarkable variety of ecosystems and geographies. Karnataka leads with several early designations, including the Nallur Tamarind Grove and the Hogrekan area in Chikmagalur, which features unique Shola vegetation and serves as a wildlife corridor between Kudremukh and Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary.

Odisha now has four BHS, including the Gupteswar Forest and Mahendragiri in Gajapati district. West Bengal has notified eight BHS – the highest among all states – including Char Balidanga in Nadia, a pair of islands with tropical riverine vegetation and unique algal ecosystems. Majuli Island in Assam, the world’s largest river island, is another notable BHS, recognised for both its ecological and cultural heritage.

In Ladakh, Yaya Tso, a high-altitude lake at 4,820 metres above sea level, has been proposed for BHS designation. It serves as a critical nesting and breeding ground for bird species such as the bar-headed goose and the black-necked crane – highlighting how BHS can protect ecosystems ranging from tropical groves to alpine wetlands.

The road ahead 🔗

Biodiversity Heritage Sites represent one of India’s most thoughtful approaches to conservation – one that integrates ecological science with community rights, cultural heritage, and sustainable development. The framework recognises that biodiversity conservation cannot succeed through top-down enforcement alone. It requires the active participation and buy-in of the people who live closest to the resources being protected.

However, the potential of BHS is still largely unrealised. With only 45 sites notified over nearly two decades, the pace of designation needs to accelerate. More importantly, the quality of management at existing sites must improve through better funding, capacity building, and integration with broader conservation strategies. India’s commitment under the Global Biodiversity Framework to protect 30% of its land and waters by 2030 makes this task all the more urgent.

What do you think? Can a conservation model that prioritises community participation and cultural values succeed in the face of rapid urbanisation and development? How can India balance the need for economic growth with the protection of its irreplaceable Biodiversity Heritage Sites?

References

1. http://nbaindia.org/content/106/29/1/bhs.html
2. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/21545/1/the_biological_diversity_act,_2002.pdf
3. https://wiienvis.nic.in/Database/bhs_8650.aspx
4. https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/paper3/biological-diversity-act-2002
5. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1982309
6. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/754587/
7. https://visionias.in/current-affairs/monthly-magazine/2024-03-15/environment/biodiversity-heritage-site
8. https://www.onmanorama.com/news/india/2024/02/14/biodiversity-heritage-sites-in-india.html
9. https://ceerapub.nls.ac.in/review-of-indias-biodiversity-strategy-and-action-plan-2024-2030/
10. https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.13004
11. https://www.pmfias.com/biodiversity-heritage-sites/