The Biodiversity Legal Database updates

It has been a while since the release of the Biodiversity Legal Database at the end of last year, and we’re glad to share a brief update on what’s new and where we are headed.

At the moment, our database includes 78 international instruments, 10 international cases, and 30 national cases. This quarter, the emphasis was on case law: we added 11 new national cases addressing different aspects of biodiversity, including unauthorized hunting, protection of sedentary animals, deforestation, etc. On national jurisprudence, the new additions include cases from the Philippines, Norway, South Africa, Canada, India, and Russia:

National cases (title + country) added from 5 November 2025 to 12 March 2026

1. Bangus Fry Fisherfolk et al. vs. Enrico Lanzanas et al.  • Philippines  2. Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association Inc. v. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and Warkworth Mining Limited [2013] NSWLEC 48 • Australia 3. Stiftelsen WWF Verdens Naturfond v. The State  • Norway 4. Decision of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation of December 3, 2012 No. VAS-12173/12  • Russian Federation 5. Ruling of the Economic Disputes Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 13 June 2019 № 307-ЭС19-2293 in Case № A05-1395/2018 • Russian Federation 6. Appeals Decision of the Court of the Sakhalin Region of 20.01.2022 in case No. 33a-21/2022 (UID 65RS0001-02-2021-001009-80)  • Russian Federation 7. Environmental Defence Canada v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans)  • Canada 8. Lemtongthai v S (A82/2013) [2013] ZAGPJHC 294; 2014 (1) SACR 495 (GJ) (30 August 2013)  • South Africa 9. Lemthongthai v S (849/2013) [2014] ZASCA 131; 2015 (1) SACR 353 (SCA) (25 September 2014)  • South Africa 10. Mining and Environmental Justice Community Network of South Africa and Others v Uthaka Energy (Pty) Ltd  • South Africa 11. Bio Diversity Management Committee v. Union of India  • India

One featured example is the Bio Diversity Management Committee v. Union of India, which raises several practical questions:

• What qualifies as a “biological resource” under India’s Biological Diversity Act 2002 (BD Act)?
• Where do benefit-sharing obligations end?
• Could coal, a fossil fuel of plant origin formed millions of years ago, legally qualify as a protected biological resource?

The decision of the National Green Tribunal examines the statutory definitions and the objectives of the BD Act (read alongside the Convention on Biological Diversity) and explains why coal was held not to be a biological resource and thus fell outside the BD Act’s benefit-sharing framework.

We have also upgraded the search functionality to deliver more precise results and enhanced the visual design of the case cards. You can now refine your search by selecting a topic, a judicial body, and a time period.

As always, we welcome suggestions on materials to prioritize next—please contact us via the “Contact us” form on the main page.