‘Holes’ in Biodiversity Bill : Daily Current Affairs

Relevance: GS-2: Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors and issues arising out of their design and implementation.

Relevance: GS-3: Conservation, environmental pollution and degradation, environmental impact assessment.

Key Phrases: Biological Diversity Act, 2002, United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill, 2021, National Biodiversity Authority, AYUSH, Legal Initiative for Forests and Environment, United Nations Environment Programme, Commercialisation.

Context:

Rajya Sabha MP and senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh has criticised the provisions of the Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill, 2021 that is currently being reviewed by a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC). The law was introduced in Parliament in last year by the Union Environment Minister and was referred to the JPC.

The Biological Diversity Act, 2002

The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 was framed to give effect to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 1992, which strives for sustainable, fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilisation of biological resources and associated traditional knowledge. To do this, it formulates a three-tier structure consisting of :
- National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) at the national level
- State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs) at the State level
- Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) at local body levels.
The primary responsibility of the BMCs is to document local biodiversity and associated knowledge in the form of a People’s Biodiversity Register.

The amendments proposed are:

The amended Bill was drafted in response to complaints by traditional Indian medicine practitioners, the seed sector, and industry and researchers that the act imposed a heavy “compliance burden” and made it hard to conduct collaborative research and investments and simplify patent application processes.
The text of the Bill says that it proposes to “widen the scope of levying access and benefit-sharing with local communities and for further conservation of biological resources.”
The Bill seeks to exempt registered AYUSH medical practitioners and people accessing codified traditional knowledge, among others, from giving prior intimation to State biodiversity boards for accessing biological resources for certain purposes.
The Bill removes research and bio-survey activities from the purview of benefit-sharing requirements. Benefit-sharing will be based on terms agreed between the user and the local management committee represented by the National Authority.
The Bill decriminalises all offences under the Act.

The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, informally known as the Biodiversity Convention, is a multilateral treaty opened for signature at the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro in 1992. It is a key document regarding sustainable development.
It comes under the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). India is also a party to the Convention. India ratified it in 1994. The convention is legally binding on its signatories.
The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 was enacted for giving effect to the provisions of the Convention.
To implement the provisions of the Act, the government established the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) in 2003. The NBA is a statutory body.
The Convention has three main goals:
- Conservation of biological diversity (or biodiversity);
- Sustainable use of its components; and
- Fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources.

Objections with Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill, 2021:

Environment Ministry was drawing a distinction between a registered AYUSH practitioner and a company and exempting the former from the Act. This was an “artificial distinction” as nothing prevented a registered AYUSH practitioner from having informal links with a company structure. These paved the way for potential “abuse of the law”.
Multiple provisions of the Bill, were aimed at diluting the authority of the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA), especially the clause appointing 16 ex-officio officers of the Centre.
Another provision that requires companies to seek the approval of the NBA only at the time of commercialisation, and not when applying for a patent, is a concern. The Bill also decriminalised violations, such as bio-piracy and made them civil offences, and this defeated the Act’s “deterrent powers”.
Environmentalist organisations such as Legal Initiative for Forests and Environment (LIFE) have said that the amendments were made to “solely benefit” the AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy) Ministry and would pave the way for “biopiracy.” The modifications will exempt AYUSH manufacturing companies from needing approvals from the NBA and thus will go against one of the core provisions of the Act.
The major concern with the amendment Bill is that corporate or foreign interests could use the loophole of permissions given to traditional medicine and use it for commercial purposes, without sharing benefits with the conservers of biodiversity.