What is the Biological Diversity (Amendment) Act and why is it being criticized?

By Vivek Saini 

The Lok Sabha recently approved an amendment to the Biological Diversity Act of 2002. The Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill aims to ease the worries raised by several central ministries, state governments, academics, businesses, and other stakeholders regarding the application of the 20-year-old law that is intended to protect the nation’s biological diversity and ensure its sustainable use. The amendments seek to promote indigenous medical practices like Ayurveda, increase foreign investment in preserving and commercializing India’s biological resources, and simplify and streamline procedures so that everyone can easily abide by their requirements.

What does the amendment bill say?

The amendment bill’s goals and objectives are to protect biodiversity and promote sustainable usage and equitable distribution of benefits derived from biological resource exploitation. However, it has been stated that its provisions will have the opposite impact. The main reasons for the revisions, according to Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav, are “ease of doing business” and the development of the AYUSH industry (Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homoeopathy). In practice, this weakens existing provisions to promote the commercial exploitation of biological resources. 

The Minister claims that losing biological resources is as significant a threat as climate change. The Bill’s provisions need to reflect this recognition. The amended Bill was written in response to complaints from traditional Indian medicine practitioners, the seed sector, industry, and researchers that the Act imposed a significant “compliance burden” and made it challenging to conduct collaborative research and investments and simplify patent application processes. The Bill also wants to “extend the scope of levying access and benefit sharing with local communities and for further conservation of biological resources.” 

“The Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill, 2022 becomes first casualty of the disrupted #MonsoonSession2023. With a total discussion time of 19 mins in which 4 MPs & Ministers spoke briefly, Bill was passed, amid loud protests. The Minister also moved amendments, voted amid protests!” Madhyam, a non-profit research organization, tweeted. 

Does it consider climate change concerns and commitments? 

Following the Biodiversity Act amendment, environmentalists and community-based workers’ main query and worry is whether the suggested changes adhere to the fundamental safeguards to preserve biodiversity and cultural variety. The discussion of climate change concerns and the ensuing agreements make no mention in the Bill for protecting the rights of indigenous populations or the traditional ways that have helped preserve biodiversity and cultural variety for years. Without a single provision to improve biodiversity, the proposed revisions undermine entirely the years of work done to safeguard, protect, and maintain biodiversity.

The revisions were introduced without any pre-legislative consultation with the states, the relevant board, authority, committee, or the general public. They align with the climate priorities outlined by the government for the sole purpose of “ease of doing business.” The new revisions are a blatant breach of the rights to the environment guaranteed by the Indian constitution and the international convention and protocol to which India is a party.

What criticism does it draw? 

The Bill, which both Houses of Parliament enacted, raises significant questions about its influence on the cause it promises to support. It exempts practitioners of AYUSH and those who use codified traditional knowledge from having to share advantages with nearby communities. It also deprives local communities of legally their benefits and contradicts the Bill’s declared goal of guaranteeing “fair and equitable sharing of benefits.” Local communities and forest dwellers don’t appear to be considered stakeholders in the Bill’s discussion of biological resources. It is a well-known fact that they play a crucial role in the preservation and sustainable utilization of biodiversity.

The current legal framework, which values community participation and involvement as crucial to resource conservation, is shifting toward business. The Bill’s provisions may make it easy for business entities to access and manage biological resources. The term “codified traditional knowledge” is not defined in the proposed legislation, which may lead to circumstances in which the law cannot be relied upon to prevent the commercial exploitation of such knowledge. The Bill effectively decriminalizes the offenses covered by it and lessens the impact of its deterrent effects by substituting monetary penalties for jail for violations of its provisions. 

The Biological Diversity Act 2002 and why was it needed?

Biological diversity encompasses all forms of life — animals, plants, and microbes — as well as their gene pools and the habitats in which they live. The 2002 Act was enacted in response to the worldwide need to safeguard and conserve biological resources threatened by human activity. Much later, in 2019, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a scientific organization akin to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), emphasized the depth of the damage.

This report delivered a stern warning: around 1 million animal and plant species, out of approximately 8 million, were facing extinction. It stated that 75% of the Earth’s land surface and 66% of the oceans have been “significantly altered.” However, attempts to conserve biological diversity had begun far earlier. Countries, including India, signed the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), an international framework agreement comparable to the more well-known one on climate change, in 1994. 

There was general agreement on three points:
(i) indiscriminate use of biological resources needed to be stopped.
(ii) sustainable use of these resources, such as medicinal properties, must be regulated.
(iii) people and communities who helped protect and maintain these resources must be rewarded for their efforts.

The government of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee adopted India’s Biological Diversity Act in 2002 with these goals in mind. It established the National Biodiversity Authority as a regulatory agency. It specified the criteria and reasons under which biological resources could be used. The primary goals are scientific research and commercial use.

References:

1. https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/biological-diversity-amendment-bill-passed-in-lok-sabha/article67120215.ece/amp/
2. https://twitter.com/_maadhyam_/status/1683770605135622144?t=I4Ry_MJyGRd9jETQvqAh_A&s=19
3. https://www.deccanherald.com/amp/story/opinion%2Feditorial%2Fan-amendment-that-harms-biodiversity-2636991
4. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/padr.12283
5. https://www.un.org/ldcportal/content/convention-biological-diversity-and-its-protocols