Biological Diversity Act Amendments & implications

India became a party to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1994. India enacted the Biological Diversity Act in 2002 and notified rules in 2004. The nation took almost a decade from ratifying the convention to notifying the rules. Better late than never. The primary purpose of bringing this Act was to ensure the implemention of the provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity, one of the three conventions enacted in the Rio Summit 1992.
The Act provided for the conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of its components and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of biological resources, knowledge and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The amendment to the bill was tabled in December last year. And it was moved to a 21- member Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) headed by Dr Sanjay Jaiswal for its recommendations. The committee submitted its report on August 2 after 15 hearings and consultations with about 50 stakeholders. The bill was passed on August 8.
The bill seeks to encourage the Indian medicine system and wild medicinal plant cultivation, facilitate fast-tracking processes for research, patent application, and transfer of research results, and encourage foreign investment in the sector. The bill also amends the Act to include references from the Nagoya Protocol, such as sharing benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources. It also suggested expanding the constitution of the National Biodiversity Authority with ex-officio members from different central government ministries, a step welcomed by all as it will mainstream biodiversity into national policy-making.
Even though the above amendments were welcomed, many others were criticized as some of the new provisions points toward the exploitation of natural resources, especially the exemption of codifying knowledge and cultivation of medicinal plants, and only AYUSH practitioners gaining access to any biological resources and its expertise for commercial utilization. This will not only deprive the local communities of receiving associated knowledge but only benefit a few. It would pave the way for an unethical practice called “biopiracy”. This will make companies owned by religious institutions easier access to biological resources freely, without any benefit-sharing fee.
Another significant amendment proposed by the bill is to appoint an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary of the Central and state government as an adjudicating officer, giving away a judge’s responsibility to a government official. It is something to worry about whether it is appropriate to empower members of the Executive to adjudicate penalty decisions that now will be based on an inquiry instead of a judgment after arguments in an open court.
It fails to address many significant issues raised by the critics. They have also taken a strong stand against the dilution of its powers as the bill implies easy accessibility for practitioners to practice indigenous medicine without giving prior intimation to the board. The proposed amendments favour industries and contradict the Convention on Biological Diversity spirit, leading people to raise their concerns.