New Delhi: The Lok Sabha Tuesday passed the Biodiversity (Amendment) Bill, 2021 by a voice vote, after a debate which lasted only ten minutes. The bill seeks to bring in changes to the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 — which had been passed to “provide for conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of its components and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the use of biological resources”.
The new bill not only simplifies compliance requirements — for the ease of doing business — but also decriminalises biodiversity offences.
Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav introduced the bill in the afternoon session, while Opposition parties were raising slogans demanding a statement from Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the ongoing ethnic violence in Manipur.
In his reply to the short debate which followed the introduction of the bill, Yadav was quoted in the media as saying, “The world is facing a triple crisis, climate change, desertification and loss of biological resources. The biological diversity act is meant for sustainable use of biological components and fair and equitable sharing of benefits with vulnerable communities.”
He added: “We wish to promote ease of doing business. Under AYUSH, use of biological resources was promoted by the government. We want research, cooperation and innovation in this sector. We want to promote ease of doing business and living.”
The bill was then passed by voice vote, with the House being adjourned immediately after, till 5 pm.
Experts have, however, reportedly argued that the bill may lead to rampant commercialisation and deny benefits of biological resources to local communities that hold traditional knowledge.
ThePrint looks at the main features of the bill and the concerns surrounding it.
Also Read: ‘Global double emergency’: WWF highlights ‘devastating’ loss of biodiversity in new report
The Biodiversity (Amendment) Bill, 2021
The Bill proposes to exempt users of codified traditional knowledge and AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homoeopathy) practitioners from sharing benefits with local communities.
While this will likely benefit the AYUSH industry, critics have pointed out that it stands contrary to the aims of the existing law to conserve biodiversity and favours the industry.
Additionally, it also decriminalises all offences under the Act. Instead it offers a range of monetary penalties, and empowers government officials to hold inquiries and determine these penalties.
In a piece he wrote for the Frontline in May last year, Ritwick Dutta, environmental lawyer and founder of the Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment, pointed out that the “principal aim” of the amendment bill is to facilitate ease of doing business for those sectors dependent on biological resources, but conservation and benefits to local communities had been reduced to only a “footnote.”
Dutta also noted that the bill did not consider local communities and forest dwellers’ stakeholders in biological resources.
“The cause for concern is also that the amendment aims to undermine the positive developments that have taken place with respect to the BDA (2002) in recent years. In fact, a close analysis of the Bill reveals that it aims to undo the progress that has happened in ensuring democratisation of biodiversity governance in the country,” he wrote.
Dutta added: “The problem with the Bill is that it does not anywhere reflect that there is a global or national biodiversity crisis, one that is resulting in scarcity, decimation, and extinction of biological diversity. It views nature as an inexhaustible, infinite resource to be exploited for profit. The Bill marks a significant shift from the democratic thrust of the existing law to one that favours corporate control over biodiversity.”
Last year, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy had submitted its comments to a joint parliamentary committee considering the bill. The concerns flagged by the group reportedly included “significant relaxations” in regulation of biological resources and that the replacement of imprisonment as a punishment with a monetary penalty could have a lower deterrent effect on offenders.
What led to the present bill
The Biological Diversity Act, 2002, was passed by Parliament under India’s commitment to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.
The Act sought to regulate access to biological resources and associated traditional knowledge. It also set up a three-tier structure for regulation, including the National Biodiversity Authority at the national level, state biodiversity boards at the state level, and biodiversity management Committees at the local body level.
In December 2021, however, the Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill, 2021, was introduced in Lok Sabha and was subsequently referred to a joint parliamentary committee for consideration.
The committee in its report tabled in Parliament in August last year accepted several of the proposed amendments, including exempting users of codified traditional knowledge from sharing benefits with local communities and replacing punishments for violations with penalties.
According to Sanjay Jaiswal, member of Parliament and former state president of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) Bihar unit, who also chaired the joint parliamentary committee on the bill, it had not received any dissent note.
Under CBD, two protocols were adopted: the Cartagena Protocol on biosafety (2003), and the Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit sharing (2014). India had ratified both.
While the Cartagena Protocol aims to ensure the safe handling, transport and use of living-modified organisms (LMOs) resulting from modern biotechnology which may have adverse effects on biological diversity and risks to human health, the Nagoya Protocol is an international agreement on sharing the benefits arising from the utilisation of genetic resources in a fair and equitable way.
During Tuesday’s debate on the bill, Jaiswal contended that the amendments were brought in view of the Nagoya Protocol.
“Some states have taken wrong advantage of it. Jharkhand shut all sawmills saying they come under biodiversity. This impacted the livelihood of people dependent on them. Similarly, Chhattisgarh suddenly realized that coal is a biodiversity product. Pharmaceutical companies were being harassed by officers,” he alleged.
(Edited by Poulomi Banerjee)
Also read: India among 190 nations to agree to ‘historic’ framework to ‘halt & reverse’ biodiversity loss