Overview of the Bill
The Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill, 2021, was introduced in the Lok Sabha in December 2021. Its primary aim is to amend the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. The government stated that the amendments were intended to simplify compliance, encourage investment in research and commercial utilization of biological resources, and streamline regulatory processes.
However, the Bill sparked considerable debate among environmentalists, biodiversity experts, and civil society organizations. Concerns were raised about its potential impact on the core objectives of the original Act: conservation, sustainable use, and equitable benefit sharing (ABS).
"The Bill seeks to balance the demands of various stakeholders, but its implications for biodiversity protection and community rights remain a focal point of discussion."
Note: As of its introduction, this was a Bill. For UPSC exams, it's crucial to be updated on its current status (whether it became an Act and its final provisions).
Stated Objectives of the Bill
The government proposed the amendments to:
- Reduce compliance burden for domestic companies, researchers, and AYUSH practitioners.
- Encourage investment in research, patenting, and commercial utilization of biological resources.
- Streamline approvals by the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) and State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs).
- Facilitate access to biological resources and associated traditional knowledge for the Indian system of medicine.
- Decriminalize certain offences, substituting them with monetary penalties.
- Clarify definitions and provisions to remove ambiguities.
Key Proposed Amendments & Concerns
The Bill introduced several significant changes, each accompanied by specific rationales from the government and concerns from various stakeholders. These are detailed below:
Proposed Amendment:
Exempt registered AYUSH practitioners and companies from seeking prior intimation/approval from SBBs for accessing biological resources for commercial utilization (if using codified traditional knowledge). They would also be exempt from benefit-sharing under certain conditions related to codified TK.
Rationale (Government's View):
To promote the Indian system of medicine and reduce "pressure on wild medicinal plants by encouraging cultivation."
Concerns Raised:
- Potential for Biopiracy & Unsustainable Use: Broad exemptions could lead to over-extraction without adequate oversight or benefit sharing, especially for non-codified TK.
- Ambiguity of "Codified Traditional Knowledge": The definition was seen as unclear, potentially allowing large companies to exploit resources without fair benefit sharing.
- Weakening Access & Benefit Sharing (ABS): Seen as significantly diluting ABS provisions, a cornerstone of the BDA and Nagoya Protocol.
Proposed Amendment:
Clarify and potentially expand the definition of "value-added products" exempt from benefit-sharing. Original Act exempts products where biological resources are mere ingredients, not the primary focus.
Rationale (Government's View):
To provide clarity and encourage product development.
Concerns Raised:
A broader definition could allow companies to make minor modifications and claim exemption from ABS, depriving communities and the nation of due benefits.
Proposed Amendment:
Decriminalize certain offences (e.g., failure to seek prior approval) and replace them with monetary penalties. Imprisonment provisions were to be removed for such offences.
Rationale (Government's View):
To encourage compliance, reduce the "burden" on businesses/researchers, and promote ease of doing business.
Concerns Raised:
- Reduced Deterrence: Monetary penalties might not deter large corporations if potential profits are high.
- Shift in Focus: Critics argued it shifted focus from conservation and community rights towards facilitating commercial interests.
Proposed Amendment:
Changes regarding NBA composition (e.g., increasing ex-officio members from government) and delegation of powers.
Concerns Raised:
Potential for increased governmental control and reduced independence of these regulatory bodies. Concerns about expertise and focus of a more bureaucratically dominated NBA.
Concerns Raised (Implications):
While not directly dismantling BMCs, critics feared the overall emphasis on streamlining access for commercial entities and exempting certain users from SBB oversight could indirectly weaken the role and relevance of BMCs in regulating access and ensuring benefit sharing at the local level.
Process of Introduction & Consultation
The journey of the Bill involved parliamentary procedure and calls for wider stakeholder engagement:
Bill Introduced
The Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill, 2021, was introduced in the Lok Sabha.
Referred to JPC
Due to significant concerns raised by various groups, the Bill was referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Calls for Consultation
Environmental groups and experts consistently called for wider public consultation and a thorough assessment of the Bill's potential impacts.
Arguments in Favor (Proponents' View)
- Facilitating research and investment by reducing cumbersome approval processes.
- Promoting the AYUSH sector, a national priority.
- Improving ease of doing business in India.
- Removing ambiguities and making the regulatory framework more efficient.
- Potentially reducing pressure on wild medicinal plants by encouraging cultivation (though the Bill focused on codified TK).
Major Concerns & Criticisms Summarized
- Dilution of Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) provisions.
- Marginalization of local communities and their rights.
- Increased risk of biopiracy.
- Weakening of the conservation focus in favor of commercial interests.
- Ambiguity in certain terms and provisions.
- Potential contradiction with India's international commitments (CBD, Nagoya Protocol).
Status and Outcome (As of last general knowledge)
Current Standing
The Bill was referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC). The JPC was tasked with consultations and submitting a report with recommendations. For the UPSC exam, it is critical to track the final outcome:
- Did the JPC recommend changes?
- Were these changes incorporated?
- Was the Bill passed into an Act? If so, what are the final provisions of the Biological Diversity (Amendment) Act?
- A comparative analysis of the original Act and the amended Act would be essential if it becomes law.
Significance & UPSC Relevance
Why this Bill is Significant for UPSC
- Directly impacts a cornerstone environmental legislation.
- Reflects tension between conservation, community rights, and economic interests.
- Highlights challenges in implementing international agreements (CBD, Nagoya).
- Provides insights into contemporary environmental governance issues.
UPSC Relevance
Prelims:
- Key proposed changes (AYUSH exemptions, decriminalization, ABS).
- Rationale and major concerns.
- Role of a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC).
Mains (GS Paper III - Environment, Governance):
- "Critically examine the key provisions...and its potential implications..."
- "Discuss the need for amendment and associated concerns."
- Questions on balancing conservation with economic development.
Points for Critical Analysis
If the Bill becomes an Act, or for critical evaluation, consider the following:
- Does the amendment genuinely address the problems it sought to solve (e.g., compliance burden for small AYUSH practitioners) without creating larger loopholes?
- How does it impact the functioning and autonomy of NBA, SBBs, and particularly BMCs?
- What are the safeguards to prevent misuse of exemptions or provisions related to "codified traditional knowledge"?
- How does it align with India's international commitments under the Nagoya Protocol on ABS?
- What is the likely impact on the livelihoods and rights of local communities and traditional knowledge holders?