Criticisms of Biological Diversity Bill

In News 

• Provisions in the recently brought Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill, 2021 are being criticised for various reasons.
  • The bill seeks to amend the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.

About the Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill, 2021

• 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.
• Wild medicinal plants: 
  • It seeks to reduce the pressure on wild medicinal plants by encouraging the cultivation of medicinal plants; 
  • The bill focuses on regulating who can access biological resources and knowledge and how access will be monitored. 
• Ayush practitioners: 
  • It exempts Ayush practitioners from intimidating biodiversity boards for accessing biological resources or knowledge; 
  • It is a huge move because the Ayush industry benefits greatly from biological resources in India. 
  • The role of state biodiversity boards has been strengthened and better clarified in the bill.
• Research and offences:
  • It facilitates fast-tracking of research, simplifies the patent application process, decriminalises certain offences; 
  • Violations of the law related to access to biological resources and benefit-sharing with communities, which are currently treated as criminal offences and are non-bailable, have been proposed to be made civil offences.
• Investments: 
  • To bring more foreign investments in biological resources, research, patent and commercial utilisation, without compromising the national interest.

Criticisms

• Distinction of AYUSH practitioner and a company:
  • The bill is criticised for drawing a distinction between a registered AYUSH practitioner and a company and exempting the former from the Act. 
  • This provision is said to be drawing an “artificial distinction” as nothing prevented a registered AYUSH practitioner from having informal links with a company structure. 

• Authority of  National Biodiversity Authority (NBA):
  • Multiple provisions of the Bill may dilute the authority of the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA).
    • Example being – A provision, that requires AYUSH manufacturing companies to seek the approval of the NBA only at the time of commercialisation, and not when applying for a patent, was of concern. 
      • This provision goes against one of the core provisions of the Act.

• Only benefitting Ayush industry:
  • 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.”

• Commercial utilisation: 
  • Registered Ayush practitioners who have been practising indigenous medicine can access any biological resource and its associated knowledge for commercial utilisation, without giving prior intimation to the state biodiversity board.

• Decriminalisation of bio-piracy:
  • The Bill also decriminalised violations, such as bio-piracy and made them civil offences, and this defeated the Act’s “deterrent powers,”.
• Bio utilisation removed:
  • The bill has excluded the term “bio-utilisation”.
  • Leaving out bio utilisation would leave out an array of activities like characterization, inventorisation and bioassay which are undertaken with commercial motives.
• Focussing on trade:
  • The main focus of the bill is to facilitate trade in biodiversity as opposed to conservation, protection of biodiversity and knowledge of the local communities. 

Source: TH