The story so far: On 1st August, the Rajya Sabha passed the Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill, 2021 amid a walk-out by the opposition parties, about a week after it was cleared by the Lok Sabha. The Act aims to conserve biodiversity, promote its sustainable use and equitable sharing of benefits that arise therein. Amendments proposed in the Bill however are at odds with this aim. During discussions in Rajya Sabha, the Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav, explicitly spoke of “ease of doing business” and promotion of the AYUSH industry (Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy) as reasons why the government is bringing forth the amendments.
Why is the Bill considered problematic?
The Bill exempts “codified traditional knowledge” and the AYUSH industry from benefit sharing, denying local communities’ benefits from accessing biological resources. The term “codified traditional knowledge” lacks a clear definition, leading to potential exploitation. Experts regard this exemption as regressive because a reason why the legislation was enacted in the first place was to ensure “fair and equitable sharing of benefits”, thereby contributing to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. It decriminalises offences and proposes monetary penalties instead, raising concerns over resource exploitation.
To what extent has the Act been implemented?
It is important to bear in mind that the proposed relaxations come at a time when the Act hasn’t even been implemented in full. A 2022 investigation by the Centre for Science and Environment showed that in many States, there was no data available on money received from companies and traders for access and benefit sharing and in cases where money was collected, the same wasn’t shared with local communities.
A 2016 study by legal researchers showed that many difficulties have cropped up in many States when it comes to implementing provisions of the Act, especially those related to access and benefit sharing. Some of these issues were also challenged in high courts and the National Green Tribunal.
How does the industry view the Act?
The industry has been unhappy with the regulations and has run to courts and sought relaxations. Consider the 2016 case where the Uttarakhand Biodiversity Board sent a notice to Divya Pharmacy, part of Baba Ramdev’s Patanjali Yog Peeth Trust, stating that the company was in violation of the Act for using biological resources without prior intimation to the Board. The company challenged the notice in the Uttarakhand high court, although it ultimately lost the case.
And in 2015, representatives from Gujarat’s Ayurveda industry urged the central government to provide some relief to the sector by postponing the implementation of access and benefit sharing provisions. In response, the then Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar said the industry has to deposit an amount towards these provisions and that no exemption can be granted.
These are the precedents to the amendments which have been proposed now for “ease of doing business.”
In fact, in the ‘Statement of Objects and Reasons’ section, the Bill clearly states that “concerns were raised by the stakeholders representing Indian system of medicine sector, seed sector, industry sector and research sector urging to simplify, streamline and reduce compliance burden in order to encourage conducive environment for collaborative research and investments, simplify patent application process…”.
On 2nd August, the Rajya Sabha also cleared the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill which severely limits the conservation scope of the Act. Read together, the two Bills are part of a larger trend of dilution of environmental regulations that are underway in the country, especially since the COVID pandemic. That the Environment Ministry has given precedence to “ease of doing business” rather than its mandate to protect the environment is cause for concern
