The Rajya Sabha passed the Biological Diversity Amendment bill, which exempts AYUSH practitioners and users of traditional knowledge from sharing benefits with local communities. Opposition MPs raised concerns about exploitation by corporations and the lack of benefit sharing with tribals and local communities. The bill aims to simplify coordination between the National Biodiversity Authority and the patents office and reduce compliance burden for AYUSH practitioners and patent applicants. The amendments were triggered by a court judgment against a company owned by yoga entrepreneur Ramdev. The legislation aims to promote AYUSH and encourage collaborative research.
The Rajya Sabha passed the contentious Biological Diversity Amendment bill 2021 on Tuesday, making way for promotion of the AYUSH (Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani and Homoeopathic) industry. Among several provisions, the bill exempts users of codified traditional knowledge and AYUSH practitioners from sharing benefits (arising out of use of biological resources) with local communities who are traditional knowledge holders.
Though opposition party members walked out, some MPs raised concerns and flagged contentious aspects of the bill in Rajya Sabha.
“The main issue with the amendment bill is that corporate or international corporations will exploit traditional medicine permits for commercial gains in India without sharing gains with local biodiversity holders. I request the minister to take care of biodiversity conservationists. I support the bill,” said GK Vasan, president of Tamil Maanila Congress.
Ramji Gautam of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) said, “When countries came together to conserve their biodiversity then we also signed the Convention on Biological Diversity. We brought the Biological Diversity Bill, 2002 and it has several provisions on sustainable use of biological resources. We should not undo that system completely. It promoted limited and sustainable use of biological resources. What were the issues with the previous bill? How will this bill address those lacunas? If we look at the National Forest Policy of 1988, it said we should have forest cover on 33% of land. Our biological resources depend on how much forest land we have, which is 24% presently. We fear that this amendment will promote commercial use of biological resources; large corporations will invest in these products. How will it impact our biological resources? The amendment also decriminalises violations, which is worrying. How about benefit sharing with tribals and local communities? I request the minister to focus on these concerns.”
One of the objectives of the bill is to simplify the lack of coordination and linkage between the NBA (National Biodiversity Authority) and the patents office. “This delays the process. There is no data on how many biodiversity patents have been approved by the patents office. India accounts for 7% to 8% of the world’s recorded species. India accounts 4 of 34 global biodiversity hot spots. We must restore them. We have a centuries-old tradition of healing diseases. Despite vast biodiversity, a meagre ₹7 crore is spent towards biodiversity conservation. I request the minister to increase the budgetary allocation,” said V Vijayasai Reddy of the YSRCP.
Union environment minister Bhupender Yadav responded to the comments and said the idea is to simplify the process for AYUSH practitioners and patent applicants and reduce their compliance burden. “India being a party to the CBD adopted in 1992. It was implemented by the government mainly for achieving three objectives: 1. Conservation of biological diversity 2. Sustainable use of its components and 3. Fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of utilisation of its resources. We are continuing to work on that. Then what is the purpose of the amendment? As we know, we are having a three-tier system of protecting biodiversity. At the national level we have a National Biodiversity Authority; at the state level we have a State Biodiversity Authority and at the local level we have the Biodiversity Management Committees,” Yadav said.
“The present act provides a mechanism for accessing biological resources and sharing of benefits in a fair and equitable manner with biodiversity management claimers. With the present amendment we are providing more mechanisms to our tribal people; our local people; they have a vast knowledge of this tradition. We want to promote AYUSH and Ayurved. We want to amend the act to achieve this objective. We are simplifying and streamlining the process for a reduced compliance burden and encourage an environment for collaborative research. We are also simplifying the patent application process, not only for biodiversity but for other streams of science because patent authority is one. More and more patents will be allowed in this stream,” he said.
“We have widened the scope of levying access and benefit sharing. That is the main objective… it also reduces pressure on wild medicinal plants by encouraging cultivation and reducing access and benefit sharing burden on Indian companies… decriminalises offences by opting of civil law in place of criminal provisions in order to reduce fear among stakeholders for effective compliance,” Yadav said.
Congress leader and chair of the standing committee of science and technology, environment, forests and climate change, Jairam Ramesh responded stating that the Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill, 2021 was first tabled in the Lok Sabha on December 16, 2021. The bill contained a number of far-reaching amendments to the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. The amendments had been triggered by an Uttarakhand high court judgment of December 21, 2018 in the Divya Pharmacy vs Union of India case which went against a company owned by yoga entrepreneur Ramdev. The judgement forced the company to have fair and equitable benefit sharing with local communities.
The bill draws a distinction between a registered AYUSH practitioner and a company and exempts the former from the benefit sharing provisions of the National Biodiversity Act, 2002. “This may well open the door to large-scale exemptions and is undesirable since a registered AYUSH practitioner may well be having informal links with a collective, which may or not have a company structure, Ramesh said, adding that the bill says that approval of the National Biodiversity Authority is required only at the time of commercialisation of a patent and not at the time of application for a patent. This has far-reaching consequences and NBA approval at the time of commercialisation will be reduced to a formality,” he said.
The legislation aims to amend the Biological Diversity Act of 2002. It was drafted in response to concerns raised by practitioners of traditional Indian medicine, various industry sectors and researchers, who felt the current biodiversity conservation law places a heavy compliance burden, making it difficult for collaborative research and investments.