Context: The 2023 amendments to India’s Biological Diversity Act of 2002 has caused a debate concerning biodiversity protection and India’s responsibilities as a signatory to the Kunming-Montreal framework.

• Biodiversity is a growing business globally. Whether it is the role biodiversity plays in regulating natural systems that mitigate climate and ecological risks to businesses, the direct business opportunity – estimated at $3.6 trillion by building regenerative food, land and ocean use systems – or the emerging market in biodiversity credits, biodiversity is slowly gaining recognition for the value it delivers to the global economy.

• In India, the market for ethnobotanical medicine was estimated at $18.1 billion in 2020.

Background

• In 2022, at the United Nations Biodiversity Conference, countries all over the world adopted the Kunming-Montreal framework to enhance biodiversity protection and conservation. 

• The countries adopted calls to protect 30 percent of all ecosystems by 2030, to protect biodiversity and genetic diversity and ensure fair and equitable sharing of benefits of traditional knowledge with the local and indigenous communities that steward this knowledge.

Amendments under scrutiny

• Under the original 2002 Act, approvals from the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) were required before applying for intellectual property rights (IPR) related to biological resources.

• The 2023 amendments have eased this requirement, no longer mandating approval from the National Biodiversity Authority for IPR, but only requiring them to be registered with the authority before granting approvals – raising concerns about possible resource overexploitation.

• The exemption of codified traditional knowledge from the benefit-sharing mechanism and stringent regulatory oversight has also raised further concerns.

• These changes undermine the principle of fair and equitable benefit-sharing, which is central to both the original Act and Nagoya Protocol.

• By allowing AYUSH practitioners and related industries to access biological resources without prior approval, the amendments open the door to commercial exploitation without adequate compensation to local communities that hold traditional knowledge.

• Decriminalization of offenses: Previously, violations could result in imprisonment and fines, however the amendments now replace imprisonment with civil penalties.

What are the Concerns?

• The amendments could lead to false claims about the cultivation of bio-resources and potential manipulation by businesses. 

• It is argued that without stringent oversight, there could be widespread misuse and exploitation of local resources, adversely affecting both biodiversity and the livelihoods of local communities dependent on these resources. 

• In the North East, where traditional knowledge about medicinal plants and ecological management is profound, this change could exacerbate existing socio-economic disparities and contribute to cultural erosion. 

Strengthening monitoring systems

• The amendments strengthen the role of Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) by clarifying their functions and mandating their establishment in rural and urban areas.

• The new provisions also place a stronger emphasis on monitoring biological resources derived from foreign countries, ensuring compliance with international agreements like the Nagoya Protocol.

Road Ahead

• It is crucial that the regulatory changes are implemented with strong safeguards, robust monitoring, and active involvement of local communities to ensure that biodiversity conservation and sustainable development go hand in hand. 

• Balancing economic development with conservation and equitable benefit-sharing will be essential to safeguard India’s rich biological heritage for future generations.