The Biodiversity Act was passed in 2002 to ensure conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of its components, and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the use of biological resources and knowledge associated with it.
Key Provisions of the Act
Prohibition on transfer of Indian genetic material outside the country, without specific approval of the Indian Government;
Prohibition on anyone claiming an Intellectual Property Right (IPR), such as a patent, over biodiversity or related knowledge, without permission of the Indian Government;
Regulation of collection and use of biodiversity by Indian nationals, while exempting local communities from such restrictions;
Measures for sharing of benefits from the use of biodiversity, including transfer of technology, monetary returns, joint Research & Development, joint IPR ownership, etc.;
Measures to conserve and sustain-ably use biological resources, including habitat and species protection, Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) of projects, integration of biodiversity into the plans, programmes, and policies of various departments/sectors;
Provisions for local communities to have a say in the use of their resources and knowledge, and to charge fees for this; Protection of indigenous or traditional knowledge, through appropriate laws or other measures such as registration of such knowledge;
Regulation of the use of genetically modified organisms; Setting up of National, State, and Local Biodiversity Funds, to be used to support conservation and benefit-sharing;
Setting up of Biodiversity Management Committees (BMC) at local village level, State Biodiversity Boards (SBB) at state level, and a National Biodiversity Authority (NBA).
Shortcomings of the Act
The most contagious issue here is the provision of benefit sharing. Since the notification of Access to Biological Resources and Associated Knowledge and Benefit Sharing Regulations, 2014 guidelines, there’s been a ruckus which has resulted into companies rushing to the courts to seek exemptions whereas the government (SBB) issuing show-case notices to the companies.
The guidelines mandates that since companies are commercially utilizing biological resources when extracting oil or brewing or distilling alcohol, they should be sharing monetary benefits gained from these activities with the SBB. Thereby bringing under their ambit the areas left earlier untouched.
The other issue with the act is the lack of administrative powers (search, seizure or arrest) with the officials, thereby making them ineffective in dealing with wildlife crimes.
The government must address the concerns of Indian brewing and AYUSH industries via taking their objections into consideration and amending the guidelines overcoming the above follies.
