Exploring the Biological Diversity (Revision) Act of 2023

The Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill, 2023, introduced in Parliament on December 16, 2021, has sparked debate and concern over its potential impact on biodiversity conservation, economic development, and equitable benefit-sharing.

Key Controversies:

The Bill's proposal to exempt certain AYUSH practitioners and holders of "codified traditional knowledge" from benefit-sharing obligations has raised apprehensions. The lack of a clear definition for "codified traditional knowledge" could lead to exploitation of biodiversity resources and exclusion of local community rights.

Another controversy revolves around the marginalization of local communities. Despite the Act's goal to protect local and indigenous communities' rights, the amendment does not adequately recognize or empower these groups. The weakened biodiversity governance, due to resource constraints, technical capacity gaps, and coordination inefficiencies, undermines equitable benefit-sharing.

Implications:

The Bill's potential to weaken biodiversity protection and equitable benefit-sharing frameworks could accelerate biodiversity degradation, threatening ecosystems and vulnerable species. The Bill's aim to streamline access to biological resources for economic activities like traditional medicine industries could encourage commercial exploitation with limited regulatory oversight, threatening long-term ecological sustainability.

The potential misuse of the "codified traditional knowledge" exemption could undermine fair benefit-sharing arrangements, risking the marginalization of genuine traditional knowledge holders and indigenous communities who rely on these resources for their livelihoods.

In summary, the 2023 Amendment Bill has sparked controversy over its potential to weaken biodiversity protection and equitable benefit-sharing frameworks, with significant implications for conservation and local community rights. The effectiveness of the Bill will depend on clarifying definitions, strengthening local institutions, and ensuring accountable implementation.

The joint committee submitted its report to Parliament on August 2, 2022, recommending certain amendments to address concerns raised by stakeholders. However, as of mid-2025, no evidence suggests resolution of these controversies.

Background:

The Act, enacted in 2002 to address India's commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity, establishes a three-tiered mechanism for biodiversity management. The National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) operates at the national level, State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs) at the state level, and Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) at the local level.

The bill seeks to simplify the patent application process for biological resources and associated traditional knowledge to facilitate collaborative research and attract investments. It also aims to encourage medicinal plant cultivation by reducing regulatory burdens on practitioners and companies involved in Indian systems of medicine.

Meaningful stakeholder engagement and inclusive consultations are vital for fostering a collaborative approach to biodiversity conservation. The alignment of definitions with existing laws to regulate access by foreign-controlled companies has led to concerns about the unchecked exploitation of India's biodiversity.

The decriminalisation of offences under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, is another contentious aspect of the bill. The NBA is responsible for formulating policies, guidelines, and mechanisms for biodiversity conservation and equitable benefit-sharing. The bill aims to encourage the NBA to formulate policies that simplify the patent application process and promote medicinal plant cultivation.

SBBs facilitate biodiversity management at the state level by formulating strategies, granting approvals, and promoting awareness among stakeholders. The bill's aim to streamline access to biological resources could potentially facilitate economic activities like traditional medicine (AYUSH industries). However, it could inadvertently encourage commercial exploitation with limited regulatory oversight, threatening long-term ecological sustainability.

[1] Source: Various reports and studies on the Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill, 2023, by environmental and social justice organisations. [4] Source: Joint Parliamentary Committee Report on the Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill, 2023.

The proposal to exempt certain AYUSH practitioners and holders of "codified traditional knowledge" from benefit-sharing obligations, as outlined in the Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill, 2023, has sparked apprehensions about potential exploitation of biodiversity resources and exclusion of local community rights.
The lack of a clear definition for "codified traditional knowledge" could impact fair benefit-sharing arrangements, risking the marginalization of genuine traditional knowledge holders and indigenous communities who rely on these resources for their livelihoods.
The Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill, 2023, has raised concerns about its potential impact on biodiversity conservation, environmental-science, and equitable benefit-sharing, given its aim to streamline access to biological resources for economic activities like the traditional medicine industry, which could encourage commercial exploitation with limited regulatory oversight.
The joint committee's recommendations to address concerns raised by stakeholders, as detailed in their report submitted to Parliament on August 2, 2022, could be a step towards strengthening the protection of biodiversity, improving equitable benefit-sharing, and upholding local community rights.
The effectiveness of the Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill, 2023, in ensuring accountable implementation, protecting local and indigenous communities' rights, and promoting sustainable use of biological resources will depend on the clarification of definitions and the strengthening of local institutions.
The unchecked exploitation of India's biodiversity by foreign-controlled companies, as a result of the proposed alignment of definitions with existing laws, has become a contentious issue in the ongoing debate about the Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill, 2023.
The decriminalisation of offences under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, and the encouragement of the NBA to formulate policies that simplify the patent application process and promote medicinal plant cultivation, as outlined in the Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill, 2023, have stirred discussions in the realm of politics, finance, business, general-news, and crime-and-justice.