Biological Diversity Amendment Act 2023 — UPSC Notes

The Biological Diversity (Amendment) Act, 2023 rewrites India's two-decade-old framework for access to biological resources and associated traditional knowledge. It aligns Indian law with the Nagoya Protocol (2010), streamlines approvals for AYUSH and Indian-owned entities, decriminalises most offences, and — controversially — shifts the balance of power from local communities to the National Biodiversity Authority. For UPSC, the amendment is one of the most examinable environmental laws of 2023-24 and regularly features in mains questions on biodiversity governance.

Background — the 2002 Act

India ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 1992 in 1994. To implement the CBD, Parliament enacted the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, with three principal goals:

1. Conservation of biological diversity.
2. Sustainable use of its components.
3. Fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of biological resources (ABS).

Three-tier institutional architecture

Each panchayat maintains a People's Biodiversity Register (PBR) documenting local bio-resources and associated traditional knowledge.

Why amendment was needed

• Applications under the 2002 Act faced long delays; Indian AYUSH industry complained of red tape.
• Foreign investment in biotech and pharma was discouraged by mandatory benefit-sharing agreements even at research stage.
• Nagoya Protocol, 2010 (ratified by India 2012) required updates.
• Penalty framework was exclusively criminal, disproportionate to minor violations.

Key amendments in the 2023 Act

1. Definitional expansions

The amendment widens the definition of:

• Biological resources — now includes genetic material (plants, animals, microorganisms or parts thereof).
• Access, benefit claimers, derivative, codified traditional knowledge — expanded or clarified.

2. Foreign-controlled companies

A sub-clause regulates entities registered/incorporated in India but controlled by foreigners. Such entities must seek prior approval before accessing biological resources — mirroring pre-2023 requirements for foreign entities.

Indian-owned entities are now exempt from seeking prior approval; they need only give prior intimation to the State Biodiversity Board.

3. Exemption for AYUSH

AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha, Homeopathy) practitioners, local communities, growers, and cultivators of medicinal plants are exempted from giving prior intimation when accessing resources for:

• Commercial use based on codified traditional knowledge, or
• Cultivated medicinal plants and their products.

4. Sharing of research results

Sharing or transferring research findings on Indian biological resources or associated traditional knowledge requires prior written NBA clearance (with some exemptions).

5. NBA approval before patent grant

Earlier, Indian entities had to seek NBA approval before applying for a patent. The amendment allows approval before the grant of the patent — simplifying the process.

6. National Authority's role in benefit sharing

The NBA can represent and negotiate on behalf of local communities in benefit-sharing arrangements. Critics worry this dilutes direct community involvement.

7. State Biodiversity Board composition

Amended to strengthen technical expertise: inclusion of legal experts, scientists, conservationists.

8. Biodiversity Management Committees

Mandatory at rural and urban levels to document habitat preservation and promote conservation — preserving the PBR function.

9. Decriminalisation of offences

The most contentious change: complete decriminalisation of offences. Penalties shift from imprisonment to fines up to ₹1 crore; repeated offences attract additional fines.

Key concerns and criticisms

1. Shift from communities to industry

• Exempting Indian-owned and AYUSH entities while weakening local participation may undermine benefit-sharing with custodian communities.
• Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) flagged that much traditional knowledge is informally codified in community registers, risking exclusion.

2. Codified traditional knowledge — undefined

The term "codified traditional knowledge" is not clearly defined in the Act. JPC recommends defining it via First Schedule of Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 (authoritative books of Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani).

3. Foreign-controlled company — definitional loophole

Currently a foreign-controlled company under the Amendment relies on the Companies Act, 2013 definition (company incorporated outside India). JPC wants it clarified as a company registered in India but controlled by a foreigner.

4. Decriminalisation enabling large players

Critics argue large companies may prefer fines to compliance — the Act may inadvertently incentivise violations by well-capitalised players.

5. No human genetic material

Human genetic material remains outside the Act's scope — a gap as biobanking and genomics expand.

6. CBD spirit concerns

Environmental groups argue that the amendment is industry-friendly and conflicts with the spirit of the CBD and Nagoya Protocol on equity and community ownership.

JPC recommendations

The Joint Parliamentary Committee made key recommendations:

• Define codified traditional knowledge via Drugs and Cosmetics Act's First Schedule.
• Redefine foreign-controlled company to include India-registered but foreign-controlled entities.
• Consult state governments in preparing national biodiversity strategy.
• Proportional penalties — tied to gains and company size.

India's biodiversity architecture — quick map

Latest developments (2024-26)

Updated context: check MoEFCC and NBA periodic reports.

• Kunming-Montreal GBF implementation — India's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) updated 2024 to align with 30×30 target.
• CBD COP-16 Cali (October 2024) — focus on monitoring framework, resource mobilisation, DSI (Digital Sequence Information) benefit-sharing.
• India Biodiversity Awards 2024 — recognising grassroots conservation.
• NBA-approved Guidelines for accessing biological resources under amended Act issued 2024.
• BMC strengthening — state governments mandated to ensure BMCs in every panchayat.
• Supreme Court petitions challenging specific amendments — proceedings ongoing.
• Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF) — India secured initial commitments.

UPSC relevance

GS-III mapping

• Conservation of biodiversity.
• Intellectual property aspects.
• International environment commitments.

Prelims bullets

• NBA headquartered in Chennai.
• Three-tier: NBA, SBB, BMC.
• People's Biodiversity Register (PBR) maintained by BMCs.
• Nagoya Protocol on ABS adopted in 2010.
• Biological Diversity Amendment Act, 2023 — decriminalises offences; maximum fine ₹1 crore.
• Kunming-Montreal GBF — 30×30 target.

Mains angles

• "Evaluate the Biological Diversity Amendment Act, 2023 in the context of India's Nagoya Protocol obligations."
• "Discuss the concerns regarding dilution of community rights in the Biological Diversity Amendment Act, 2023."
• "How does India balance ease of doing business with benefit sharing in biodiversity governance?"

Essay hooks

• Biopiracy and benefit sharing — ethics of genetic wealth.
• Indian traditional knowledge in the bioeconomy.
• Conservation vs commercialisation.

Quick revision

Bottom line for UPSC: the 2023 amendment modernises India's biodiversity law but narrows community voice in benefit-sharing. For answers, the cleanest framing is: Nagoya-aligned and AYUSH-friendly, yet with unfinished work on community rights and international best practice in ABS.

PDF