DEPARTMENT – RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS
NINETY – FIFTH REPORT
ON
THE BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
BILL, 2000
(PRESENTED TO THE RAJYA
SABHA ON THE 4TH DECEMBER, 2001)
(LAID IN THE LOK SABHA ON
THE 4TH DECEMBER, 2001)
RAJYA SABHA
SECRETARIAT
DECEMBER, 2001/ AGRAHAYANA,
1923 (SAKA)
CONTENTS
1.
COMPOSITION
OF THE COMMITTEE
2.
INTRODUCTION
3.
REPORT
OF THE COMMITTEE
4.
ANNEXURES
(1)
The
Biological Diversity Bill, 2000
(2)
List
of Experts/ Agencies/ Department who sent their suggestions/ observations on
Biological Diversity Bill, 2000.
(3)
List
of Experts/ Agencies/ Department who gave oral evidence before the Committee on
the Biological Diversity Bill, 2000
5.
MINUTES
OF THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE
COMPOSITION OF THE
DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS
(YEAR 2001)
1.
Shri
C. Ramachandraiah – Chairman
2.
Shri
Debabrata Biswas
3.
Smt.
S. Gokula Indira
4.
Shri
Yusuf Sarwar Khan alias Dilip Kumar
5.
Shri
K. C. Kondaiah
6.
Smt.
Chandresh Kumari
7.
Shri
Sukhdev Singh Libra
8.
Shri
Lalitbhai Mehta
9.
Prof.
(Smt.) Bharati Ray
10.
Smt.
Savita Sharda
11.
Shri
Birabhadra Singh
12.
Shri
Lachhman Singh
13.
Shri
B. P. Singhal
14.
Shri
Prakanta Warisa
15.
Shri
Ranjan Prasad Yadav
16.
Shri
Bhan Singh Bhaura
17.
Shri
Nihal Chand Chauhan
18.
Shri
Vishvendra Singh
19.
Smt.
Bhavana Chikhaliya
20.
Dr.
(Smt.) Beatrix D’Souza
21.
Shri
Laxman Giluwa
22.
Shri
Gordhanbhai Javiya
23.
Shri
Bali Ram Kashyap
24.
Shri
Hassan Khan
25.
Dr.
Charan Das Mahant
26.
Shri
S. Murugesan
27.
Shri
E. M. Sudarsana Natchiappan
28.
Shri
Ali Mohd. Naik
29.
Shri
A. Venkatesh Naik
30.
Shri
B. K. Parthasarathi
31.
Shri
Suresh Pasi
32.
Dr.
Ashok Patel
33.
Shri
Prahlad Patel
34.
Prof.
R. R. Pramanik
35.
Shri
Naresh Puglia
36.
Shri
Y. S. Vivekananda Reddy
37.
Prof.
I. G. Sanadi
38.
Shri
Lakshman Seth
39.
Shri
Ram Prasad Singh
40.
Shri
V. S. Sivakumar
41.
Shri
Vaiko
42.
Shri
V. Vetriseivan
43.
Dr.
(Smt.) Rajeswaramma Vukkala
44.
Shri
Balram Singh Yadav
45.
Shri
Akhilesh Yadav
Shri
Satish Kumar, Additional Secretary
Shri
H. K. Chanana, Joint Secretary
Shri
Mom Raj Singh, Under Secretary
Shri
A. K. Gandhi, Committee Officer
Shri
Triloknath Mishra, Research Officer
1. The Chairman of the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests, having been authorised by the Committee to present the Report on its behalf, present this Ninety – Fifth Report of the Committee, which relates to the Biological Diversity Bill, 2000
2.
In
the meetings of the Committee held on the 18th July, 15th
& 16th September, 17th ?& 18th
October, 2000 and 10th, 11th, 30th & 31st
January, 18th & 19th June, 10th, 11th,
12th, 13th & 14th September, 2001 the
Secretaries/ representatives of the Ministry and various other organizations/
experts/ individuals etc. having knowledge and expertise in the field tendered
oral evidence on the various aspects related to the Biological Diversity Bill,
2000.
3.
The
Committee expresses its thanks to the Officers of the Ministries/ Departments
and representatives of the various organizations for rendering their valuable
view/ clarification sought by the Members of the Committee.
4.
The
Committee considered and adopted the draft Report at its meeting held on 28th
November, 2001.
NEW DELHI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH November 28, 2001 Chairman,
Parliamentary Standing Committee on
Science & Technology, Environment & Forests.
REPORT
(underline
added later to highlight imp. points, bold font copied from original)
The
Chairman Rajya Sabha in pursuance of the rules relating to the Department
related Parliamentary Standing Committee referred* the Biological Diversity
Bill, 2000** as introduced in the Lok Sabha on 15th May, 2000
and pending therein to the Standing Committee on Science & Technology
Environment & Forests for examination and report.
2.
At
their first meeting held on 18th July, 2000, the Committee held
general discussion on the various provisions of the Bill and referred to the
importance and urgency of the task before the Committee. The Committee had also
the benefit of presentation on the subject by the Secretary and other Officers
of the Ministry of Environment & Forests on the Bill under reference and
the need to bring the proposed legislation. The Committee observed that the
Bill dealt with an important issue and required a thorough study. The Committee
then considered its future course of action and decided that a press Communique
might be issued in all the national dailies both in English and Hindi versions
inviting therein memoranda on the subject matter of the Bill from the
interested organizations/ institutions/ individuals having knowledge and
expertise in the field or otherwise interested in the subject. The Committee
also desired that the contents of the Press Communique be given wide publicity
through All India Radio and Doordarshan. The Chairman also requested the
Members to suggest the names of organisations, individuals, etc. from whom
memoranda might be invited. Besides, the Committee directed the Secretariat to
request the Ministry of Environment & Forests to forward to this
Secretariat a list of Organizations/ Experts/ Individuals in the field along
with their complete addresses. The Committee also desired that they might
undertake an on-the-spot study visit to various parts of the country to elicit
the views of the representatives of various organizations, associations and
general public on the subject matter of the Bill.
Accordingly, a
press communique inviting memoranda etc. was issued on 18th August
2000.
As per decision
taken by the Committee letters inviting Memoranda containing comments/
suggestions on the provisions of the Bill were also issued to Organizations/
Experts/ Individuals in the field whose names were furnished by the Ministry of
Environment & Forests.
3.
In all 35 Memoranda containing comments/ suggestions on the various
provisions of the Bill were received by
the committee from
various associations/ organizations and individuals etc. which were sent to the
Ministry of Environment & Forests for their Comments/ observations
(Annexure-II).
4.
Biodiversity
or the variety of living organism is the foundation on which life on earth
sustains itself. This variety among living organisms extends to both variety
within each species, between different species and ecosystems, which support
them. Biodiversity is a fundamental necessity of nature to maintain the
ecological balance on the planet. No single organism can exist on its own; each
one depends on numerous others in myraid ways to sustain itself and its kind.
This independence between organisms, often referred to as the web of life, is
greatly endangered today as a result of our insensitive tampering with the
nature’s well-preserved checks and balances.
5.
Scientists
and conservationists all over the world agree that life on Earth faces enormous
risks due to rapid and large-scale loss of bio-diversity, unprecedented in the
history of humankind. Moreover, diversity has an insurance value, for it widens
the range of environmental conditions under which different species can perform
key ecological and economic functions. India is endowed with a rich
biodiversity, as the country is well spread out in a wide variety of climatic
zones and habitats that range from tropical rainforests to alpine vegetation,
and from temperate forests to coastal wetlands. Eastern Himalayas and Western
Ghats are two of world’s 18 biodiversity hotspots, where bulk of earth’s plants
and animals are found. India is one of the twelve mega-biodiversity areas of
the world with over 45,000 wild species of plants and 77,000 wild species of
animals on record.
6.
India’s
rich biodiversity that exists today is estimated to be the result of over three
and half million years of evolution, which involved speciation, migration,
plate tectonics, natural holocausts, extinction and of late the human
influences, interventions and disturbances. But during the last century,
biodiversity has been drastically falling due to indiscriminate rise in human
activities in and around forests, wetlands, rivers and oceans.
7.
There
are fewer varieties of wild plants and animals today than a few decades before,
and the lost varieties are gone forever. A high degree of endemism makes the
Indian biodiversity particularly vulnerable to extinction. In last few
decades, at least 50 percent of India’s forests have been cut down, 70 percent
of its water bodies have been polluted, its grasslands cultivated and its
coasts degraded. In addition, hunting, overexploitation, poisoning by
pesticides, excessive botanical and zoological collection, displacement by
exotic varieties and a host of other activities have taken a heavy toll of
biodiversity. Already, 23 species, which include cheetah, the lesser
one-horned rhino, and pink-headed duck, have become extinct in India, and
many more species of plants and animals might have vanished without anyone
noticing them. Nearly 750 species of plants and animals appear to be on the
verge of extinction and the Gangetic river dolphin, Red Panda, Lion tailed
macaque and the Bengal tiger are some of the highly endangered animals in the
country today.
8.
Indiscriminate and illegal trade in wild plants and animals, combined
with ecologically insensitive development projects, explosive growth in human
population and the resultant pressure on the natural resources, are the main
reasons of chronic biodiversity loss in India during last few decades. Specific causes have always
varied with ecosystems. Even after independence, forests continued to be
plundered in the country on a large-scale by the industries in construction,
furniture making, paper and pulp, mining and textiles, until very recently when
most of the remaining forest cover in India has come under the protection of
national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. An important cause of habitat destruction
in the Eastern Himalayan states like Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh is jhum, or
shifting cultivation, which is practised in 70% of the land in the region.
Some experts believe that given sufficient area to operate, and long enough
fallow periods, jhum cultivation can be sustainable. However, population
pressures have led to a shortening of the fallow cycle, which has made this
form of cultivation totally sustainable. The Forest Survey of India has
recently estimated that 57% of the forests have been lost due to shifting
cultivation.
9.
Human
interference has intensified a natural process like siltation to a degree where
it has become a major threat to the wetlands in India. The Dal lake receives
80,000 tonnes of silt from Talbal Nalla every year, while the Chilka lake has been shrinking by roughly 1.5
square kilometres every year since 1925 because of siltation and the
reclamation of marginal areas. Another process affecting wetlands is
eutrophication the process by which a body of water becomes either naturally or
by pollution, rich in dissolved nutrients and often shallow with a seasonal deficiency in dissolved
oxygen. Chilika lake in Orissa, for instance, is infested with the weed
Potamogeton pectinatus as a result of eutrophication of its water from the
fertilizer run-offs regularly flowing in from the surrounding farmlands.
Further, intensive fishing in rivers, lakes and seas can reduce fish
populations to such an extent that they are no longer able to regenerate a
viable number for their continued survival. The best example of this is the
whale shark, which is now being mercilessly caught in most coastal regions of
India for both eating and its fins, which command a huge price in the
international markets.
10.
Biodiversity
is India’s real wealth and its resource base determines and ensures this
country’s survival and growth. Therefore, conserving and protecting this
natural endowment is our primary necessity. Historically, our culture and
civilization evolved and edified around this immense natural wealth. Our
present population, with nearly 80% still directly dependent on agriculture and
forests, cannot afford to be different.
11.
All India Ayurvedic Congress Manufacturers Association, New Delhi in their
representation to the Committee submitted that the definition of “commercial
utilization” should be added as follows:
“Commercial utilization
means end uses of biological researches for commercial utilization such as
drug, industrial enzymes, food flavours, cosmetics, emulsifiers, oleoresins,
colours, extracts and genes used from improving crops and livestock through
breeding or genetic interaction and shall not include traditional practices
in use in any agriculture, horticulture, poultry, dairy farming or animal
husbandry and beekeeping.
They stated that the definition of value added products should
also be added as follows:
Value added products/means “Products which may contain
portions/ extracts of plants in recognizable and physically inseparable form”.
They were of the view that
the definition of “Biological researchers” should also be incorporated
in the Bill as follows, “Bio resources means plants, animal and
micro-organism and parts thereof, their by products excluding value added
products with actual or potential use or value but does not include human
genetic material”.
12.
Dr. Ranjitsinh of India National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH), New Delhi in his
presentation on 19th June 2001 expressed concern over the provisions
of the Bill which were in conflict with certain existing laws particularly
those dealing with conservation of Biological Diversity in the field such as,
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, India Forest Act, 1927, the Forest
Conservation Act, 1980 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and suggested
that this Bill instead of overlapping should complement the existing laws.
He also expressed his concern over non-inclusion of Biological components
from the Agriculture, Forestry or Fishery in the Bill. He was of the view
that the Bill did not answer as to who decides as to who decides as to what
was sustainable? The National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) could’nt decide
for every area. So State Biodiversity Board (SBB) should be empowered to
decide in consultation with the Biodiversity Management Committee (BMC)
created by local bodies i.e. panchayats, municipalities etc. which was
sustainable. The question then arouse whether BMCs wold be technically
qualified to decide what was ecologically sustainable use of biodiversity
and whether it would be able to enforce that sustainable use and in the process
forego revenue and also earn the ire of their own people who would be out to
exploit the biological resources for
not just personal bonafide use but for commercial purposes? If not, what could
be the safeguards? “Sustainable use” means the use of biological
resources after ascertaining on a scientific basis the harvestable surplus of
biological resources in a given ecosystem after ensuring that the productivity
and ecological security of the said ecosystem, biome and biological resources
were maintainable at the optimum level on a large term basis and also ensure
that in the harvesting and removal of such harvestable surplus no adverse
impact was caused on other biota or the land in terms of Clause 7 of the Bill. He
submitted before the Committee that it should be omitted. It was a totally
impracticable and indeed an absurd provision. As agriculture, fisheries,
horticulture, animal husbandry etc. were also commercial utilization of
biological resources as defined under Clause (2)b , no person who as not a
local could cultivate crops, grow fruit, do animal husbandry or commercial
fishing, establish an atta chakki or do any research in biological sciences
without giving prior intimation to the concerned State Biodiversity Board. This
section was not simply implementable but would also cause hardship and
corruption.
13.
Arya Vaidya Sala, Kottakkal, Kerala made following suggestions for consideration
of the Committee that Clauses 7, 8, 17, 18, 22 and 40 be modified in view of
giving sufficient protection to Ayurveda and its practitioners and also by
ensuring trouble free access and availability of biological resources for
activities related to people’s health. They had submitted that the provisions
of the Bill should earmark financial support from the Consolidated Fund
for the development and maintenance of biological resources.
14.
All India Biotech Association, New Delhi made following suggestions
for consideration of the Committee:-
(i)
The
Proposed Bill should concentrate on Sustainable Use of Biological
Resources an formulate the policy for replenishment of Biological Resources
used Guidelines for Sustainable Uses of Biological Resources and for
replenishment of Biological Resources could be administered by the NBA.
(ii)
Reaffirming
the ownership of the entire Nation as such over the Biological Resources, Equitable
Sharing of Benefits should be restricted only by royalty payments for
commercialisation of Biological Resources.
(iii)
Proposals for transfer of technology and joint ownership and relocation
of production facilities should be dropped.
(iv)
The
Biotech industry be granted representation in the NBA and the State
Biodiversity Board.
(v)
No prior approvals should be required to be taken for commercialization of a Biological Resource.
In the present competitive scenario confidentiality of research and development
should be granted highest priority.
(vi)
NBA
should be empowered to sponsor scientists for generating intellectual wealth
from the Biological Resources and create healthy competition for research and development.
(vii)
While
fixing rates of royalties, due consideration should be given to R & D
efforts put in by various commercial players in developing a commercial product
from the Biological Resources. This would avoid the cascading of costs making
the end products out of reach of the common man.
(viii)
Companies
with minority foreign equity or foreign management should be treated as
Indian Companies under the Bill. This is essential to ensure technical
advancement of the country, which could then be used for commercial good of
all.
15.
The
Committee undertook study visits to Bangalore, Goa, Pune, Mumbai, Ahmedabad
from 15th to 26th September, 2000; Andaman & Nicobar
Islands from 3rd to 7th November, 2000; Bhopal; Raipur
(Durg), Nagpur from 17th to 21st January, 2001 and
Srinagar & Jammu from 18th to 23rd May, 2001.
16.
In
the course of discussions with the representatives of Government of Karnataka
on 16.09.2000 the Committee was requested that the Bill should establish
proper cross linkages and synergies with other laws like Forest and Wild Life
Laws, Plant Varieties Bill, Farmer’s Rights, Patent Laws and Environmental Laws
etc. Since the Bill overrides all other laws on the subject, there was a need
to evolve tools, techniques and procedures to harmonise the working of all concerned agencies. A mechanism should
also be provided in the Bill to document the traditional folk knowledge, to
pass on the knowledge from one generation to another. The Bill should
provide for prohibition of any patents and other monopoly rights in cases where
source of material has not been disclosed. The Committee was also informed that
the export from the universities and research institutions who are interested
in commercial utilization of Bio-diversity resources should be encouraged. The
State Bio-diversity Board should be vested with the functions of policy
implementation, licensing powers, coordination in the working of social
management Committees.
17.
In
the course of discussions with the representatives of Government of Madhya
Pradesh on 18.1.2001 the Committee was informed that Madhya Pradesh was one
of the most bio-diverse regions of the country and its tribal communities in
particular have a great deal of traditional knowledge regarding varieties of plants and animals species.
Therefore the Bill should address the concern of traditional knowledge being
appropriated by more powerful, commercial and industrial interests both at
national and international level. The Bill should contain specific provision
relating to the scientific management of the biological resources to avoid
regulatory complications. Besides, Clause 37 needed to be reviewed
dispassionately for deletion, since many heritage sites fall within the
existing protected areas and archaeological sites. In light of the
experience of the State with regard to establishment of national parks and
sanctuaries vis-à-vis rehabilitation and payment of compensation to the people.
As it is the Clause appeared unrealistic and it might not be possible to
implement this clause thus leading to dilution of the proposed legislation. If
at all this clause is to be retained, specific provisions for “public hearing”
and “Budgetary Allocations” for rehabilitating and compensating the people need
to inserted. There was also a need to make the provisions more explicit by
granting recognition to the rights of the local communities.
18.
Dr. Ram Prasad, Director, Indian Institute of Forest Management (IIFM),
Bhopal informed the Committee that under clause 8(4)(a) the person who have
knowledge of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) should be included as member.
Further, Clause 18 must provide for creation of center of excellence in
biodiversity with a view to establish synergy between WTO/ TRIPS and CBD.
This centre would impart training/ diplomas in bio-diversity, legal issues,
IPR, obligations under WTO participatory mechanims. Clause 27(2) may provide
for incentives for outstanding contribution in conservation of Biodiversity.
19.
On
19th January, 2001, the Committee held discussion with
representatives of Government of Chhatisgarh. It was informed that there
was no representative from the State
the N.B.A. Therefore, it was suggested that at least five (5) major
bio-diversity rich States should be nominated to N.B.A. Besides, the
definition of equitable benefit sharing has been left to NBA without
recognizing the rights of local people and communities as traditional benefit
claimers, who were curators, conservers, holders and innovators of biodiversity
knowledge. It was also suggested that the responsibility for bio-safety
should also be shared by the State Governments and communities with the
Central Government.
20.
The
Committee took oral evidences of the representatives of various organizations/
experts/ individuals etc., having knowledge and expertise in the field or otherwise
interested in the subject and a list of organisations/ experts/ individuals
etc., who tendered oral evidence before the Committee is enclosed (Annexure –
III).
21.
The
Committee considered the Biological Diversity Bill, 2000 in its meeting held on
18th July, 15th & 16th September, 17th
& 18th October 2000 and 10th, 11th, 30th
& 31st January and 18th & 19th June
2001.
22. The Committee had the benefit of the
presentations of Dr. M. S. Swaminathan, Chairman, M. S. Swaminathan
Research Foundation, Chennai on 31st January 2001. He laid emphasis
on creating public awareness of the importance of Biological diversity and was
of the opinion that the Biodiversity Board Fund should be used exclusively to
recognise, revitalise and reward community conservation. He suggested that a representative
of women’s organisation be included among the members of National
Biodiversity Authority. He also emphasised on defining ex situ & in situ
conservation.
Dr.
M. S. Swaminathan informed the Committee that the Biological Diversity Bill,
2000 has addressed three of the current major challenges in the biodiversity
areas, namely:
(i)
Conservation
through in situ, ex situ and
community conservation;
(ii)
Sustainable
use – leading to our rich bioresearch becoming important sources of income,
livelihoods and jobs; and
(iii)
Equitable
sharing of benefits with primary concerns of biological diversity and holders
of traditional knowledge and know how.
The most urgent tasks facing
the country are: conservation and sustainable use and equitable use and this
Bill would become a powerful instrument for achieving these objectives.
He
was also of the view that there should be step up in our research and
development efforts designed to convert our bio resources into jobs and wealth
on the ecologically sustainable and socially equitable basis. Regarding
Clause 7 of the Bill, he observed that the commercial use could not often be
anticipatory. The University research would suffer, if such provisions were
blindly enforced. He suggested that there should be a special provision for
conservation in disaster prone areas.
23.
On
15th September, 2000, Ms. Vandana Shiva of Research Foundation for
Science and Technology and Ecology, New Delhi expressed her concern over the
definition of `benefit claimers’ as the present definition alienates the
biological resources from the people and puts them into the hands of
international commercial interests who got the patents. She expressed the need
for rephrasing of the said Clause (Clause 2). Clause 3, which requires the
prior approval of National Biodiversity Authority to obtain any biological
resource in India, needs to be reexamined. She was of the view that law
should not over regulate Indian people in terms of access to their own
resources whereas no regulation is there for agro-business and global
corporations. She also desired that the Head office of National Biodiversity
Authority to be at Delhi where all the agencies, which need to coordinate, are
located. If the biodiversity resources were not preserved perhaps it would
not be possible to save the future generations and then two-third of the nation
would come on the streets because they would have no other alternative. One of
the most significant changes has already taken place, which was a change in the
definition of knowledge, in terms of who would be primary regulator over
biodiversity. The immediate questions were: whom does biodiversity belong to; who would regulate it to ensure
its sustainable and just use and conserve; where it needed to be conserved; how
its benefits would be shared; and how would adverse impacts like threat of
genetic engineering to biodiversity be prevented?
24.
The
Committee also had the benefit of hearing Dr. Rajeev Dhawan of Public Interest
Legal Support and Research Centre (PILSARC), New Delhi on 19th June
2001. He emphasised the inclusion of specific provisions in section 3A to be
added to incorporate `Public Trust Doctrine’ in the Legislation. He also
raised the issue of devising the method of controlling and regulating
introduction of genetically modified organisms into our ecosystems. According
to him the existing provision in Clause 1(3) of the Bill regarding coming into
force of the Act would render the court entirely powerless. The provision
allows a scope for confusion with regard to the entire Bill. Therefore, the
Bill as a whole, when passed, should come into force on a uniform date as
suggested by the Central Government.
Clause 2(b) regarding
definition of Biological Diversity, it was suggested, should explicitly
mention marine and other aquatic organism and ecocytes. It should also include
about the genetic diversity. The definition of biological diversity should
be as given by the Law Commission in its Alternate Bill on the line of
Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992 which read as follows:
“ Means the variability among living organism from all sources
including terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystem and ecological
complexes of which they are a part and includes diversity within species or
between species and of ecosystem including genetic diversity”.
In protecting Biodiversity from predatory mechanism such as
IPR, it was suggested that it should be mandatory for the applicant, under
patents, to obtain prior approval from N.B.A. before making such an
application to any patent authority. There was no justification for treating
applications for patent differently from other IPRs. Provisions of Clause 6(3)
of the Bill laid down that the provision of Clause 6 shall not apply to any
person making an application for any right under any law relating to the
protection of plant variety enacted by the Parliament. It was therefore,
suggested that this clause should be mandatory for even a person applying for
any rights under the protection Plant Variety Bill, i.e. it should be made
mandatory to take prior approval from the N.B.A. The inclusion of sub-Clause
6(3) would defeat the entire sprit of the Bill, which aimed at the conservation
and protection of our valuable biodiversity.
25.
The
representatives of Ayurvedic Drug Manufacturers Association, Mumbai submitted
the Clause 3(1) which requires the prior approval of the National Biodiversity
Board to obtain any biological resource would be deterrent for research as well
as Ayurvedic industry as raw herbs would not be available without NBA’s
approval. Besides, the Bill deters the foreign joint ventures as well as
collaboration with foreign scientists.
26.
The
Committee then took up Clause-by-Clause consideration of the Biological
Diversity Bill, 2000, in its meetings held on 10th, 11th,
12th, 13th and 14th September, 2001.
27.
The
observations of the Committee with regard to the principal changes proposed in
the Bill are as follows:
27.1
In
the Preamble, the Committee agreed to (I) insertion
of the words ‘fair and’ after the words ‘use of its components and’ (line 1-2).
(ii) insertion of the word
‘knowledge’ after the word ‘biological resources’ (line 2). (iii) substitution of the word ‘Fifty-first’
by ‘Fifty-second’ (line 17).
The Committee agreed to insert/ substitute as above in the Preamble.
The Preamble as amended was
adopted.
27.2
In
Clause 1(1), the Committee adopted the substitution of the figure ‘2000’ by ‘2001’.
27.3
(i)
The Committee agreed insertion of
the words ‘excluding value added
products’ after the words “by products” in clause 2(c) (line 17).
The Committee then agreed to the insertion of a definition of ‘Value Added Products’ which means “Product which may contain portions/
extracts of plants and animals in unrecognizable and physically inseparable
form”.
(ii) In Sub-Clause (f), the Committee agreed the insertion of the words ‘fair and’ before the words ‘equitable benefit sharing’.
(iii)The Committee agreed to
insertion of following Sub-Clause to
provide for definition of the term ‘Commercial
Utilisation’.
‘Commercial utilisation means end uses of biological resources for commercial utilization such as drugs, industrial enzymes, food flavours, fragrance, cosmetics, emulsifiers, oleoresins, colours, extracts and genes used for improving crops and livestock through breeding or genetic intervention and shall not include traditional practices in use in any agriculture, horticulture, poultry, dairy farming or animal husbandry and bee keeping’ after Sub-Clause 2(e) and renumber the existing Sub-Clause (f) to (n).
Chapter II
27.4
In
the title, the Committee agreed insertion of the words ‘ACCESS TO’ after the words ‘REGULATION
OFF’.
27.5
In
Clause 4 the Committee agreed to the insertion
of the words ‘or citizen of India who is
non-resident as defined in clause (30) of section 2 of Income Tax Act, 1961’
after the words ‘citizen of India’ (line 17).
27.6
In
sub-clause (1), the Committee agreed to insertion
of following provision namely ‘Provided
further that the National Biodiversity Authority shall dispose of such
application made to it within a period of 90 days from date of receipt thereof’,
after the existing proviso’.
27.7
Some
Members felt that in order to protect the interests of growers &
cultivators of bio-diversity it was necessary to provide safeguards in the
Bill. Accordingly, on the advice of Ministry of Environment & Forests the
Committee agreed to the insertion of
the words, “growers and cultivators of
bio-diversity, and”, after the word, ‘including’ (line11).
Clause 8
27.8
(i)
In Clause 8(3) the Committee agreed to substitution of the word ‘Chennai’ with
the word ‘Delhi’ (line 22)
(ii) In Clause 8(4)(c) the
Committee agreed to substitution of
the word ‘five’ with the word ‘seven’
before the word ‘members’ (line 35).
(iii) In Clause 8(4)(c) the
Committee then agreed to insertion of
following sl.nos. and words, namely,
(vi) Science & Technology;
(vii) Scientific & Industrial Research
Clause 18
27.9
In
Sub-Clause (1) the Committee agreed to insertion
of the words ‘for fair and’ before
the word ‘equitable’ (line 31).
27.10(I) In Sub-Clause (2) the
Committee agreed to insertion of the
words ‘under sub-section (1) of section
6’ after the words “outside India” (line 12).
(ii) In sub-clause (3), the Members felt that the sub-clause should provide for publication of applications received by the National Bio-diversity Authority in the Gazette and their display on website of the Ministry/ National Biodiversity Authority. The Members also suggested that the sub-clause should provide a time limit for disposal of the applications received by National Bio-diversity Authority.
The
Committee observed that the Government may make necessary provision in this
regard in the rules to be framed under the Act.
27.11In Clause 4(b) the Committee
agreed to insertion of the word “concerned” after the word “represent
the” (line 43).
27.12The Committee agreed to
insertion of following new sub-clause (3) namely, “Information provided in Forms submitted for prior intimation to procure
biological resource shall be kept confidential and shall not be shared either
intentionally or unintentionally with any unauthorized person”.
Clause 27
27.13In sub-clause (2)(b) the
Committee agreed to the insertion of
the words ‘and promotion’ after the
word ‘conservation’ (line1).
Clause 32
27.14In sub-clause (2)(c) the
Committee agreed to insertion of the
words ‘and promotion’ after the word
‘conservation’ (line 46).
27.15In Sub-Clause (1) the
Committee agreed to insertion of the
:
(i)
words
‘and promotion’ after the word
‘conservation’ (line 13).
(ii)
word
‘of’ after the word ‘monitoring’
(line 14).
The Committee then agreed to
substitution of the ‘,(comma)’ with the word ‘and’ after
the word ‘training’ (line 15).
27.16The Committee agreed to
deletion of the word ‘conservation’
after the word ‘insitu’ (line 14).
27.17The Committee then agreed to
insertion of following new
sub-clause 36 (1A) namely, “Where the
Central Government has reasons to believe that any area rich in biodiversity,
biological resources or species and their habitats is being threatened by
overuse, abuse or neglect, it shall issue directives to the concerned State
Government to take immediate ameliorative measures, offering it any technical
and other assistance that is possible or needed”.
27.18In Sub-Clause (2), The Committee
agreed to insertion of the word ‘promotion’ after the word ‘conservation’.
27.19 In Clause 38, the Committee
agreed to insertion of the words ‘in consultation with State Government
concerned’ after the words ‘Central Government’ (line 2).
Clause 41
27.20In Clause 41, the Committee
agreed to addition of the following
‘Explanation’ for the terms ‘land
races’, ‘folk varieties’ and ‘cultivars’, namely [line 21 & 22 of
Sub-clause (1)].
Explanation – For the purpose of this section –
(a) Cultivar means a variety that has originated and persisted under
cultivation or was specifically bred for the purpose of cultivation.
(b) ‘Folk variety’ means cultivated variety of plants that was developed,
grown and exchanged informally among farmers.
(c) ‘Landrace’ means primitive cultivar of crop plants that was grown by
ancient farmers and their successors.
In Clause 41(3) the Committee agreed to the insertion of the words ‘for commercial purposes’ after the word
‘biological resource’ (line 29).
Clause 44
27.21In Sub-Clause (2) the
Committee then agreed to the insertion
of the words ‘and promotion’ after
the word ‘conservation’ (line 4).
27.22The Committee adopted the deletion of the Clause. After some
discussion, the Committee decided to rephrase the clause, as follows;
The local bodies shall cause the annual reports and auditors’ reports of the Biodiversity Management Committees, submitted to the District Administration.
27.23The Committee decided insertion of following new clause,
namely,
51A. No
foreign court shall have any jurisdiction to entertain any dispute relating to
any provision of this Act or rules or regulations made thereunder.
Explanation: For the purpose of this section ‘foreign court’ means a court situated outside India and not established or constituted by the authority of the Central Government.
27.24The Committee decided
insertion of new clauses 52 and 53 on Appeals, namely;
Clause 52 – Any person aggrieved by any determination of benefit sharing or order of the National Biodiversity Authority or a State Biodiversity Board may file an appeal to the High Court within thirty days form the date of communication of the determination or order of the National Biodiversity Authority or the Biodiversity Board, as the case may be, to him.
Provided that the High Court may, if
it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from
filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further
period not exceeding sixty days’.
Clause 53 –
Every determination of benefit sharing or order made by the National
Biodiversity Authority or a State Biodiversity Board under this Act or the
order made by the High Court in any appeal against any determination or order
of the National Biodiversity Authority or a State Biodiversity Board shall, on
a certificate issued by any officer of the National Biodiversity Authority or a
State Biodiversity Board or the Registrar of the High Court, as the case may
be, be deemed to be decree of the civil court and shall be executable in the
same manner as a decree of that court.
Clause 53
(existing)
27.25The Committee considered substitution of existing clause 53 with the following clause namely,
“Clause 53 – Civil
penalties be enhanced in situations wherein the offender is a body corporate or
a company as on a cost-benefit analysis, the long term benefit that accrue from
the utilization of bioresources would far outweigh the monetary penalties
imposed by this clause”.
After some discussion the Committee felt that the punishment, fine and compensation for contravention of the provisions of section 3, section 4 or section 6 should be commensurate with the damage caused. Accordingly, the Committee agreed to substitute the clause with the following clause namely ‘whoever contravenes or attempts to contravene or abets the contravention of the ;provisions of section 3, section 4 or section 6 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees, or compensation commensurate with the damage caused, or with all these’ as the case may be.
Clause 57 (existing)
27.26The Committee agreed to rephrasing the existing Clause 57 as follows with a view to bring the provision in conformity with the extant provisions in Indian Forest Act 1927; The Wildlife (Protection) Act 1922 and Forests Conservation Act, 1980.
‘The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in contravention of the provisions in any other law; for the time being in force, relating to forests or wildlife’.
Clause 59
(existing)
27.27The Committee agreed to substitution of the existing Clause with the following namely,
‘No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this act except on a complaint made by:-
a)
the Central Government or
any authority or officer authorized in this behalf by that Government; or
b)
any benefit claimer who has
given notice of not less than thirty days in the manner prescribed, of the
alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint, to the Central
Government or the authority or officer authorized as aforesaid.
28. The Committee recommends that the Bill be passed after incorporating the amendments suggested by it.
29.
The
Committee considered and adopted the report in its sitting held on the 28th
November, 2001.