NEW DELHI: A day after the Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill, 2021 was introduced in Lok Sabha, the Opposition Congress on Friday opposed the government’s proposal to refer it to a select committee instead of opting for ministry-specific standing committee to examine its provisions.
The Bill, introduced by environment minister Bhupender Yadav on Thursday, seeks to encourage Indian system of medicine, bring more foreign investments in the chain of biological resources and decriminalize certain provisions for use of traditional knowledge of such resources by local communities, ‘vaids’, ‘hakims’ and registered AYUSH practitioners who have been practicing indigenous medicines for “sustenance and livelihood”.
Flagging his party’s opposition which wants the Bill to be referred to standing committee, Congress member in Rajya Sabha and chairman of Parliamentary standing committee on science & technology and environment, Jairam Ramesh, on Friday wrote to the Lok Sabha speaker About Birla, urging him not to allow the government to take the select committee route.
“The subject matter of the Bill and indeed of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 which is sought to be amended belongs fairly and squarely to the ministry of environment, forests and climate change, and consequently to the standing committee related to it,” said Ramesh in his letter to the Speaker.
The Opposition suspects that the select committee, headed by any ruling party member, may not do justice with the various concerns raised by different experts over certain provisions of the Bill which has not only diluted the penalty provision by replacing imprisonment with fines in the proposed legislation but also replaced judge (court) with a joint secretary-level officer to determine the penalties.
Ramesh has in his letter, however, not stated any specific reason. “I don’t wish to say more on the motivations of the government to bypass the standing committee concerned and refer the contentious Bill to a select committee. The motivations are obvious. All I wish to say is that the move is a deliberate insult to the standing committee,” Ramesh wrote, urging the Speaker to refer the Bill to the concerned standing committee.
Experts, meanwhile, questioned why the government didn’t seek public comments on the proposed amendment as it concerns every part of the country and also pertains to India’s international commitment under Convention on Biological Diversity.
The Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment (LIFE), New Delhi-based environmental research group, in its analysis said that the principal aims of the proposed legislation was to “reduce the compliance burden” and “facilitate investment”. “Conservation of biological resources is clearly the last priority. The Amendment Bill will undo all the efforts made in the last few years to implement the Biological Diversity Act,” it said.
Noting that the main focus of the Bill is to facilitate the trade in biodiversity, the LIFE said, “Not a single provision in the proposed amendment relates to protection, conservation or increasing the stake of local communities in the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity. The amendment seems to be done with the sole intention of providing benefit to the AYUSH industry. There is not even one provision in the proposed amendment which aims to enhance either the level of protection of biodiversity or in making the Nagoya Protocol implemented in its true letter and spirit.”
The Bill, introduced by environment minister Bhupender Yadav on Thursday, seeks to encourage Indian system of medicine, bring more foreign investments in the chain of biological resources and decriminalize certain provisions for use of traditional knowledge of such resources by local communities, ‘vaids’, ‘hakims’ and registered AYUSH practitioners who have been practicing indigenous medicines for “sustenance and livelihood”.
Flagging his party’s opposition which wants the Bill to be referred to standing committee, Congress member in Rajya Sabha and chairman of Parliamentary standing committee on science & technology and environment, Jairam Ramesh, on Friday wrote to the Lok Sabha speaker About Birla, urging him not to allow the government to take the select committee route.
“The subject matter of the Bill and indeed of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 which is sought to be amended belongs fairly and squarely to the ministry of environment, forests and climate change, and consequently to the standing committee related to it,” said Ramesh in his letter to the Speaker.
The Opposition suspects that the select committee, headed by any ruling party member, may not do justice with the various concerns raised by different experts over certain provisions of the Bill which has not only diluted the penalty provision by replacing imprisonment with fines in the proposed legislation but also replaced judge (court) with a joint secretary-level officer to determine the penalties.
Ramesh has in his letter, however, not stated any specific reason. “I don’t wish to say more on the motivations of the government to bypass the standing committee concerned and refer the contentious Bill to a select committee. The motivations are obvious. All I wish to say is that the move is a deliberate insult to the standing committee,” Ramesh wrote, urging the Speaker to refer the Bill to the concerned standing committee.
Experts, meanwhile, questioned why the government didn’t seek public comments on the proposed amendment as it concerns every part of the country and also pertains to India’s international commitment under Convention on Biological Diversity.
The Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment (LIFE), New Delhi-based environmental research group, in its analysis said that the principal aims of the proposed legislation was to “reduce the compliance burden” and “facilitate investment”. “Conservation of biological resources is clearly the last priority. The Amendment Bill will undo all the efforts made in the last few years to implement the Biological Diversity Act,” it said.
Noting that the main focus of the Bill is to facilitate the trade in biodiversity, the LIFE said, “Not a single provision in the proposed amendment relates to protection, conservation or increasing the stake of local communities in the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity. The amendment seems to be done with the sole intention of providing benefit to the AYUSH industry. There is not even one provision in the proposed amendment which aims to enhance either the level of protection of biodiversity or in making the Nagoya Protocol implemented in its true letter and spirit.”
.