<p>The Biodiversity Law was intended to prevent bio-piracy by non-Indians, organisations and corporates. It aimed to regulate access to the country’s rich bio-resources. More importantly, the law envisaged equitable benefit sharing of Indian bio-resources and the knowledge associated with it. Commenting on the Biodiversity Law (BDL) Amendment, Jairam Ramesh, former minister for environment and forest (MoEF), says the amendment would lead to misuse and exploitation.</p>.<p>However, prior to passing of the Bio Diversity Act 2002, the Biodiversity Bill was widely debated. The writer was among the representatives of the ayurvedic sector to present evidence before the then Parliamentary Standing Committee of MoEF. The Standing Committee, after considering similar representations from many other related sectors, recommended insertion of Section 7 in Chapter II on the regulation of access to biological diversity. As per this, a simple prior intimation to the state biodiversity board for obtaining biological resources for certain purposes was introduced in the act. A citizen of India / a body corporate / association / organisation, registered in India were required to only give a ‘prior intimation to state biodiversity boards. Further, local people and communities of the area, including growers and cultivators and <span class="italic">Vaidyas</span> and <span class="italic">Hakims</span>, who have been practicing indigenous medicines were exempted from these access regulations in the Bio Diversity Act 2002. </p>.<p>Benefit sharing was made applicable to firms defined under Section 3(2) in the Biodiversity Act (read as non-Indian firms, organisations, individuals, corporates). Benefit-sharing equitably is complicated and difficult to compute. Mere use of one or more Indian bio resource/herbs with their documented knowledge in any product does not guarantee commercial success. </p>.<p>Indian supply chain of bio-resources such as herbs is highly unorganised, and lacks robust regulation. It involves a number of stakeholders -- collectors, traders and suppliers, across India. Many are not registered with any government bodies. Efforts over the last two decades by National Medicinal Plants Board and the government have, however, borne fruit as a number of AYUSH and herbal product manufactures now source their raw materials form dedicated cultivators and co-operatives. But when it comes to contributing sustainable regeneration (referred to as contribution payment or sustainability contribution) by Indian herb users, we still have some way to go. This will need simple, transparent and easy compliance systems. Users, at the time of procuring the raw bio-resources (medicinal plants and herbs) for processing or manufacturing a product, may be asked to contribute. A two-tier arrangement to collect the contribution can be considered where the costs differ for herbs collected from the wild and cultivated sources.</p>.<p>The sustainability contribution should also be based on regeneration of bio-resources. A lower rate for leaves, flowers, fruits, stem and such parts that can regenerate faster; and a higher rate for parts such as barks and roots, which take a long time to regenerate. Such a system under a suitable mechanism (like GST) should entitle free access and benefit sharing regulations for Indians and Indian organisations. For firms defined under section 3(2), sustainability contribution may be the first step to get access.</p>.<p>A separate computation mechanism for traditional knowledge usage, patenting and other innovations as per the law, may be applied. Concurrently, the traders, suppliers and collectors in the supply chain should be made to register with an appropriate organisation to enable them to trade in an organised and scientific way preserving the authenticity and proper storage.</p>.<p>Innovatively incentivising suppliers in this sector would promote compliance. Since the buyer will make such payments and use it for producing products, it will be simpler. Gradually, the collector, trader and other supply chain participants can be brought in to the net, as no trader will be ready to register as a supplier. Transparency in collection and utilisation of “sustainability contributions” will encourage compliance, and build trust among public.</p>.<p>It is not difficult to distinguish between a <span class="italic">Vaidya or Hakeem preparing medicines for his patients from a Vaidya or a Hakeem running a company or a firm. </span></p>.<p><em><span class="italic">(The writer is a pharmaceutical scientist and a regulatory expert)</span></em></p>
<p>The Biodiversity Law was intended to prevent bio-piracy by non-Indians, organisations and corporates. It aimed to regulate access to the country’s rich bio-resources. More importantly, the law envisaged equitable benefit sharing of Indian bio-resources and the knowledge associated with it. Commenting on the Biodiversity Law (BDL) Amendment, Jairam Ramesh, former minister for environment and forest (MoEF), says the amendment would lead to misuse and exploitation.</p>.<p>However, prior to passing of the Bio Diversity Act 2002, the Biodiversity Bill was widely debated. The writer was among the representatives of the ayurvedic sector to present evidence before the then Parliamentary Standing Committee of MoEF. The Standing Committee, after considering similar representations from many other related sectors, recommended insertion of Section 7 in Chapter II on the regulation of access to biological diversity. As per this, a simple prior intimation to the state biodiversity board for obtaining biological resources for certain purposes was introduced in the act. A citizen of India / a body corporate / association / organisation, registered in India were required to only give a ‘prior intimation to state biodiversity boards. Further, local people and communities of the area, including growers and cultivators and <span class="italic">Vaidyas</span> and <span class="italic">Hakims</span>, who have been practicing indigenous medicines were exempted from these access regulations in the Bio Diversity Act 2002. </p>.<p>Benefit sharing was made applicable to firms defined under Section 3(2) in the Biodiversity Act (read as non-Indian firms, organisations, individuals, corporates). Benefit-sharing equitably is complicated and difficult to compute. Mere use of one or more Indian bio resource/herbs with their documented knowledge in any product does not guarantee commercial success. </p>.<p>Indian supply chain of bio-resources such as herbs is highly unorganised, and lacks robust regulation. It involves a number of stakeholders -- collectors, traders and suppliers, across India. Many are not registered with any government bodies. Efforts over the last two decades by National Medicinal Plants Board and the government have, however, borne fruit as a number of AYUSH and herbal product manufactures now source their raw materials form dedicated cultivators and co-operatives. But when it comes to contributing sustainable regeneration (referred to as contribution payment or sustainability contribution) by Indian herb users, we still have some way to go. This will need simple, transparent and easy compliance systems. Users, at the time of procuring the raw bio-resources (medicinal plants and herbs) for processing or manufacturing a product, may be asked to contribute. A two-tier arrangement to collect the contribution can be considered where the costs differ for herbs collected from the wild and cultivated sources.</p>.<p>The sustainability contribution should also be based on regeneration of bio-resources. A lower rate for leaves, flowers, fruits, stem and such parts that can regenerate faster; and a higher rate for parts such as barks and roots, which take a long time to regenerate. Such a system under a suitable mechanism (like GST) should entitle free access and benefit sharing regulations for Indians and Indian organisations. For firms defined under section 3(2), sustainability contribution may be the first step to get access.</p>.<p>A separate computation mechanism for traditional knowledge usage, patenting and other innovations as per the law, may be applied. Concurrently, the traders, suppliers and collectors in the supply chain should be made to register with an appropriate organisation to enable them to trade in an organised and scientific way preserving the authenticity and proper storage.</p>.<p>Innovatively incentivising suppliers in this sector would promote compliance. Since the buyer will make such payments and use it for producing products, it will be simpler. Gradually, the collector, trader and other supply chain participants can be brought in to the net, as no trader will be ready to register as a supplier. Transparency in collection and utilisation of “sustainability contributions” will encourage compliance, and build trust among public.</p>.<p>It is not difficult to distinguish between a <span class="italic">Vaidya or Hakeem preparing medicines for his patients from a Vaidya or a Hakeem running a company or a firm. </span></p>.<p><em><span class="italic">(The writer is a pharmaceutical scientist and a regulatory expert)</span></em></p>