Opinion: How cohesive and integrated policymaking can escalate economic growth and benefit biodiversity

An integrated and inclusive structure of policies not only increases the output but also enhances quality, yields environmentally suitable and healthier results

Opinion: How cohesive and integrated policymaking can escalate economic growth and benefit biodiversityBy Sanjaya Mariwala

Is conservation just about protection? Every matter has a definite life. If it is just about protecting, a day will come when the species/plants will perish, and there will be nothing left to conserve. The inclusive meaning of the word is many times lost in the battle of extremists. And the result is that about 15-20 plant species are now extinct, about 10% of India’s flowering plant species are likely to become extinct, 3 of the 4 mammal species are lost since 1950, and we are witnessing a constant decline in agro-biodiversity.

Traditionally being an agricultural economy, despite the economic liberalization and industrial revolutions post-independence, the business community is still considered to be entitled. There still is a huge trust deficit. Any acts, policies favouring the industrialists are protested by arguing those to be biased vote gathering tricks. Developments around the farm bill is one such example. Is it really only about the MSP and deregulation?

The farm bill was designed to enable the industry and farmers to work with each other and remove the government interference in price setting, regulating the trade and encouraging farmers to form contract farming partnerships with the industry, thereby making the system much more efficient. The contract farming element has far-reaching benefits linked to biodiversity conservation, which probably the conservationists also missed.

In 2010, we started cultivating marigold (contains Lutein, the ingredient to manufacture nutraceutical formulations for eye care) as an experiment on 1,000 acres of land through contract farming. In less than 10 years, it has grown to 10,000 acres of land cultivation, 45,000 tons of marigold production, touching the lives of almost 9000 farmers and multiplying their income from Rs.25,000-30,000 per acre to Rs. 2-3 lakhs per acre. It is just one example to explain the magnitude of the benefit.

This backward integration not only increases the output but also benefits the farmers immensely, and produces assured quality products adding to the export basket. However, how many manufacturers are incentivized today to opt for this integration? Just a handful and may be only out of passion. There are fences andone of the barriers is the Biodiversity Act 2002 (BDA). Contract cultivation in BDA is not a consideration to improve crops and farm produce.

The Act, which intended to involve those responsible and dependent to take responsibility for this balance to be restored, in reality, ended up being regressive. The conservation clauses became ineffective demotivating the industry players to contribute to the biodiversity.

For instance, the time-consuming procedural requirement of seeking “prior approval” before accessing the biological resource for research including the filing of intellectual property rights (IPR) applications, conducting collaborative research with Non-Indian entities, and commercialization of bioresources for manufacturing medicines and AYUSH products. Ease of doing business gets defeated here that we claim under the “Make in India” initiative.

Similarly, levy and collection of “Access and Benefit Sharing Fee” (ABS) in addition to GST counters the objective of promoting “One Nation One Tax” and adds to the tax liability of the manufacturers.

Further, definitions of various terms under the BD Act are in direct conflict with other laws. Many terminologies are interpreted with limited scope and understanding. Some of the major overlaps are ABS Fee Liability on the Indian entities, exemptions provided under the BD Act, value-added products and their exclusion from the BD Act’s operation, and definition of the Non-Indian Entities under Section 3(2) of the Act. These inconsistent denotations discourage FDI, limit further growth, and discourage investment by the industry players in the state-of-the-art facilities and capacity expansion.

While these are the key impediments, the Act also restricts research-based activities, innovations, and most importantly, the growth of SMEs, MSMEs, and unicorns constantly vying for green revolution.

India is one of the 17 mega-diverse countries globally, the 6th largest country with 38 world heritage sites declared by UNESCO in August 2020, and ranks 9th in the world in terms of plant species richness. With 2.4% of the world’s land area, India supports 7% of globally recorded species, including over 45,000 plants and 91,000 animal species. Endowed with abundant resources combined with the ancient heritage of Ayurveda and nature-based science, all the ingredients are available with us to become a vital contributor to the global trade especially of the medicinal and herbal plant extracts and nutraceutical products. However, we are still just 1-2% of the global trade, pausing the question, are we entrapped in the safety net of protection?

We will keep talking about the resurgence of Ayurveda, wellness through Yoga, the importance of preventive care, and nature-based remedies; policymakers will support through NMPB schemes, farm bill amendments, “Atmanirbhar Bharat” and so on. All these will yield meaningful and tangible results only when we will widen the scope of conservation, and clearly define the industries contributing to the preservation and further cultivation. In the battle of wheat and rice and to hold onto the old laws, we are losing the multiplier. It is imperative to get to the essence of these policies and laws, revisit them, collaborate with all the stakeholders, and ensure that the ecosystem is cohesive and inclusive.

The author is executive chairman and managing director, OmniActive Health Technologies. Views are personal.

Follow and connect with us on , Facebook, Linkedin
Supporting Partner: