3 hours ago
5
A committee of CITES, the globe’s most influential agreement on wildlife conservation, whose strictures on the cross-border movement of protected animal species inform national wildlife laws, has recommended that India’s wildlife authorities pause the issue of permits that allow endangered animals to be imported by zoos, and wildlife rescue and rehabilitation centres.
This, CITES says, should be in place until India comprehensively reviews its practices and ensures that “due diligence is exercised systematically and consistently”, and animal trade is not carried out in “violation of the Convention”.
India became a signatory to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) in 1976. Currently, 185 countries are signatories.
The recommendations are part of a report prepared by a CITES-designated committee after a visit to the Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre (GZRRC) in Jamnagar, a part of the Vantara animal rescue and rehabilitation centre affiliated to the Reliance Foundation. The Radha Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust (RKTEWT) is also a part of Vantara, and while primarily focussed on elephant welfare, also has permissions to manage other imported species of fauna.
In September, a Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team, constituted to conduct an “independent factual appraisal” of complaints against Vantara, said it found no statutory irregularities in the acquisition of animals.
The CITES committee found that the facilities in Vantara kept “exceptionally high standards”, and had “advanced facilities” with appropriate “veterinary care standards”. It also noted that it “could not find evidence” that the facility brought in animals for commercial purposes nor evidence that animals being imported to India lacked import, export, and re-export CITES permits.
However, the committee’s report, uploaded on October 31 on the CITES website, noted that “...several imports [by GZRRC and RKTEWT] still raise questions regarding the origin of the specimens… the use of source and purpose-of-transaction codes, and the exercise of due diligence by India”.
The committee visited Vantara from September 15-20, after it was asked by the CITES Secretariat to look into India’s processes for verifying whether the manner in which live animals were procured reflected the conditions under which they were sourced (for example, ‘W’ — from the wild, or ‘C’ — bred in captivity) and purpose-of-transaction (’Z’ — to be placed in a zoo, or ‘B’ — breeding in captivity).
The visit was following a 2023 recommendation by the Secretariat to look into “trade in live animals with purpose code Z” by the GZRRC.
In the last two years, there have been several journalistic investigations into procurement practices at Vantara, as well as reports by environmental groups that alleged animals were being procured in large numbers, both within India and from abroad, in ways that contravened the CITES stipulation.
The GZRRC is registered as a zoo, rescue centre, a conservation breeding centre, and a centre for studying animals. Under Indian laws, a “zoo” cannot function as a licensed dealer in captive animals. Moreover, rescued or confiscated animals shall not be displayed to the public.
Under CITES conventions, it is legal to trade animals commercially, provided relevant conditions are met, and permits state so explicitly. It is also permissible to buy animals for the purposes of breeding in captivity for conservation purposes, provided paperwork attests to it, and it is registered under appropriate rules of the Convention.
The CITES committee’s reservations stemmed from observations where permit codes did not appropriately reflect the arrangement between the exporting country and India.
The GZRRC, for instance, imported several animals from the Republic of Czechia.
That country, according to the committee, “had no doubts” that the animals were being “sold” to the GZRRC and were not exported for the “purpose of rescue”. The Czech authorities provided invoices showing lists of animals acquired, price per unit, and taxes.
The GZRRC’s interpretation, however, was that the animals weren’t “sold”, and the expense involved was the “cost of insurance, freight and customs duties”. India’s wildlife authorities, in explaining this, cited a Supreme Court order of September 15 that said these were indeed costs as the GZRRC said so, and another order said that if an animal was procured under a “valid” export permit, it couldn’t be a contravention of Indian law or the CITES.
In a case involving the import by the GZRRC of two captive-bred snow leopards from Germany, the latter issued permits under the codes ‘C’ (origin as captive bred) and ‘T’ (for commercial purposes). When the animals reached India, the Indian authorities raised a query on the purpose of import (because of the ‘T’ label). The GZRRC said the animals were ‘donated’ by a facility in Germany. Following this, the Indian authorities changed the ‘T’ label to a ‘Z’ (zoological). The committee said that India ideally ought to have checked with German authorities, their reason for labelling it a commercial transaction instead of “only relying on the information by the importer (GZRRC)”.
The committee highlighted an instance where Indian authorities issued permission allowing the import of chimpanzees from Cameroon by the GZRRC. It later turned out that the export permits by Cameroon were forged. The GZRRC did not proceed with the import as it couldn’t verify the antecedents of the chimpanzees at the Cameroonian facility. The committee noted that, ideally, Indian authorities should have known that, based on the CITES database, which they can access, Cameroon has not traded any chimpanzees since 2000, and there was no captive breeding of chimpanzees ongoing in that country.
“The fake permits brought to the attention of the Secretariat may suggest that the large number of acquisitions of live animals by the GZRRC.. has attracted attention, and that certain individuals or entities could attempt to exploit this as a way to traffic animals. This shows that there is a need for caution to ensure that imports of large numbers of animals by these facilities are not inadvertently creating a demand for illegally sourced animals. Reinforced due diligence in this regard is crucial,” the committee noted.
There were a litany of similar other examples raised by the committee on imports that were permitted by the Indian authorities of hundreds of animals. Indian authorities seemed to be acknowledging these lapses. “...Representatives from India...expressed appreciation for the guidance provided on these issues and confirmed that they would work on improving their processes and procedures. The Indian Management Authority has reiterated this commitment in writing in its submission to the Secretariat for the preparation of the present document. The management of the GZRRC also indicated their willingness to be in full compliance with CITES and to develop their own due diligence approach,” the committee report noted.
The Hindu reached out with detailed questionnaires to Vantara, and the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change for comment but had not heard back till the time of going to press.
English (US) ·