Greater openness: On India and wildlife management Politics & News

In September, a Supreme Court-constituted Special Investigation Team (SIT) reported to the Court that Reliance Foundation’s Vantara project in Jamnagar, Gujarat — India’s largest private zoo — had been above board in the manner in which it had gone about acquiring wild animals from abroad; it had the right permits and the facilities for the upkeep of over 30,000 animals and that any criticism or aspersion of its activities on these grounds were wholly “unjustified”. The Court chose not to make the report public and only appended a summary in its order with the operative observations. What the report contained in its entirety becomes relevant given that a global body has made some concerning observations and “recommended” that India’s wildlife authorities pause the issue of permits that allow endangered animals to be imported by zoos. This came after the CITES committee — the most influential agreement on cross-border wildlife movement — visited Jamnagar. The visit was just after the SIT had submitted its report to the Court and from what is known from its exhaustive, public report, investigated the same issues as the SIT: permits, acquisition of animals, the facilities in Jamnagar. The CITES committee too commended Vantara’s infrastructure and the expertise available for animal care. Its observations on the issue of permits casts aspersions on India’s wildlife management system, not on Vantara.

The committee’s reservations stemmed from observations that permit codes accompanying several animal transfers did not always accurately reflect the arrangement between the exporting country and India. For instance, the Czech Republic says that it had “sold” several animals to the procuring arms of Vantara, which denies it was a sale and that the costs incurred were ancillary (insurance and transport). The distinction is important because Indian laws do not allow its zoos to commercially procure animals. The primary objective of CITES, an international convention, is to curb animal trafficking and while lacking enforcement powers, expects countries to execute and incorporate checks into their wildlife laws. CITES does not discourage cross-border commercial transactions and only insists that these are properly recorded, with proper traceability of the animals being moved. In several instances, the committee has observed that India’s authorities ought to be more proactive in engaging with counterparts in other countries to investigate suspect traceability. It is a matter of conjecture whether the Court-appointed committee also had similar observations to make. Translucent disclosure only reduces global trust in India’s wildlife management and as home to some of the most important biospheres, that is a reputation it can ill afford.