- After the CITES Secretariat published a report on lapses in India’s due diligence of wildlife imports, India responded, urging against recommendations for a moratorium on wildlife trade.
- The CITES report made note of discrepancies like wrong source codes used in permits, evidence suggesting payment for animals against denials, and the doubtful captive-bred status of animals.
- India said it is in the midst of setting up an “eCITES” portal to process permits, and that the authorities are constantly reviewing the import authorisation process.
India responded to an investigation of its animal imports by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) this week, arguing that any recommendations for a moratorium on wildlife trade are “premature and disproportionate.”
The CITES Secretariat had found lapses in India’s due diligence of wildlife imports, in a report published earlier this month. Over 40,000 animals imported by India were headed to Vantara, a private animal rescue and rehabilitation centre founded by Anant Ambani of Reliance Industries. The report expressed concern that the imports may have allowed wild-caught animals to be traded as captive-bred, despite the validity of permits.
The Secretariat gave India 90 days to respond to the findings and provide evidence of its revised due diligence mechanisms, recommending the trade of species threatened with extinction be paused till then.
In response, India defended the animal imports, calling the scale of its wildlife governance systems “unmatched,” and arguing that “a five-day verification visit by a small mission team can, at best, provide an interim snapshot.” India further urged the Secretariat not to take punitive measures “in the absence of verified violation.” It also cited a recent Supreme Court judgement which declared all animal imports into Vantara were legally carried out.
“India’s voluntary invitation to the verification mission and full disclosure of all records exemplify the good-faith cooperation that the Standing Committee has historically encouraged and rewarded,” India’s statement said, adding that it “urges all Parties to preserve this trust-based system rather than replace it with repetitive re-investigation of sovereign decisions.”
The Secretariat had conducted the fact-finding mission between September 15 and 20 after several member-states raised concerns about the volume and origin of animal transfers to India in recent times. The Central Zoo Authority has permitted Vantara to hold up to 80,000 animals.
Measures taken by India in response to CITES
The CITES report made note of several discrepancies in India’s import of wild animals, including the wrong source codes used in permits, evidence suggesting payment for animals against denials, and the doubtful captive-bred status of animals like cheetahs, chimpanzees, and orangutans which were imported.
Apart from pausing trade and reinforced due diligence “to ensure that it does not import animals traded in violation of the Convention,” the CITES Secretariat also recommended India contact the Managing Authorities of export countries whose permits appeared suspicious, to ensure trade was in compliance with the Convention. Other recommendations included strengthening the capacities of the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, so it can “fully discharge its functions linked to intelligence gathering and combatting illegal wildlife trade.” Currently, permits are predominantly managed by the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change (MOEFCC) and scientifically vetted by the Central Zoo Authority (CZA).
India thanked the CITES Secretariat for its inputs and said that it “remains firmly committed to implementing all recommendations” by the Secretariat. India said it had begun consultations with the Managing Authorities of Czechia, Germany, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the United Arab Emirates, Mexico, Guyana, Iraq, and Togo “to clarify origin, source, and purpose codes of traded specimens” highlighted by CITES.
To improve compliance, India said it was in the midst of setting up an “eCITES” portal which would process permits online in tandem with trade databases operated by customs authorities. It also said the MOEFCC, along with the CZA and Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB) were constantly reviewing the import authorisation process “to integrate a more robust risk-based due diligence mechanism prior to the issuance of import permits.” The CZA has also been instructed to “ensure that all future acquisitions are subject to enhanced due diligence, documentary verification, and microchip reconciliation.”
Additionally, the WCCB’s organisational structure is also being reviewed “to augment and strengthen the technical staffing at its five regional offices and to separate enforcement and permit-processing functions, ensuring dedicated attention to both regulatory and intelligence responsibilities.” A CITES Due Diligence was set up by the MOEFCC “to conduct background checks on high-volume or high-risk import requests, using species-specific biological and trade data, in collaboration with the CITES Scientific Authorities,” India’s response said.
CITES as a ‘trust-based’ system
India repeatedly cited the order of the Supreme Court in its response, which it said, “has clearly validated the stringent and effective process being ensured by India as per provisions of CITES.”
In a sweeping order issued on 15 September, the Supreme Court declared all allegations of trafficking and mismanagement at Vantara to be “speculative” and barred any future legal action against the facility based on similar allegations. The court based its order on the findings of a Special Investigation Team, which took just 17 days to survey all of Vantara’s imports and declare them to be legally valid. Experts criticised the exercise for not including consultations with independent conservationists and experts through the investigation.
The CITES recommendation to improve due diligence and re-check permits counter the Supreme Court’s judgement, which said “it is not open for anyone to go beyond the said permits and to dispute the validity attached” to them.
India’s response to the CITES Secretariat echoes the Supreme Court’s stand. India said that “the issuance of CITES permits and certificates constitutes an international certification mechanism whose validity is presumed unless credible contrary evidence is presented.” It also urged the Secretariat to “preserve this trust-based system.”
“India respectfully submits that any restrictive or punitive measure at this stage would lack legal foundation… and risk unsettling the mutual-trust framework that sustains CITES,” India said in its response, adding, “India looks forward to continued collaboration with the Secretariat, Standing Committee members, and other Parties in advancing the objectives of the Convention.”
Read more: Global biodiversity assessment counters Supreme Court’s clean chit to Vantara
Banner image: A female bonobo. Representative image by Hans Hillewaert via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0).
Credits
