Bengaluru: On Tuesday (March 18), the Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa (WAPFSA) said that its statements about Gujarat-based rescue centre Vantara dated March 6 were neither false nor defamatory. The collective was responding to Vantara’s legal notice – dated March 11 – accusing it of defamation and “circulating false information” for writing to the South African environment minister, among others, to investigate the export of live animals from South Africa to the rescue centre.
Vantara or the Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre (GZRRC) said in its legal notice to the South African collective that “the matter was formally closed” by the Standing Committee meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) on February 4 this year.
CITES is an international treaty that India is a signatory to and which regulates trade on wildlife across the world.
The GZRRC has been in the news after reports in media houses such as this one on March 13 said that its demand for “rescued” animals may have fuelled the illegal wildlife trade worldwide.
However, a detailed reading of open-access CITES documents shows that its Committee did not talk of matters pertaining to trade in live animals in India being formally closed.
While the CITES does not call it an “investigation”, the Standing Committee – which provides policy guidance to the Secretariat for the implementation of the Convention – has been discussing “compliance” issues related to the live trade in wild animals to India over its last two meetings that took place in November 2023 and February this year.
The GZRRC too has been part of this discussion, and documents reveal that both India and the GZRRC have invited CITES authorities for a visit and provide all assistance required.
In its last meeting on February 4 at Geneva, Switzerland, the Standing Committee asked that the CITES plan a “technical assessment and a verification mission” to India to see how the country’s CITES management authorities ensure that only legally acquired live animals come into India. The Committee said that the findings should be reported back to the CITES.
A legal battle
It all began on March 6 when the WAPFSA, a network of 30 South African organisations, sent a letter to South African environment minister Dion George – along with a copy to the Secretariat of the CITES – highlighting the “concerning” high number of leopards, cheetahs, tigers and lions exported from South Africa to the GZRRC.
It called for a probe into the GZRRC, saying that it was “aware that legitimate concerns have been raised within CITES regarding the large amount of different live species of wild animals that are being imported to [GZRRC]”.
Then, on March 11, the GZRRC – represented by the Mumbai-based SHS Chambers Advocates – presented a legal notice to the WAPFSA for “circulating a false and misleading letter”.
In its notice, the GZRRC said that the WAPFSA made “false, misleading and defamatory statements” about it, and that the WAPFSA’s letter falsely implied that the GZRRC was “under investigation for its receipt of animals from South Africa and that there are unresolved compliance concerns regarding these imports”.
“These statements are entirely untrue and appear to be deliberately crafted to create a misleading narrative,” the legal notice by the GZRRC read.
It also accused the WAPFSA of relying on “outdated information” from the 77th meeting of the CITES Standing Committee (SC77) in November 2023 and “omitting the crucial conclusion” that the CITES committee came to in its 78th meeting (SC78).
In this meeting, the GZRRC said, “the matter was formally closed by the CITES Standing Committee on 4th February 2025, during its discussion on the agenda, following comprehensive verification of all relevant documentation”.
The GZRRC’s legal notice quoted a paragraph from the CITES documents of SC78, which said that based on export permits from Venezuela and import permits from India, “the Secretariat did not inquire further”.
“Thus the matter was formally closed by the CITES Standing Committee on 4th February 2025, during its discussion on the agenda, following comprehensive verification of all relevant documentation. At no stage did CITES find any compliance failures.”
However, a detailed reading of the CITES documents for the two meetings gives several more details. The documents do not talk of any matter being formally closed; instead, the Standing Committee of SC78 suggested that the CITES conduct a “technical assessment and a verification mission” to India to look into how the CITES management authorities in the country ensure that live animals are brought in legally.
So what transpired at the two meetings?
CITES discussed the issue of live trade of animals to India
In a nutshell, at SC77 – in November 2023 in Geneva – there was a lot of discussion about the trade in live animals to India.
When the Committee raised this issue, India assured it that it had a “robust system” to ensure the CITES provisions are followed.
It was also at this meeting that Brazil brought up the issue (noting “specific concerns”) of the re-export of Spix’s macaws from Germany to India in 2023.
According to a notification to CITES members in 2001, Brazil had requested that no country issue import, export or re-export permits for the species without consulting with the Brazilian CITES Management Authority.
India said that the GZRRC was registered under the Central Zoo Authority (CZA) and that India would provide all assistance required for the CITES to visit the facility.
Here are some of the details of the discussion:
-
At the meeting, the Committee identified “potential compliance matters” which included the trade in live animals to India, CITES documents of SC77 reveal. India in turn “assured the Committee that it had a robust system ensuring compliance with CITES provisions while permitting the import of live animals”. India said that this process involved several ministries, the CZA, the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau and state forest departments. The documents record India as saying that no-objection certificates for the import of live specimens are granted “after verifying the source and purpose code through the issued export permit as far as possible”.
-
India also told the CITES that the GZRRC was recognised and registered under the CZA – the regulatory body for zoos and rescue centres in the country – and that the GZRRC maintained “very high standards of welfare, rescue, rehabilitation and lifetime care”. Per the CITES documents, India also stated that the Indian Management Authority (the Union environment ministry and the Wildlife Crime Control Bureaus are the CITES Management Authorities in India) had extended an invitation to the CITES Secretariat to visit the facility and that India would provide all assistance required.
-
The GZRRC introduced itself, its aims, facilities, conservation and breeding programmes and collaboration with international organisations. Saying that it had been importing captive animals from facilities that could no longer maintain them due to the negative economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as from hunting lodges, rescue centres and overcrowded facilities, the GZRRC said that all imports were done in accordance with the provisions of CITES and the India Wildlife Protection Act. Per the documents, the GZRRC also had questions pertaining to the application of the purpose codes for transactions concerning CITES-listed species, the feasibility under CITES to import specimens of the feral population of hippopotamus from Colombia to GZRRC facilities in India, and feasibility under CITES to import specimens of African elephants from Germany to the GZRRC.
-
The CITES raised concerns. “With regards to the transactions mentioned above, the Secretariat has received information from sources in Mexico and the Central, South America and Caribbean region expressing concerns about the legality of those transactions and the methods used to obtain CITES documents,” the CITES documents of SC77 say.
-
The Standing Committee then requested the Secretariat “to engage with India, as appropriate, to identify specific compliance issues and to report back to the Standing Committee”.
-
It was also at this meeting that Brazil brought up the issue (noting “specific concerns”) of the re-export of Spix’s macaws from Germany to India in 2023. According to a notification to CITES members in 2001, Brazil had requested that no country issue import, export or re-export permits for the species without consulting with the Brazilian CITES Management Authority. That’s because Brazil requires that all individuals of the Spix’s macaw be sent back to Brazil for breeding programmes. Germany, however, claimed that it was not aware of the notification at the time of the export and said that it would follow this in future.
A pending ‘verification mission’
In a nutshell, SC78 in February at Geneva this year witnessed Brazil once again raising the issue of Spix’s macaws being re-exported without its endorsement. The CITES Standing Committee requested all countries that have captive Spix’s macaws – including India – to engage with Brazil on this.
The discussion regarding the trade in live animals to India also came up again, and several organisations expressed concerns that the CITES had not conducted a trip to India yet, “despite reports indicating that a significant number of animals, including Appendix-I species, continue to be transferred to or sought by Greens Zoological Rescue & Rehabilitation Center”, the CITES documents say.
Finally the Committee said that the CITES Secretariat should accept India’s invitation and conduct ‘a technical assessment and verification mission’ to understand how India’s CITES authorities ensure that live animal specimens are legally acquired and imported in compliance with CITES regulation, and present its findings and recommendations to the Standing Committee.
The trip by the CITES Secretariat to India or the GZRRC, therefore, appears to be pending as of February this year. The Wire has not been able to ascertain if any trips were made by CITES officials to India or to the GZRRC.
Here are the nitty-gritties of what transpired at SC78:
-
Brazil once again underlined how important each individual of the Spix’s macaw was, as the only hope of reintroducing the species back into the wild now is through ex-situ breeding, or breeding the birds in breeding centres and then releasing them in the wild. The species has been extinct in the wild since 1990, though Brazil has since managed to reintroduce some individuals in the wild in 2022. Noting this, the Standing Committee of the 78th meeting invited Brazil, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, India, Switzerland and other countries that have Spix’s macaws in captivity in their territories, “to engage in a dialogue to enhance exchange of information” to support the Spix’s Macaw Population Management Programme, and report back on this to the Standing Committee at its 79th meeting.
-
The GZRRC said that it had partnered with the Association for the Conservation of Threatened Parrots (ACTP) since 2023 to support the reintroduction of the Spix’s macaw to Brazil. The ACTP said that along with the GZRRC, 41 Spix’s macaws had been “successfully transferred to Brazil” and would be prepared for release. However, Brazil held that the ACTP, or any Indian facility, was not part of the Spix’s Macaw Population Management Programme. In November 2023, though the ACTP issued a public statement claiming that the partnership with the GZRRC was communicated to the Brazilian government on November 7, 2022, and was duly recognised, Brazil “disputes” this claim, the CITES documents said.
“For an institution to join the Management Programme, it is necessary to submit specific forms … and sign a term of adhesion. None of these procedures were followed for the GZRRC,” it read. -
The discussion regarding the trade in live animals to India also came up again. And India once again reiterated its invitation to the CITES Secretariat to visit the GZRRC. However, several organisations – the Species Survival Network (also on behalf of the Animal Welfare Institute), ADM Capital Foundation, Four Paws, Parrot Breeders Association of Southern Africa, Pro Wildlife, World Parrot Trust and Whale and Dolphin Conservation – expressed concerns that the CITES had not conducted a trip to India yet, “despite reports indicating that a significant number of animals, including Appendix-I species, continue to be transferred to or sought by Greens Zoological Rescue & Rehabilitation Center”.
-
To a query whether India’s imports of CITES Appendix-I (species whose transfer or trade is not permitted except in exceptional circumstances) live animals originated from facilities registered with the Secretariat, India said again that the GZRRC was a registered centre with its CZA and with CITES, and that all centres importing species listed in Appendix-I for conservation breeding were appropriately registered. And once again, the GZRRC also extended an invitation to the CITES Secretariat to visit its facility.
-
Incidentally, the CITES documents of SC78 talk of a case in March 2024 regarding allegations of about 700 live animals and birds (more than 100 of the birds belonged to Appendix-I species) being smuggled from Venezuela to India in September 2023. However, the CITES Secretariat liaised with the CITES management authorities of Venezuela and India. Based on export permits from Venezuela and import permits from India, “the Secretariat did not inquire further”, it said. This is what GZRRC’s legal notice to the WAPFSA referred to.
-
However, the very next point made in the document is of India not providing information in another case, in May 2024, pertaining to the illegal trade of about 90 live animals and birds from Mexico to India, where the GZRRC was the importer. Though Mexico’s CITES management authority confirmed the validity of the permits mentioned in the article, India’s management authority did not provide information, the CITES documents said.
-
Finally, the summary draft document of SC78 said that the Committee “requested the Secretariat to keep close communication and strengthen the cooperation with India on this potential case [regarding the trade in live animals] and, subject to the availability of external funds and human resources, accept an invitation from India to provide in-country assistance, conduct a technical assessment and a verification mission to understand how the CITES authorities ensure that live animal specimens are legally acquired and imported in full compliance with CITES and present its findings and recommendations to the Standing Committee.”
The WAPFSA’s stand
The WAPFSA’s legal notice sent to the GZRRC on March 18 reflects this decision of the CITES Secretariat to visit India to conduct a “technical assessment and verification mission”.
The WAPFSA – represented by Cape Town-based Cullinan and Associates – said that none of the statements in the WAPFSA letter or attached 12-page report about Vantara were false, and that they denied that the letter was misleading.
None of the statements that the WAFPSA made were defamatory either, it said, citing several reasons why.
One was that the WAFPSA did mention “SC78” in its letter, contrary to the GZRRC’s claim that it did not. This claim, therefore, is “entirely false and baseless”, the legal counsel for the WAFPSA wrote, pointing out the sections where the original WAFPSA letter spoke about SC78.
Moreover, the WAFPSA identified issues “already raised by others in published documents and sources and requests that the authorities investigate further”, it said. “The tone of the letter is reasonable and respectful. Our client addressed its concerns not to the media but to the proper authorities.”
To the GZRRC’s demand that the WAFPSA retract its letter dated March 6, issue a correction statement and “cease and desist from making any further false, misleading or defamatory statements regarding Vantara”, the South African collective said it would not retract any statements made in its letter, that there was no need to issue a correction because it was not misleading, and that they were not defamatory as the GZRRC’s legal notice did not prove defamation.
The WAFPSA said that its letter and report constituted “fair comment” in public interest.
“Bearing in mind that all South Africans have a constitutional right to have their environment protected through reasonable legislative and other measures that promote conservation as well as a right to the information held by the state that is required for the exercise of the environmental right, it is clearly reasonable and in the public interest that our client is permitted to raise concerns about the international wildlife trade with the relevant authorities and ask them to investigate these concerns,” the notice read.
