Global Biodiversity Assessment Counters SC’s Clean Chit To Vantara

The conclusions of a new report by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) stand in stark contrast to the findings of a court-appointed investigation, which gave Vantara – a private zoo and animal rescue centre owned by the Ambani family – a clean chit in its acquisition of animals earlier this year.

CITES is an international agreement to regulate the trade of threatened wildlife. India has been a signatory to it since 1976. The CITES Secretariat conducted a fact-finding mission to India between September 15 and 20, after several member-states raised concerns about the volume and origin of animal transfers to India in recent times, many of them headed to Vantara, founded by Anant Ambani of Reliance Industries. The mission aimed to assess the modalities of India’s CITES processes, which manage permits for animal imports and exports.

Vantara – which makes up the Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre (GZRRC) and Radha Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust (RKTEWT) – has acquired over 40,000 animals from across the world, many of them threatened and endangered species.

While CITES found no evidence of imports occurring without requisite permits, it did take issue with gaps in India’s due diligence, which possibly allowed for trade “in contravention of the provisions of the Convention.” Specifically, the CITES Secretariat expressed concern that animals such as chimpanzees and orangutans, which were traded as captive-bred, may not be so as defined by CITES.

“The CITES Authorities recognized that the due diligence implemented did not normally extend beyond the verification of the presence of an export permit or re-export certificate, and the verification of its authenticity and validity,” says the report, adding that the import of rare and endangered species “should have triggered additional due diligence from India.”

The body recommended India halt imports of endangered species till it reviews its import procedures and due diligence mechanisms, “prior to the issuance of import permits” and strengthens its enforcement machinery to ensure no violations occur.

“Without exercising such due diligence, India runs the risks of importing animals, which may have been sourced from the wild and traded as captive-bred, or which have not been bred in captivity,” the CITES report says.

The issues raised by the CITES Secretariat are in contrast to a Supreme Court order issued on September 15, which said that the animals have been imported with valid permits and “it is not open for anyone to go beyond the said permits and to dispute the validity attached to such permits or official acts.” The court pronounced its order based on a report by a Special Investigation Team, constituted to look into allegations of wildlife trafficking and mismanagement at Vantara.

What CITES said

The Secretariat’s mission was conducted to understand how India’s CITES authorities ensure live animal specimens are legally acquired and imported, with special attention to Vantara. Vantara has imported 41,839 birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles from around the world, with approval to hold up to 84,822 animals from the Central Zoo Authority, the CITES report says.

The report acknowledges that Vantara has “exceptionally high standards and advanced facilities” for animals brought to it, stating that it has “no reason to doubt that these facilities are suitably equipped to house and care for the animals.”

However, the Secretariat found the mode of animal imports to be concerning, particularly with regard to species threatened with extinction or made vulnerable due to trade (listed under Appendix I and II of the Convention). A “captive bred” bonobo imported from the U.A.E and sent to Vantara, for example, was reported on the permit as originally being from Iraq. However, the Secretariat found that Iraq had never imported bonobos itself, raising doubts about its captive-bred status.

“CITES is a permit-driven system, and documentation is indispensable, but permits are only as strong as the checks that underpin them,” Meganne Natali, a legal consultant on wildlife crime, told Mongabay-India. “If importing authorities treat these documents as conclusive without conducting their own verification, the trade appears lawful while concealing an illegal supply chain. The loophole, then, lies not in documentation itself but in the lack of robust oversight.”

For species listed under Appendix I and II of the Convention, exporting authorities must ensure that the species’ export will be non-detrimental to its survival in the wild, that it was obtained legally before trade, and that the transfer will be done so as to minimise risk of injury, damage to health or cruel treatment of the specimen.

Importing authorities, for their part, must similarly ensure the trade is non-commercial, that the import will not be detrimental to the species’ survival in the wild, and that the recipient facility is declared to be suitable for the species.

Trade permits under CITES are managed by the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change in India (MoEFCC), and scientifically vetted by the Central Zoo Authority and other institutes. The MoEFCC did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the CITES report. The story will be updated when they reply.

Conclusions of the court-ordered team

The CITES report comes nearly two months after the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) report, which was similarly instructed to investigate imports into Vantara, but with drastically different results. Only the summary of the SIT report has been made available in the public domain.

Apart from animal acquisitions, the SIT was instructed by the Supreme Court to look into domestic transfer of elephants, animal mortality, standards of veterinary care provided by Vantara, and a host of other issues raised in two petitions filed in the Court.

Led by former Supreme Court judge, Jasti Chelameshwar, the SIT concluded that when permits are issued for trade under CITES, there exists a “a statutory presumption of validity under Indian law,” and neither Vantara nor Indian authorities are obligated to investigate whether a donor zoo had legally acquired an animal before export.

“This is a purely legal standpoint that fails to consider the merits of such permissions and the underlying conservation objectives enshrined in CITES,” said Debadityo Sinha, lead of Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy’s Climate and Ecosystems team. “By brushing aside these concerns, the SIT overlooks critical issues such as who benefits from such malpractices and how the resulting demand for wild animals adversely impacts their conservation in their native habitats.”

In its report, the CITES Secretariat clarified that it was “incumbent upon importing countries together with exporting and transit countries to ensure that trade in CITES-listed species is legal and sustainable.”

Considering the volume of animals being imported into Vantara, the Secretariat advised that “India reviews as a matter of urgency its import procedures and implements much stronger due diligence procedures, based on a risk assessment to ensure that due diligence is exercised systematically and consistently in order to detect any irregularity prior to the issuance of import permits and shipment of animals,” the CITES report says.

Mongabay-India requested comment from the SIT about CITES resolutions urging importing countries to perform due diligence but did not receive a response at the time of publishing.

Two reports raise different issues

At least 20 journalists, conservation experts, and wildlife enthusiasts provided information to the SIT through testimonies given both online and offline. Over 17 days, the SIT says it sifted through 13 volumes of documents for each of the animals imported into Vantara, concluding that procedurally, the facility hadn’t violated a single Indian or international rule, regulation, or law.

India’s Supreme Court has barred any future legal action against Vantara or India’s statutory authorities which are “based upon [the] such same set of allegations” already investigated by the SIT.

However, the CITES report reveals problems in the import of certain animals where the SIT found none.

For instance, the SIT dismissed the possibility of Vantara purchasing animals brought to its facility, stating that allegations of payment for animals were “imaginary” and “without any basis in law.” Any invoices raised for animal transfers were towards the costs of insurance and freight only, according to the SIT.

The CITES Secretariat, however, found that in the case of animals from Czechia, the country informed that it had “no doubts that the animals imported from Czechia had been sold to the GZRRC (under Vantara) and were not exported for the purpose of rescue.” The Czech managing authority provided invoices showing lists of animals acquired, price per unit, taxes, and other such details supporting the claim.

Both India and Czechia “seem to have a different understanding of the transactions made and invoices established,” the CITES report said. The purchase of animals is not prohibited by the Convention, but doing so requires strict compliance with certain conditions, to ensure Vantara’s operations “do not inadvertently become a driver of illegal harvest of wild animals that are later declared as captive-bred,” the report said.

“There is no international court to prosecute CITES violations yet, nor does the Convention itself provide criminal sanctions. However, the CITES Standing Committee has the authority to demand explanations, push for corrective action, and, in serious cases, recommend trade suspensions against non-compliant States,” Natali explained, adding, “So while India’s Supreme Court has foreclosed domestic challenges, at the international level the Convention still relies on peer pressure, transparency, and the political weight of the Standing Committee to hold Parties accountable and protect the integrity of the system.”

The CITES Secretariat also identified problems with the import of a mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei). In March 2025, the investigative news website Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) spotlighted the U.A.E.-based Capital Zoo, which exported one mountain gorilla to Vantara, despite it not being captively held or bred anywhere in the world.

The U.A.E told the CITES Secretariat that the gorilla – natively found in East-Central Africa – was imported from Haiti and then re-exported to India. “The CITES Trade Database shows no record of export of gorillas (regardless of the species) to Haiti,” the CITES report notes, adding, “In this case as well, the Secretariat is of the view that a higher degree of due diligence should be applied.”

The SIT’s investigation into the issue relied on affidavits, statements, and interviews with donor zoos, including Capital Zoo. The summary SIT report suggests the sub-species of the gorilla was incorrectly recorded, but neither the original nor correct sub-species of gorilla is named by the SIT in the report. Mongabay-India’s questions to the SIT seeking clarity on the gorilla’s species, and how an error was made, went unanswered.

Donor zoos such as Kangaroo Animal Shelter, another U.A.E-based entity whose manager was described by SZ as having links to commercial wildlife trade, told the SIT that as “as devout adherents of Islam, they consider it part of their religious duty and obligation to extend service towards animals, including providing rescue and refuge for them.”

“The question arises as to why the SIT seems to rely on statements by authorities which issued permits and facilities that delivered animals, rather than independent experts or agencies specialised in law enforcement,” said Daniela Freyer, co-founder of the Germany-based conservation NGO ProWildlife, and a critic of Vantara’s acquisition of animals.

Global Humane Society’s audit

Critics also pointed to the lack of consultation with independent wildlife conservationists by the SIT. “The absence of an independent wildlife scientist or conservationist in the SIT is concerning, especially since the primary issue under investigation relates to the impact on wildlife and its conservation,” said Sinha of Vidhi Legal.

The SIT relied on the help of three serving and retired bureaucrats to assist in its investigation – Abhishek Kumar, an Indian Forest Service officer and former zoo director, Mohit Jangid, an Indian Revenue Services officer in the Enforcement Directorate, and Maheep Kumar, a former Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), Maharashtra.

Apart from the officials, it also cited an audit by Global Humane Society as an “independent validation” of the Vantara’s welfare and conservation standards. Global Humane Society (GHS) is the international arm of the American Humane Association, a U.S. based NGO famous for its “No animals were harmed in the making of this film” certification.

GHS awarded Vantara with its signature “Certified Humane” tag on September 10, as shown in a press conference held by the NGO – one day before the SIT submitted its findings to the Supreme Court. The certificate declares Vantara has “established the highest benchmark in animal welfare, rescue, rehabilitation and conservation.”

A seven-member team on behalf of GHS visited Vantara for nine days during an unspecified month, “comprehensively reviewing veterinary care, nutrition, enrichment, habitat design, conservation breeding, emergency preparedness, and staff culture,” the SIT summary report said, adding that the certification was valid for a five year period.

However, the terms and conditions of GHS’s audit aren’t entirely clear. The certificate issued to Vantara, visible in a press conference, says that it is applicable for one year, only in “covered venues, as defined in the Certification Program Agreement between Global Humane Society and Vantara.” Neither the audit report nor the Certification Programme Agreement are available in the public domain. As per its website, Global Humane Society contracts external auditors to carry out surveys to avoid conflicts of interest.

The GHS press release also states that benchmarks assessed are species-specific, but it does not specify if all 2,000 species saved and housed in Vantara were included in its assessment. Mongabay-India sent questions to Global Humane Society and Vantara about the terms and conditions of the audit, payment for the audit, and findings of the report, but did not receive a response.

“Certification of zoos, animal displays and sanctuaries [by GHS] appears to be focused on the care given, not investigating the means of procurement or the lifespan of the animals being cared for,” said Ian Redmond, chairman of the Ape Alliance and a renowned field biologist. “Any animals found to be imported on false documents should be repatriated to their country of origin (not the transit state) in accordance with CITES regulations and the willingness of the countries concerned, aided by accredited sanctuaries in those countries,” he added.

The CITES Secretariat has requested India to submit a report on the implementation of its recommendations within 90 days. Apart from halting imports of animals from Appendix I species, the CITES Secretariat also recommended the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau be sufficiently staffed and empowered to intervene on intelligence matters to prevent illegal trade. India has also been instructed to liaise with countries whose permits appear questionable, “to verify that imported animals have been traded in compliance with the provisions of the Convention.”