UN Wildlife Body Reverses Call to Restrict India’s Imports of Endangered Animals
New Delhi — A major international wildlife trade body has reversed its earlier recommendation to restrict India from importing endangered animals, following widespread support from multiple countries urging a reassessment of the initial concerns.
The reversal came during a key meeting where member nations reviewed India’s position after raising questions earlier this month about discrepancies in trade documentation and the processes followed for verifying the origin of certain imported species.
India had firmly opposed the earlier recommendation, describing it as premature and unsupported by evidence of illegal activity, and several major countries echoed that view, including the United States, Japan and Brazil.
The facility at the centre of the controversy, Vantara — a 3,500-acre animal rescue and rehabilitation centre in Gujarat — had attracted scrutiny after wildlife groups raised questions about previous imports it conducted for conservation and rehabilitation purposes.
Following an inspection earlier this year, a technical report suggested India pause new permits for importing certain endangered species until data mismatches were addressed, triggering a wave of debate across member nations.
At the recent meeting, many delegates argued that the recommended restrictions lacked sufficient backing and could unfairly penalise India without conclusive findings or evidence of wrongdoing, leading to the reversal of the proposed limitation.
The committee chair noted that while concerns remained under review, it did not see adequate international support to maintain the earlier recommendation, signalling that additional discussions and regulatory improvements could still be considered in the future.
Vantara has maintained that it complies with all applicable laws, emphasizing its commitment to transparency, rescue efforts and global conservation standards, and it has previously welcomed independent inspections of its operations.
The zoo currently houses around 2,000 species sourced from multiple regions, including South Africa, Venezuela and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, involving reptiles, large mammals, birds and several exotic species under international protection.
India reiterated its dedication to full compliance with global wildlife-trade rules, stating that any concerns raised by external groups would be thoroughly evaluated in cooperation with the international scientific and regulatory community.
Despite the reversal, some concerns persisted from individual member states, with Belgium and at least one African wildlife alliance urging temporary export suspensions until additional clarifications were provided by India and its monitoring authorities.
In response, Indian officials noted that the country’s regulatory systems are frequently updated and strengthened, particularly in the handling of endangered species, rescue operations and the monitoring of private and philanthropic conservation sites.
Earlier this year, a court-appointed investigation in India, led by experts overseeing wildlife compliance, reviewed allegations related to the facility and found no evidence of illegal import activities, affirming its adherence to national and international rules.
The investigation’s findings supported India’s view that the earlier recommendation was misaligned with available information, reinforcing the call for a reassessment at the global meeting.
European authorities had previously stated that they would apply heightened scrutiny to export permits involving India, noting that member countries would take a cautious approach while the issue was under international review.
As the global committee continues to monitor trade involving endangered species, it emphasised that collaborative regulatory developments may follow, aiming to balance conservation goals with legitimate rescue and rehabilitation efforts.
The dialogue around India’s wildlife import practices is expected to evolve further as member states review updated documentation and consider whether additional guidelines or support mechanisms are needed to ensure transparency and ecological protection.
