India should drop the idea of Ken Betwa Linking Project (KBLP) which will require felling of 2 to 4 million trees in the emerald forests of Panna national park . Think of the loss of this staggering number of trees in the backdrop of the unprecedented summers that the country experienced in the year 2024. Many parts of Bundelkhand where Panna is situated recorded 49 degrees Celsius while the mercury soared to 52.9 degrees C in Delhi, later corrected by the government to 50 degrees C (49.9). For a moment forget the loss of tiger habitat in the park, think over our own survival. Referring to the special morphological significance and unique biodiversity of Panna national park, the central empowered committee of the Supreme Court on the KBLP observed ," implementing this project would result in the complete breakdown of the evolutionary processes of millions of years." It warned of the widespread ecological devastation.River Ken is lifeline of the tiger reser
Controversy on India’s alleged compromise on its stand against the ivory trade to facilitate cheetah translocation refuses to die . It started long before Namibian cheetahs landed in India and released in Kuno National Park on September 17. After the recent media reports on the issue, the Union environment ministry issued a denial. It said “a news report on Namibia seeking India's support for lifting a UN ban on trade of ivory as part of the cheetah deal "largely relies on speculation, hearsay and not on facts". But knowledgeable sources stood to the "compromise" theory. Let’s find out why the cheetah translocation issue is linked with elephant poaching and internaional ivory trade.
Why Ivory Trade was Banned
Huge quantity of Ivory is stockpiled in Namibia along with some other African nations. The ivory was confiscated after poaching of elephants in several African countries. The number of wild elephants dropped dramatically across elephant range states worldwide. Elephant populations in Africa plummeted from 1.3 million in 1979 to around 600,000 in 1989.The decline in numbers continued. Poaching for ivory – the elephant tusk – is one big reason why its trade was banned. Elephant poaching was mainly impacting the surviving elephant population. In India, we faced a similar problem with rhinoceroses horns. Poachers were killing the one horned pachyderm in Kaziranga national park for its horn. In September 2021, the Assam government burnt piles of rhino horns sending a strong message to poachers. There is a high demand for rhino horns and ivory in international markets, especially for traditional Chinese medicines. India is also a signatory to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) treaty on ivory trade.
Also read: Controversies Chase Cheetahs In Kuno National Park
The CITES treaty to which it is party banned international trade in 1989.India rendered illegal the domestic trade in ivory in 1986 and imported ivory in 1991. India illegalized trade in ivory from Asian elephants in 1986 by amending the Wildlife Protection Act 1972. Asian elephant is listed in Schedule I of the Act. It was in this backdrop why the controversy over India’s alleged support for the ivory trade in lieu of cheetah translocation keeps resurfacing. Trade of wildlife body parts is banned under the United Nations Convention on CITES. Namibia and a few other countries such as Botswana and South Africa want CITES to lift the ban on some wildlife products so that they can sell stockpiles of ivory and other wildlife parts internationally and generate revenue for “wildlife conservation”. Conservationists across the globe are opposed to this.
Namibian MoU Terms Not In Public Domain
When India started looking for cheetah import from African, Namibia was one of the markets. Though India signed an MoU with Namibia, the one with the South Africa is still pending. Initially cheetah translocation was delayed from Namibia also. But the south west African country ultimately signed an MoU with India on July 20. On September 17, eight cheetahs were also transported from Namibia to India and released in Kuno National park. Regarding the MoU, the government its main thrust areas include “biodiversity conservation with specific focus onconservation and restoration of cheetah in their former range areas from which they went extinct” and “sharing and exchange of expertise and capacities” to promote cheetah conservation in both countries. But the terms and conditions of the MoU are still not known.
“What are the terms andconditions for the cheetah translocation mentioned in the MoU signed with Namibia? They are still not known as the MoU is still not in public domain raising speculations and suspicion on the ivory issue”, said conservationists in India. However, after the recent media reports the government issued a contradiction -“The government of India has not received any written communication from the Republic of Namibia regarding lifting of ban on ivory trade”. All the speculations may come to rest after next month in November during the Conference of the Parties (CoP19) to CITES in Panama where all countries will vote once again on the ivory issue among others. “We will come toknow if India had actually compromised its stand against the ivory trade forthe sake of bringing African cheetahs to India,”a senior conservationist said.
Representational Images : Cover Image : MoEFC&C
Comments
Post a Comment