Fearsome issue: India has done almost nothing to prevent trafficking in tiger parts

George W. Bush has never really been toasted as the saviour of Indian wildlife. But the US President came all armed with a proposition to save the creatures of the wild during his India visit last month. And India, in a responsive mood, agreed to join the Coalition Against Wildlife Trafficking (CAWT), a global forum pioneered by the US for finding solutions to the growing threats of poaching and the illegal wildlife trade. Considered a fit supplement to the nuclear deal, the move was largely lauded.

But was it really a cause worth popping the champagne for? Those in the know think not. Given India’s alleged lack of initiative in following up ceremonial inductions, wildlife experts are not too sure if joining the CAWT will do India any good in the long run.

The coalition, to begin with, is all of six months old. In July 2005, G-8 leaders recognised the catastrophic effects of illegal wildlife trafficking. Washington followed this up in September by giving shape to the global coalition. The main purpose of the initiative was “to focus political and public attention on the issue and facilitate action for effective wildlife law enforcement and regional cooperation,” says an online release issued by the US department of state.

Seven of America’s leading environmental organisations ? Conservation International, Save the Tiger Fund, Smithsonian Institution, Traffic International, WildAid, Wildlife Conservation Society and the American Forest & Paper Association ? are the coalition’s founding members. While it urges nations to become members, CAWT also has provisions for independent organisations to join its global platform.

Much of CAWT’s activities are reportedly being focused on Asia. And India, being home to several endangered species, is undoubtedly within the frame of operations for the coalition.

However, CAWT is not the first agreement of its kind that India has subscribed to in the past. But despite signatures and counter signatures, illegal wildlife trafficking has, unfortunately, continued unabated. The reason, say experts, is the reluctance of the government to implement policies on the field.

“India, for example, has a long-standing anti-poaching protocol with China,” says P.K. Sen, director, tiger and wildlife programme, Worldwide Fund for Nature, India. And China is the biggest market for tiger parts trafficked out of India. “However, India has not used the protocol to address the issue of illegal wildlife trade between the two countries,” says Sen.

Wildlife experts stress that China, in fact, seems more keen to fight the illegal market than India. An insider in wildlife circles claims that China had sent several letters to the ministry of environment and forests (MoEF), wishing to further talks on the protocol, but these elicited no response from the ministry.

Further proof of India's hesitant approach in this regard lies in the fact that the Convention for International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) ? a global treaty that lays down guidelines ? had, a couple of years ago, imposed sanctions on India for failing to meet international standards. “The sanctions were removed only after India assured the body that it would revamp its system and come up with a wildlife crime cell,” says Tito Joseph, project officer, Wildlife Protection Society of India. “Little progress, however, has been made in that direction since the sanctions were removed.”

But while the experts are worried about India’s lack of initiative, they are also concerned over the lack of movement on the CAWT front. “The coalition does not have a charter for itself as yet,” says an official in the MoEF. “And details of the charter will only emerge in the days to come.” In other words, India has shown interest in joining a forum that still does not have a definitive set of house rules to go by.

Amid such circumstances, certain concerns have been raised by officials. First, the coalition hints at exchange of forest personnel between member states for training and orientation purposes. “But we don’t know if this would be of an intrusive nature,” says a wildlife expert. Next, the coalition doesn’t make it imperative for all nations to be its members.

The ministry, however, says that India has not wholly pledged its allegiance to the coalition yet. “If later developments indicate that the coalition is not poised to benefit India, we will not sign on the dotted line,” says an MoEF official. In that case, the fuss about joining CAWT during the US President’s visit would be tantamount to much ado about nothing.