Vantara, a 3,000-acre private zoo owned by Anant Ambani, claims to be a wildlife rescue and rehabilitation center. But critics argue it is an enclosure, not conservation—where nature is commodified, wildlife is privatized, and ethical concerns loom large.
Vantara, a sprawling 3,000-acre private zoo in Gujarat, India, has recently come under scrutiny from conservationists and environmentalists. Established by Anant Ambani, son of India’s richest businessman Mukesh Ambani, Vantara is promoted as a sanctuary for rescued and endangered species. However, critics argue that it represents a form of “conservation capitalism,” where nature is commodified, raising concerns about environmental impacts and ethical practices.
The Enclosure of Nature: Vantara’s Approach
Unlike traditional conservation efforts that focus on preserving natural habitats, Vantara has been criticized for creating enclosures that mimic natural environments but lack the ecological complexity of wild ecosystems. This approach aligns with the notion that “what is conserved isn’t nature—it’s nature as capitalism,” where forests become carbon credits, animals become biodiversity units, and land becomes carbon offsets—not life to be preserved, but capital to be accumulated.
Environmental Implications
The establishment of Vantara has raised environmental concerns, particularly regarding its location within the Green Belt of Reliance’s Jamnagar Refinery Complex. This area is known for industrial activities that pose risks such as pollution and industrial accidents. An older report by the Central Pollution Control Board noted that green belts near such industries can mitigate environmental damage by acting as sinks for pollutants. However, the proximity of a wildlife sanctuary to such industrial activities raises questions about the potential exposure of animals to environmental hazards. (Source )
Controversial Animal Acquisitions
Vantara’s rapid accumulation of a vast collection of animals has been a focal point of controversy. In four years, the facility has amassed 3,889 birds and animals representing 134 species, managed by a workforce of 2,700 individuals. Investigations have raised questions about the legality and ethics of relocating wildlife from various parts of India to the facility in Jamnagar, with allegations that many of these animals were trafficked, not legitimately rescued. (Source)
Case Study: Transfer of Black Panthers from Assam
In 2021, the Assam State Zoo transferred two black panthers to Vantara under an exchange program approved by the Central Zoo Authority. The Assam zoo was to receive four zebras from Israel in return. This transfer sparked controversy and protests from wildlife activists and politicians in Assam, who condemned the “hush-hush” transfer and argued that wild animals in captivity should not be subject to the interests of large corporate houses. ( Source )
Critics’ Perspective
Critics argue that Vantara’s model exemplifies the commodification of nature, where conservation efforts are driven by economic incentives rather than ecological preservation. This approach raises ethical questions about the true intent behind such projects and their long-term impact on biodiversity and natural ecosystems.
While Vantara presents itself as a beacon of wildlife rescue and rehabilitation, the controversies surrounding its environmental impact and animal acquisition practices highlight the complexities of private conservation initiatives. The debate underscores the need for transparent and ethical practices in conservation efforts to ensure that the primary focus remains on preserving nature in its truest form, rather than transforming it into a commodified entity for capital accumulation.