Approach:

In the introduction, you may start with Project Cheeta and its intention.

In the body part focus on the ivory trade and India's stance on it. Also, put forth why Namibia wants the ban to be lifted.

In the conclusion you may provide reason why even Namibia would support the conservation effort and work hand in hand with all other signatories of CITES.

India and Namibia had signed a pact on "wildlife conservation and sustainable biodiversity utilisation" under which two countries "should seek to promote biodiversity conservation with specific focus on conservation and restoration of cheetah in their former range areas from which they went extinct" and "sharing and exchange of expertise and capacities aimed at promoting cheetah conservation in two countries". However, there is an apprehension that Namibia expects India to support the commercial trade of its ivory as part of the cheetah agreement.

India’s Stand on Ivory Trade:

• Poaching for ivory – or elephant tusk – is one big reason responsible for dramatic decline in elephant population worldwide
• India rendered the illegal domestic trade in ivory in 1986 by amending the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 and including a ‘Chapter VA’. It banned imported ivory in 1991.
• India holds a firm stand on not supporting the international trade in ivory either because the country is also party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)

However, Namibia and some other countries have ivory stockpiles that they would like to sell to support ongoing elephant conservation within their borders. But it is argued that ‘legal’ trade in ivory wouldn’t be sustainable because once illegal ivory enters the trade, it can’t be segregated from the legal one, because of vested interest.

Lastly India’s change in stance won’t make a difference to the outcome of a vote, since more than a hundred countries participate. Hence the solution lies in conservation and respect for the international treaties instrumentalizing such efforts.