Project Cheetah, initiated to establish a population of African cheetahs in India, is not ‘environmentally just’, a new paper published on February 3, 2025, has stated.
The translocations of African cheetahs to India for restoration purposes have not adequately accounted for ethical considerations and face several social and species justice concerns, it noted.
The authors — Yashendu C Joshi from the Department of Conservation Science, Centre for Wildlife Studies (CWS-India), Bengaluru, Karnataka and Stephanie E. Klarmann and Louise C de Waal from the Blood Lions Non Profit Company (NPC) in Gansbaai, South Africa — also added that the cheetah translocations to India presented further challenges, including differences in climate, prey species, and habitat that African cheetahs need to adapt to and the potential human–wildlife conflict for communities not accustomed to the presence of cheetahs.
“The lack of research on animal welfare in the legal trade of wild animals needs to be addressed, and we call on conservationists to give comprehensive consideration to the social and animal welfare implications of translocation work,” they said.
The researchers applied distributive, procedural, and recognition justice lenses to not just marginalised people but also non-human species. For this, they reviewed reports prepared for the translocation of Asiatic lions and African cheetahs to the Kuno National Park (KNP) in Madhya Pradesh.
The KNP was initially selected for the reintroduction of Asiatic lions, a long-term translocation program that was due to commence in 2008.
“Between 1999 and 2001, 5,000 people from 24 villages were displaced for planned Asiatic lion reintroductions, which did not occur as the Gujarat state government was reluctant to release lions to another state. Subsequent discussions among Indian government officials, state forest departments, and researchers led to the decision to introduce African cheetahs instead, pending a report on potential introduction sites, including KNP, requested by the Ministry of Environment and Forests,” the paper noted.
The authors came down heavily on the methodology used.
“Evaluating the 2010 report’s methodology, justice shortcomings become evident. Surveys were conducted at prospective sites to assess factors including “economic well-being”, “sources of livelihood”, and “perceptions about wildlife”. No questions were posed to respondents; instead, a well-being index was calculated using visual assessments of interviewees’ age, sex, attire condition, quality/quantity of ornaments/wristwatches, and transportation,” the paper noted.
According to the authors, these subjective assessments were weighted to calculate an index determining which populations may accept compensation. “This disparity led to distributive injustice where socio-economic impacts, distribution of benefits, and burdens of conservation efforts are markedly unequal. This could have been mitigated by recognising diverse values, understanding potential inequitable impacts, and focusing on historically burdened groups.”
Social issues like attitudes toward relocation, exotic species introduction, project acceptance, and perceived risks and benefits were neglected. Instead, the focus was on identifying economically and socially disadvantaged targets for monetary incentives.
The authors also said a recent report used in a case adjudicated by the Indian Supreme Court failed to conduct any social surveys.
“The report suggested a “rapid assessment” of potential sites surveyed in 2010 within a few days; the methodology for assessing “Anthropogenic Activities” was unclear; some sites discussed only linear infrastructures and industrial pressures without mentioning local communities, while others ignored industrial impacts. The Cheetah Action Plan deemed KNP the most suitable site, noting previous village relocations for Asiatic lion reintroductions; however, it lacked mention of preparing remaining communities for the arrival of cheetahs,” the paper noted.
The researchers pointed out that the argument that the “predominantly Hindu culture advocates tolerance toward animals and reduces the risk of human–wildlife conflict” is highly simplistic.
“We need to challenge the assumption that only Hindu communities reside around KNP and understand that other communities may experience human– wildlife conflict. Even within Hindu communities, attributing tolerance exclusively to religion would be simplistic,” they wrote.
They added that human–animal relationships in a diverse country like India were based on complex webs of socio-ecological systems. “It is unfounded to assume people would tolerate potential human–wildlife conflict with cheetahs. Hence, researchers must apply more forethought and avoid generalizations regarding this intricate web of relationships.”
Concerns were also raised in the paper about the injustice to the African cheetah as a species. This species is under significant pressure with approximately 6,500 mature individuals remaining in the wild.
“The translocation of a “Vulnerable” species to India raises concerns about ecological and species injustices, particularly regarding welfare, mortality, and risks associated with their intercontinental translocation…Cheetahs are generally susceptible to stress, in particular, associated with the capture of free-ranging animals. The KNP cheetahs have not only been transported intercontinentally, but they are regularly subjected to veterinarian interventions, including more than 90 chemical immobilizations. Hence, one can question the long-term impact on their physical and mental welfare, especially considering their long-term existence in captive conditions. Furthermore, live prey is released in what may be classed as “unnatural confinement and exposed to the danger of immediate attack with no recourse”, as was ruled in a case by the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa,” wrote the authors.
The authors concluded that the way in which conservation successes are measured need to be challenged by going beyond measuring ecological processes of birth and death but also gauging impacts on an animal’s physical, physiological, and mental health.
“To achieve transformative and effective conservation outcomes, it is necessary to incorporate diverse values of nature … Conservation practices that prioritise respect, inclusivity, and justice are more likely to have positive outcomes for people and nature. Such practices also prevent conflict among stakeholders and loss of scientific credibility,” they wrote.
Delineating the environmental justice implications of an experimental cheetah introduction project in India has been published in the journal Frontiers in Conservation Science.