Can fencing Kuno National Park ensure success for the stumbling Project Cheetah?

It has been over two years since the first African cheetahs were released into an enclosure in Madhya Pradesh’s Kuno National Park (KNP) by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on September 17, 2022 initiating the process of reintroducing the species into India’s wildlands. Cheetahs became extinct in India during the 1950s.

Almost everyone in the wildlife conservation fraternity opposed the project. Some argued the cheetah was not part of India’s heritage, while others contended that the wrong species of cheetah was chosen. 

There were claims that funds meant for conserving other species were being diverted, that the project violated Supreme Court orders, or that Kuno was an unsuitable habitat where leopards would eliminate the cheetahs. Moreover, critics said the cheetahs had usurped KNP, which had been reserved for Asiatic lions. None of these objections, however, resonated with me.

A lot of water has passed down the Chambal since the project’s conception in 2009. The Supreme Court initially blocked the project  in 2012, prioritising the relocation of lions, but later relented in 2020. Since September 2022, twenty cheetahs have been brought in from South Africa and Namibia. 

Several have died, but even more have been born in India. Currently, there are 24 cheetahs, including 12 cubs born in Kuno, though all remain confined to enclosures, or bomas (a term used in Africa for enclosures) ranging in size from 50 to 150 hectares.

Attempts to release them from the bomas have so far been unsuccessful. The cheetahs have either succumbed to unexpected causes or had to be recaptured after wandering too far from the park. Deaths have occurred even within the enclosures, attributed to drowning, maggot infestations, heart failure, renal failure and infighting.

A cautious new attempt to release the cheetahs is underway. On December 4 — International Cheetah Day — two cheetahs, Agni and Vayu, were released to test the waters. They are being allowed to roam freely and more will be released if this trial proves successful.

The project now plans to go beyond KNP. Plans include introducing cheetahs into the Gandhi Sagar Wildlife Sanctuary in Madhya Pradesh and the Mukundara Hills Tiger Reserve in Rajasthan. A cheetah breeding centre has also been approved in the renowned Banni grasslands of Kutch in Gujarat.

On top of all this, an extensive cheetah corridor connecting the entire landscape of KNP, Gandhi Sagar and Mukundara Hills is set to be developed, covering several thousand square kilometres (sq km) and 21 districts across Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. The idea is that cheetahs wandering out of one reserve can safely reach another, with local forest departments managing their care instead of returning them to Kuno.

This is where the project enters perilous territory, as the idea is fraught with numerous obstacles that could derail it. First, the assumption that uninterrupted forested land exists across such a vast area needs confirmation. More critically, the availability of an adequate prey base is a major concern. Forget the corridor, even within the three proposed protected areas (PAs), do not have enough wild food for the cheetah.

Kuno, certified by the Wildlife Institute of India as having an adequate prey base in 2013 (125 herbivores, including livestock, per sq km), appears to have suffered severe depletion. The density of spotted deer, for instance, has declined from 69.36 per sq km in 2013 to 23.43 sq km in 2021 and just 17.5 sq km in 2024. 

This decline is despite the cheetahs in KNP being fed spotted deer brought in from Pench and Kanha National Parks. The situation of prey base in Gandhi Sagar and Mukundara Hills is even worse.

If earlier estimates were accurate (covering only the smaller, original 345 sq km Kuno sanctuary), this sharp decline suggests extensive poaching by locals. If such poaching occurs in a high-profile PA like Kuno, one can imagine the situation in the proposed corridor, where the prey density is a mere two animals per sq km.

Alternatively, some estimates might be flawed, as such high poaching levels in a high-profile area seem unlikely. Either way, the fact remains: There is insufficient natural food for the cheetahs in the proposed corridor.

When released from their bomas, the cheetahs are likely to roam widely in search of food and mates. While the project permits this, the cheetahs will often end up in undesirable locations, necessitating frequent physical retrieval of the highly skittish animals — a Herculean task requiring trained workforce and equipment, which is unlikely to be available in all parts of the corridor.

Introducing a new predator in the countryside will aggravate human-wildlife conflict as the region is dotted with villages where agriculture and livestock rearing are the mainstay of the economy. So, apart from poaching, the scattering cheetahs are likely to end up poisoned, electrocuted or snared by aggrieved locals. These losses could lead to political opposition, particularly if there is a change in the political landscape.

One of the declared objectives of the project is to create tourism-based jobs for the local people. These jobs are unlikely to materialise if the cheetah population is scattered thinly all over an expansive landscape.

Without tangible benefits and with mounting losses, the reintroduction of cheetahs will fail to restore degraded forest — another stated goal of the project. No amount of resources spent on the restoration of the forests, in the name of the cheetah, is likely to bear any results as the local livestock will eat everything away.

In fact, any depredations caused by cheetahs and other wild animals protected and propagated by the government, without putting in place effective measures to protect the people, virtually amount to offences like negligent conduct (with respect to animals), culpable homicide, grievous hurt, mischief and theft on the part of the government under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the new official criminal code in India. 

More importantly, knowingly endangering people’s lives and property constitutes a violation of the vulnerable people's fundamental rights, though this hypothesis has yet to be tested.

As a result of its current and emerging design, this project faces a number of challenges. Should we then abandon the project midstream? Not at all. However, before moving forward, we must learn from our global experiences.

A fenced reserve as a solution

Fences are despised by all conservationists because they fragment habitats, populations and communities, preventing wildlife from moving freely. They may also affect wildlife behaviour to some extent.  Yet, fences have proven to be effective in ensuring conservation success.

India’s wildlife conservation model, consisting of PAs interconnected by meandering habitat corridors, appears to be based on the approach followed by countries like US, Australia and Russia. We have nothing in common with these countries as they own 15 to 100 times more wildlands (per capita forest land) than India and can afford to provide limitless spaces for wildlife. People and wild animals rarely come in each other’s way in those countries. 

In contrast, India’s landscape is densely populated, with villages located every kilometre or two, even within deep forests. These communities depend heavily on forests for livestock grazing, fodder, fuelwood, small timber, fruits, tubers, medicinal plants and occasionally meat, while also enduring daily depredations from wild animals.

Though not identical, India’s situation bears some similarity to African countries, which still enjoy eight times more per capita forest land than India (0.06 hectares versus 0.50 hectares). However, African nationsput fences around wildlife reserves and national parks to protect wild animals and people from each other.

These fenced reserves thrive with wildlife, often including species introduced from elsewhere. Thousands of animals, both carnivores and herbivores, are relocated between fenced PAs annually.

Would it not be prudent for India to also consider fencing its protected areas? Here’s what could happen if we release cheetahs from their bomas after erecting a boundary fence around KNP.

Firstly, the project will become compliant with the BNS as the introduced cheetahs and their increased prey base will not cause any losses to the people. It will also not infringe people’s fundamental rights to life and property guaranteed by the Constitution (Article 21 and 300-A).

There will be little to no poaching or illegal grazing by local livestock. Cheetahs and other wildlife would be protected from conflicts with humans or poaching. Translocated prey animals would remain within the park, available to predators, instead of dispersing across the countryside and damaging crops. Efforts to improve habitats would be more effective, as they would no longer be undermined by external pressures.

A fenced sanctuary can sustain much higher densities of wildlife than an open system, depending on food availability. Even if cheetahs require, as reported, 100 sq km per animal in an open landscape with sparse prey, a fenced area with ample food could support far more individuals. Consequently, the cheetah population would grow rapidly, making animals available for introductions to other PAs. We have already observed how swiftly they reproduce.

To prevent inbreeding in a fenced population, breeding animals could periodically be exchanged between populations to ensure genetic diversity or supplemented through imports if needed. Easy wildlife sightings, particularly of cheetahs, would boost tourism, creating numerous jobs and businesses.

Some conservationists argue that Indian PAs cannot be fenced because they are smaller than their African counterparts. However, not all African PAs are large; they vary in size and the smaller ones are often fenced. 

If Kuno is considered small, the fence could be extended if additional land is available. Currently, KNP spans 748 sq km with a 487 sq km buffer. Government orders have also been issued to transfer an additional 541 sq km of adjacent forest to the park, enabling Kuno to expand to approximately 1,800 sq km, comparable to a medium-sized African reserve.

Constructing a fence around the entire PA would undoubtedly be expensive. However, the long-term costs of maintaining and managing a fenced reserve would be significantly lower than those of an open system. Studies, such as a 2013 study published in the journal Ecology Letters on conserving large carnivores, confirm this. In any case, no cost should be too much for a project endorsed by the Prime Minister.

Fenced PAs are not zoos

Critics often disparagingly label fenced PAs as “zoos” or “glorified safari parks.” However, unlike zoos, where every aspect of an animal’s life is controlled, fenced PAs merely restrict the distance animals can roam. Fenced or not, animals retain their natural behaviours in a PA, if it is large enough.

Globally, there exists a spectrum of wildlife facilities between zoos and human-free, unbounded habitats, ranging from wildlife refuges and safari parks to private game reserves of varying sizes. While zoos represent the lowest tier of this spectrum, fenced PAs are near the top. 

For instance, South Africa’s 20,000 sq km Kruger National Park and its network of 15 interconnected private reserves, or the 572 sq km Pilanesberg National Park, are certainly not zoos. In fact, fenced PAs represent the best compromise for a densely populated country like India, balancing wildlife conservation with human safety and well-being. Animals would likely accept some restrictions on their freedom in exchange for security and reliable food sources.

A fence would of course not be advisable where migratory species are involved, as in the case of Serengeti-Massai Mara landscape. Fortunately, we do not have that limitation. Fences can also be customised to make them permeable to smaller animals which are more vulnerable to their ill-effects.

Indian experience with introductions and reintroductions

India has attempted wildlife introductions and reintroductions without fencing, with mixed results. Failures include the introduction of lions by the Maharaja of Gwalior in KNP in 1904 and later by the UP government in Chandraprabha sanctuary in 1958. More recently, the reintroduction of tigers in Odisha’s Satkosia Tiger Reserve failed, in my opinion, arguably due to the lack of a fence.

Successes include tiger reintroductions in Panna and Sariska tiger reserves, though challenges persisted. But we have forgotten that one of Sariska’s founding tigers was poisoned shortly after release and the lone male in Panna had to be retrieved after wandering 200 km from the park. These challenges were manageable due to the release of only one tiger at a time, whereas Kuno faces the daunting task of managing dozens of cheetahs without fencing.

Conversely, rhinos in Dudhwa National Park have thrived within a fenced area for nearly 40 years, despite its limited size (27 sq km). The reintroduction of gaur in Bandhavgarh succeeded partly due to a large fenced area.

Obviously, we have plenty of examples in India to learn how to handle new introductions. Common sense dictates that rather than treading a path riddled with known pitfalls, one should try to follow a model that promises guaranteed success.

Looking at our options holistically, fenced PAs, as large as we can afford, are the best bet for cheetah conservation in India — Kuno first and any others later. There, they can live like cheetahs and generate whatever ecological and economic benefits are expected of them without causing problems for the local communities. And, also, teach us a lesson or two in sustainable conservation of wildlife and its habitats.

HS Pabla IFS (Retd.) is former Chief Wildlife Warden, Madhya Pradesh

Views expressed are the author’s own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth

This article is part of our upcoming annual publication State of India's Environment 2025