Yashendu C. Joshi
Stephanie E. Klarmann
Louise C. de Waal- 1Department of Conservation Science, Centre for Wildlife Studies (CWS-India), Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
- 2Blood Lions Non Profit Company (NPC), Gansbaai, South Africa
- 3Department of Psychology, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
Project Cheetah in Kuno National Park was initiated to establish a population of African cheetahs in India due to the Asiatic subspecies’ extinction in the country since the 1950s. The project has received criticism from international conservationists for lacking conservation and scientific merit. Conservationists, particularly from India and South Africa, have raised concerns regarding the ecological criteria guiding its decision-making and concerns regarding a lack of scientific evidence in addition to potential political motivations. The concerns raised by the international community suggest that the project may not solely focus on conserving the African cheetah, which is classified as “Vulnerable” by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), but could be guided by other agendas outside of conservation. Several cheetahs have died in the project’s couple of years, raising ethical concerns regarding the cheetahs’ welfare and high mortality rates demonstrated thus far, in addition to the perceived unjust social impacts on local stakeholders. In this perspective piece, we use Project Cheetah as a case study to exemplify broader issues applicable to rewilding and restoration projects that necessitate attention by proponents and authorities responsible for issuing the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) import and export permits.
Introduction
Project Cheetah has so far introduced 20 African cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus), eight from Namibia in September 2022 and 12 from South Africa in February 2023, into Kuno National Park (KNP), Madhya Pradesh, India (Chellam, 2023; Qureshi et al., 2024). The project aims to establish a viable population of African cheetahs since the Asiatic subspecies went extinct in India in the 1950s (Rai et al., 2020). Most cheetahs were released into free-ranging habitats, except for six adults remaining in soft-release bomas (SRBs). However, in July–August 2023, all free-roaming cheetahs were returned to the SRBs for health reasons (Qureshi et al., 2024). To date, 17 cubs have been born in SRBs; however, the project has experienced high mortality rates (40.0% adult mortality and 29.4% cub mortality) (Qureshi et al., 2024). The remaining 12 adult cheetahs and 12 cubs live in captivity, and currently, no cheetahs exist in KNP’s extensive wild systems (Chellam, 2024). However, in December 2024 Indian media reported the release of a male coalition of two cheetahs (https://theprint.in/india/multiple-sightings-of-cheetah-vayu-roaming-the-streets-in-mps-sheopur-days-after-release-from-kuno/2418973/). It is projected that establishing a viable cheetah population could take 30–40 years, with an average of 12 cheetahs imported from southern Africa every year to support population growth and account for high mortality (Marnewick et al., 2023; Ranjitsinh and Jhala, 2010).
The project has been criticized for lacking conservation and scientific merit specifically regarding the ecological criteria guiding its decision-making (Gopalaswamy et al., 2022; Singh, 2022; Wachter et al., 2023) and doubts about its scientific evidence and potential political motivations (Gopalaswamy et al., 2022; Shahabuddin, 2015). Criticisms suggest the project may not solely focus on the conservation of an International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) “Vulnerable” classified species but could involve other agendas (Shahabuddin, 2015), including an alleged request from Namibia that India withdraw its ban on ivory trade (Perinchery, 2022). Furthermore, ethical concerns have been raised regarding the cheetahs’ welfare and high mortality rates (Chellam, 2023; Marnewick et al., 2023) and the perceived unjust social impacts on local stakeholders (Kabra, 2003; Mahalwal and Kabra, 2023), including a lack of consultation and transparency (Chellam, 2023). We argue that Project Cheetah exemplifies broader issues applicable to rewilding and restoration projects that necessitate attention by proponents and authorities responsible for issuing the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) import and export permits. The high costs of this experimental project are estimated between USD 50 and 60 million, which arguably may be utilized for in situ conservation (Marnewick et al., 2023) or social upliftment.
Since the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework was established, there has been a global push toward equity and justice in protecting biodiversity. The framework refers to the disproportionate effects of conservation initiatives and biodiversity loss on marginalized communities and indigenous people. Additionally, there is a significant movement to recognize injustices committed against non-human species (Winter and Schlosberg, 2023), including animals in the global wildlife trade (Afana, 2022; Collard, 2013; Wyatt et al., 2021). It is well-established that the illegal trade is detrimental to animals’ welfare (Sollund, 2013; Wyatt et al., 2021), but more attention is required to recognizing injustices in the legal trade (Baker et al., 2013) along the full supply chain from source to destination. In the case of Project Cheetah, alarms have been raised that animals exported from Southern Africa to India have experienced unjust treatment, bringing attention to compromised animal welfare, in addition to the unjust social implications for local and indigenous communities surrounding KNP.
We demonstrate that translocations of African cheetahs to India for restoration purposes have not adequately accounted for ethical considerations and face several social and species justice concerns. The lack of research on animal welfare in the legal trade of wild animals needs to be addressed (Wyatt et al., 2021), and we call on conservationists to give comprehensive consideration to the social and animal welfare implications of translocation work. The cheetah translocations to India present further challenges, including differences in climate, prey species, and habitat that African cheetahs need to adapt to (Marnewick et al., 2023; Singh, 2022) and the potential human–wildlife conflict for communities not accustomed to the presence of cheetahs (Gopalaswamy et al., 2022; Marnewick et al., 2023). We, therefore, assess the social and species justice considerations in not only relocating human communities from KNP to accommodate cheetahs in an experimental relocation attempt but also intercontinental species translocation.
We analyze these considerations through distributive, procedural, and recognition justice lenses (Schlosberg, 2007; Lenzi et al., 2023; Schaafsma et al., 2023), which have been applied to marginalized people but may also be applied to non-human species (Martin et al., 2016; Schlosberg, 2007, 2014), with the inclusion of recognizing dignity, values, and identities (Martin et al., 2016). We reviewed reports prepared for the translocation of Asiatic lions and African cheetahs to KNP. We discuss the implications of relocating local communities and social justice issues in conservation work, both generally and specific to KNP’s local communities. We use these inputs to consider ethical and justice implications for translocated animals and relocated peoples in terms of 1) methodological considerations for decision-making and 2) normative considerations regarding the project’s justification. We conclude by relating this case to the broader issue of rewilding and restoration work, which have become important conservation strategies globally.
Justice and methodological concerns
KNP is a biodiverse region of 784 km2 situated in the Central Indian Vindhyan Hills and was initially selected for the reintroduction of Asiatic lions, a long-term translocation program that was due to commence in 2008 (Johnsingh et al., 2007) and, more recently, as the relocation site for African cheetahs. Between 1999 and 2001, 5,000 people from 24 villages were displaced for planned Asiatic lion reintroductions (Sharma, 2003), which did not occur as the Gujarat state government was reluctant to release lions to another state (Shahabuddin, 2015; Chellam, 2023; Gopalaswamy et al., 2022). 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 (Ranjitsinh and Jhala, 2010).
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 (Ranjitsinh and Jhala, 2010). 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 (Bennett et al., 2017; Mkono, 2019). This could have been mitigated by recognizing diverse values, understanding potential inequitable impacts, and focusing on historically burdened groups.
The report neglected social issues like attitudes toward relocation, exotic species introduction, project acceptance, and perceived risks and benefits. Instead, it focused on identifying economically and socially disadvantaged targets for monetary incentives. Statements like, “The people residing in the forested areas outside KNP are poor and backward and a good compensation package … would be irresistible” (p. 96) suggest that they were deemed susceptible to one-off compensation. This lack of community engagement can lead to disenfranchisement and exacerbate existing power imbalances (Kashwan, 2016; Anderson et al., 2022). Such language raises concerns regarding the ethics and motivations of research potentially tailored to support displacing local communities, leading to unjust outcomes, such as “conservation refugees” (Hoefle, 2020; Snodgrass et al., 2016). These practices highlight procedural injustice, as the representation and inclusion of relevant actors are overlooked during the valuation and execution phases. Addressing this issue involves meticulous assessment of the degree to which affected communities and stakeholders with diverse worldviews, especially marginalized groups, are engaged in the planning, execution, and monitoring of relocation projects (Mclean and Stræde, 2003). It is crucial to establish institutionalized mechanisms for community feedback and grievance redressal, fostering equitable and sustainable relocation processes.
Background studies regarding the human costs/benefits could draw upon established tools, such as Living Standards Measurement Study, encompassing the dependence on natural resources (Burdge, 1987; Grosh and Glewwe, 1995) to have a holistic understanding of what was at stake in these decisions. Furthermore, greater emphasis could be placed on non-marketed products and contextual information (Angelsen et al., 2012) and on examining livelihood resilience post-relocations (Quandt, 2018). Contextual information can be determined by understanding cultural, religious, traditional, demographic, socio-political, and governmental aspects of a landscape (Agrawal and Angelsen, 2009; Cundill et al., 2012) that go beyond relying on quantitative surveys alone (Milton, 1985; Cundill et al., 2012).
A recent report used in a case adjudicated by the Indian Supreme Court failed to conduct any social surveys (Centre for Environmental Law vs Union of India & Ors, 1995; Supreme Court allows introduction of African Cheetah in India, 2020; Jhala et al., 2021). 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 (Jhala et al., 2021). 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 (Jhala et al., 2021).
Equally, concerns have been raised regarding ecological considerations prior to the arrival of the cheetahs in KNP (Wachter et al., 2023). Since the project’s inception, eight adults and five cubs have died due to kidney failure, fighting injuries, extreme heat and humidity, and skin infections due to fly strike (PTI, 2024; Naveen, 2023), highlighting the difficulties in adapting to their new environment.
Problematic social justifications
An argument presented by Van Der Merwe (2023) is that the predominantly Hindu culture advocates tolerance toward animals and reduces the risk of human–wildlife conflict. However, there are fundamental flaws in this argument, and conservation researchers should exercise caution when employing culture-specific terminology and generalizations without well-grounded research (Sheil and Wunder, 2002). It is essential to understand the underlying reasons why individuals in certain regions may tolerate negative wildlife encounters. 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.
Local traditions and beliefs may influence people’s willingness to coexist with wildlife. Local communities often have deep connections to indigenous wild animals, viewing them through the lens of their multigenerational cultural belief systems (Henning, 1998; Torri and Herrmann, 2011; Kreye et al., 2017) and traditionally acquired ecological knowledge (Agnihotri et al., 2021), which form the basis of their understanding of avoiding or rationalizing negative encounters.
Human–animal relationships in a diverse country like India are based on complex webs of socio-ecological systems (Barua et al., 2013; Margulies and Karanth, 2018). 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.
Relying on generalizations to justify translocations and delineate protected land demonstrates little appreciation of the human dimension of conservation, often resulting in recognition or epistemic injustice (Bennett et al., 2017; Brittain et al., 2020; Lenzi et al., 2023). This risks overlooking diverse knowledge systems and values, the complex relationships people have with nature, their perceptions of wildlife, and consent to bear the consequences of such initiatives. This oversight could be addressed by identifying and formally recognizing all relevant actors representing different knowledge systems, worldviews, and values and granting them institutional rights and structures to articulate their perspectives in inclusive, sensitive, unbiased, and intersectional dialogues (Pretty et al., 2009; Martin et al., 2016). Engaging in intersectional dialogue has the potential to recognize and acknowledge the ways in which those in power and those without intersect with relational contexts to promote human rights, plurality, and diversity (Adami, 2013), which we argue is a necessary condition in relocations of local and indigenous communities when implementing conservation projects.
Problematic species injustices
African cheetah populations are 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.
As part of Project Cheetah, all cheetahs were initially released into nine SRBs ranging in size from 0.5 km2 to 1.5 km2. SRBs are frequently restocked with live prey, mostly captive-bred chital, and are predator-free. Four cheetahs died in an SRB within 6 months of arrival, and two females have never left the SRBs, as they had cubs (National Tiger Conservation Authority et al., 2023). All other pregnant females have been returned to the SRBs, and since July–August 2023, all remaining free-roaming cheetahs were also returned to these bomas (Qureshi et al., 2024). The SRB conditions are far from the KNP free-ranging conditions, where cheetahs roam on average 4.3 km per day, in home ranges up to 5,441 km2 (National Tiger Conservation Authority et al., 2023). Cheetahs are generally susceptible to stress, in particular, associated with the capture of free-ranging animals (Braud et al., 2019). The KNP cheetahs have not only been transported intercontinentally, but they are regularly subjected to veterinarian interventions, including more than 90 chemical immobilizations (Qureshi et al., 2024). 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 (National Council of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) v Openshaw, 2008).
The translocation of African cheetahs to KNP has shown several welfare-associated risks, including stress, trauma, and adaptation failures (Qureshi et al., 2024), leading to adult survival rates of 60%, which falls far below the average 85% survival rate for reintroductions in South Africa’s metapopulation (Marnewick et al., 2023). The KNP survival rates are likely to decrease further when all cheetahs are free-ranging and encounter other large indigenous predators. We challenge conservationists to identify an ethically acceptable mortality rate for cheetah reintroductions and refrain from phrases like “successful reintroductions” when 40%–50% of the animals die. Project Cheetah’s shifting “acceptable” mortality rates reveal the lack of ethical considerations and accountability for species management failures (Jhala et al., 2021; Tiwari, 2022; Sehgal, 2023).
Furthermore, anecdotal reports of cheetahs being stoned by local villagers and harassment during sedation reveal the risks faced by cheetahs struggling to adapt or thrive post-release (Navajyoti, 2024; Marnewick et al., 2023; Saxena, 2023), highlighting the interplay of welfare, human–wildlife conflict, and conservation priorities. In December 2024, one of the males released into KPN was sighted multiple times in residential areas of Sheopur city, about 50 km from his release site, demonstrating the real risks of human-wildlife conflict (https://theprint.in/india/multiple-sightings-of-cheetah-vayu-roaming-the-streets-in-mps-sheopur-days-after-release-from-kuno/2418973/).
Prioritizing justice-informed and evidence-based decision-making
The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) highlights that environmental knowledge is produced through cultural frames of reference, and local and indigenous knowledge systems are fundamental to understanding the diverse ways people relate to the natural environment (Díaz et al., 2018). We argue displacements and relocations disregard the three dimensions of justice, namely, distribution (who bears the costs and benefits), procedure (participation in decision-making), and recognition (respecting cultural differences and identities) (Martin et al., 2016; Schlosberg, 2007), and the importance of indigenous knowledge systems and relationships with nature, prioritizing external knowledge over that of local inhabitants.
The consequences of species relocation projects that lack ecological and social dimensions demonstrate the need for robust, scientifically grounded, and locally accepted conservation strategies. Poorly planned community relocations present several issues, including disruption of societal structures, akin to forced land reform (Kabra, 2003). Attention has grown to understanding enduring mental and emotional challenges and place attachment (Bott et al., 2003; Cundill et al., 2017; Rangarajan and Shahabuddin, 2006; Tuck and McKenzie, 2015). Communities within forests hold sentimental connections to land and non-human inhabitants. Beliefs and traditions intertwine with their experiences in nature. Over time, relocations exert repercussions on the mental health of those who closely identify with their culture and surrounding land and animals (Schmidt–Soltau, 2003; Ratnam, 2017; Mathew, 2019).
Fundamental problems may affect those relocated from places like KNP, including inadequate land quality, lack of irrigation water, and insufficient livestock fodder (Kabra, 2003; Sharma, 2003). Importantly, these problems are differentiated by class, caste, age, and sex (Kabra, 2020). Many people in KNP abandoned larger livestock in the forest due to resource scarcity during the initial Asiatic lion reintroduction attempts (Kabra, 2003). The research underscores the profound bond between rural residents and livestock (Vignesh, 2022), making abandonment traumatic, with no mitigating efforts from project managers.
Community relocation may on occasion be deemed necessary for medical, educational, law enforcement, or conservation reasons (Kabra, 2003; Karanth and Bhargav, 2005), but we argue for a justice-informed execution. Through justice-informed engagement, relocation may not always be necessary, depending on residents’ preferences and needs. Such decisions should not rely on surveys that fail to capture complex human attachments to place. Short- and long-term consequences of relocations demand meticulous consideration, necessitating well-planned community engagement. It is imperative to acknowledge people’s profound connections to land and relationships with the forest and non-human species.
Literature increasingly reflects on injustices extending to non-human species (Kotzé, 2019; Meijer, 2023). The cheetah translocations to KNP present ethical concerns by experimenting with a “Vulnerable” species and knowingly subjecting animals to substantial stress, existential risks, and mortality (Marnewick et al., 2023) by disregarding their spatial ecology (Wachter et al., 2023). The injustice to wild animals involved in the wider legal wildlife trade, including for conservation purposes, necessitates critical reflection and cost–benefit analysis for individual animals, the species and on the ecosystem level. We need to challenge the way in which we measure conservation successes that go beyond measuring ecological processes of birth and death but also gauge 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 (Lenzi et al., 2023). Schaafsma et al. (2023) provided a useful set of recommendations embracing justice in the design of studies that assess people’s values of nature. Furthermore, the IPBES Values Assessment provides practitioners and decision-makers with a comprehensive understanding of the pluralistic ways in which people conceptualize and value nature to inform sustainable and just means of protecting biodiversity. Conservation practices that prioritize respect, inclusivity, and justice are more likely to have positive outcomes for people and nature (Pascual et al., 2022). Such practices also prevent conflict among stakeholders and loss of scientific credibility (Lenzi et al., 2023).
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
YJ: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Project administration, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SK: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. LdW: Data curation, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The publication of this paper was sponsored through a Smithsonian Institution Life on a Sustainable Planet environmental justice grant. In-kind partners in this sponsorship include the International Alliance Against Health Risks in the Wildlife Trade and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback in improving our manuscript. We appreciate the inputs received on our initial draft from Sayan Banerjee, Dr. Krithi Karanth, and Prof. Brendon Barnes and express our appreciation to Drs. Anindya Sinha and Narendra Pani for their insightful discussions.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Adami R. (2013). Intersectional dialogue - a cosmopolitical dialogue of ethics. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies J. 5, 45–62. doi: 10.3316/informit.958553017166776
Afana R. (2024). From Speciesism to Theriocide: Wildlife Trade and Industrial Animal Farming as Embodiments of the ecocide–Genocide Continuum. In Wiseman W. A., Kesgin B. (Eds). Lost Kingdom: Animal Death in the Anthropocene. (Vernon Press), 59–88.
Agnihotri S., Madegowda C., Si A. (2021). Tiger becomes termite hill: Soliga/Solega perceptions of wildlife interactions and ecological change. Front. Conserv. Sci. 2, 691900. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2021.691900
Agrawal A., Angelsen A. (2009). “Usingcommunity forest management to achieve REDD+ goals,” in Realising REDD+: national strategy and policy positions. Ed. Angelsen A. (CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia).
Anderson C. B., Athayde S., Raymond C. M., Vatn A., Arias P., Gould R. K., et al. (2022). “Chapter 2: Conceptualizing the diverse values of nature and their contributions to people,” in Methodological assessment report on the diverse values and valuation of nature of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Eds. Balvanera P., Pascual U., Christie M., Baptiste B., González-Jiménez D. (IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany). doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6493134
Angelsen A., Larsen H. O., Olsen C. S. (2012). Measuring livelihoods and environmental dependence: Methods for research and fieldwork (London, UK: Routledge).
Baker S. E., Cain R., Van Kesteren F., Zommers Z. A., D’Cruze N., Macdonald D. W. (2013). Rough trade. BioScience 63, 928–938. doi: 10.1525/bio.2013.63.12.6
Barua M., Bhagwat S. A., Jadhav S. (2013). The hidden dimensions of human–wildlife conflict: Health impacts, opportunity and transaction costs. Biol. Conserv. 157, 309–316. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.014
Bennett N. J., Roth R., Klain S. C., Chan K., Christie P., Clark D. A., et al. (2017). Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biol. Conserv. 205, 93–108. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006
Bott S., Cantrill J. G., Myers J. O. E. (2003). Place and the promise of conservation psychology. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 10, 100–112. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24706959 (Accessed March 20, 2020).
Braud C., Mitchell E. P., van der Merwe V., Tordiffe A. S. W. (2019). A veterinary survey of factors associated with capture-related mortalities in cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus). J. South Afr. Veterinary Assoc. 90, 1–7. doi: 10.4102/jsava.v90i0.1723
Brittain S., Ibbett H., de Lange E., Dorward L., Hoyte S., Marino A., et al. (2020). Ethical considerations when conservation research involves people. Conserv. Biol. 34, 925–933. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13464
Burdge R. J. (1987). The social impact assessment model and the planning process. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 7, 141–150. doi: 10.1016/0195-9255(87)90033-3
Centre for Environmental Law vs Union of India & Ors (1995). Available online at: https://main.sci.gov.in/officereport/1995/7468/7468_1995_2023-03-28.pdf (Accessed November 2, 2023).
Chellam R. (2023). Project Cheetah, a year on (The Hindu). Available at: https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/project-cheetah-a-year-on/article67319379.ece (Accessed December 27, 2023).
Chellam R. (2024). India’s cheetah conservation plan is losing steam (The Frontline). Available at: https://frontline.thehindu.com/environment/african-cheetahs-captivity-kuno-national-park-cheetah-action-plan/article68625550.ece (Accessed November 10, 2024).
Collard R. (2013). Animal traffic: Making, remaking and unmaking commodities in global live wildlife trade (British Columbia, Canada: University of British Columbia). doi: 10.14288/1.0165692
Cundill G., Bezerra J. C., De Vos A., Ntingana N. (2017). Beyond benefit sharing: Place attachment and the importance of access to protected areas for surrounding communities. Ecosystem Serv. 28, 140–148. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.011
Cundill G., Shackleton S., Larsen H. O. (2012). “Collecting contextual information,” in Measuring livelihoods and environmental dependence. Eds. Angelsen A., Larsen H. O., Olsen C. S. (London, UK: Routledge), 71–88.
Díaz S., Pascual U., Stenseke M., Martín-López B., Watson R. T., Molnár Z., et al. (2018). Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359, 270–272. doi: 10.1126/science.aap8826
Gopalaswamy A. M., Khalatbari L., Chellam R., Mills M. G. L., Vanak A. T., Thuo D., et al. (2022). Introducing African cheetahs to India is an ill-advised conservation attempt. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6, 1794–1795. doi: 10.1038/s41559-022-01922-9
Grosh M. E., Glewwe P. (1995). A guide to living standards measurement study surveys and their data sets Vol. 120 (Washington D.C., United States: World Bank Publications).
Henning D. H. (1998). “Buddhism and Deep Ecology: protection of spiritual and cultural values for natural tropical forests in Asia,” in Personal, societal, and ecological values of wilderness: sixth world wilderness congress proceedings on research, management, and allocation, vol. I . Eds. Watson A. E., Aplet G. H., Hendee J. C. (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station), 108–112.
Hoefle S. W. (2020). Conservation refugees and environmental dispossession in 21st century critical Geography. Boletín la Asociación Geógrafos Españoles (84) 2895, 1–34. doi: 10.21138/bage.2895
Jhala Y. V., Bipin C. M., Jhala H. Y., Yadav S. R., Chauhan J. S. (2021). Assessment of cheetah introduction sites and proposed actions (Forest Department of Rajasthan and Forest Department of Madhya Pradesh: Wildlife Institute of India).
Johnsingh A., Goyal S., Qureshi Q. (2007). Preparations for the reintroduction of Asiatic lion Panthera leo persica into Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh, India. Oryx 41, 93–96. doi: 10.1017/s0030605307001512
Kabra A. (2003). Displacement and rehabilitation of an Adivasi settlement: case of Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh. Economic Political Weekly 38, 3073–3078. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4413809 (Accessed November 23, 2023).
Kabra A. (2020). Caste in stone? Exploring caste and class dimensions of conservation displacement in Central India. J. Contemp. Asia 50, 785–805. doi: 10.1080/00472336.2019.1696877
Karanth K. U., Bhargav P. (2005). “De-fragmenting nature,” in Seminar-new delhi, vol. 552. (Seminar Publications), 59. Available at: https://www.India-seminar.com/2005/552/552%20k.%20karanth,%20p.%20bhargav.htm (Accessed October 21, 2023).
Kashwan P. (2016). Power asymmetries and institutions: landscape conservation in central India. Regional Environ. Change 16, 97–109. doi: 10.1007/s10113-015-0925-8
Kotzé L. J. (2019). The Anthropocene, Earth system vulnerability and socio-ecological injustice in an age of human rights. J. Hum. Rights Environ. 10, 62–85. doi: 10.4337/jhre.2019.01.04
Kreye M. M., Adams D. C., Ghimire R., Morse W., Stein T., Bowker J. M. (2017). “Forest ecosystem services: cultural values,” in Trees At Work: economic accounting for forest ecosystem services in the U.S. South. Eds. Sills E. O., Moore S. E., Cubbage F. W., McCarter K. D., Holmes T. P., Mercer D. E. (Washington D.C., United States: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station), 11–29.
Lenzi D., Balvanera P., Arias-Arévalo P., Eser U., Guibrunet L., Martin A., et al. (2023). Justice, sustainability, and the diverse values of nature: why they matter for biodiversity conservation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability 64, 101353. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101353
Mahalwal S., Kabra A. (2023). The slow violence of fortress conservation creates conditions for socially unjust ‘voluntary’ relocation. Biol. Conserv. 286, 110264. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110264
Margulies J. D., Karanth K. K. (2018). The production of human-wildlife conflict: A political animal geography of encounter. Geoforum 95, 153–164. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.06.011
Marnewick K. A., Somers M. J., Venter J. A., Kerley G. I. H. (2023). Are we sinking Africa’s cheetahs in India? South Afr. J. Sci. 119, 1–3. doi: 10.17159/sajs.2023/15617
Martin A., Coolsaet B., Corbera E., Dawson N. M., Fraser J. A., Lehmann I., et al. (2016). Justice and conservation: The need to incorporate recognition. Biol. Conserv. 197, 254–261. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.03.021
Mathew R. S. (2019). Archiving songs and dance of the jenu kurumba tribe from karnataka. Think India J. 22, 3125–3139.
Mclean J., Stræde S. (2003). Conservation, relocation, and the paradigms of park and people management–A case study of padampur villages and the royal chitwan national park, Nepal. Soc. Natural Resour. 16, 509–526. doi: 10.1080/08941920309146
Meijer E. (2023). Global injustice and animals: towards a multispecies social connection model. Int. Relations 37, 497–513. doi: 10.1177/00471178231191293
Milton K. (1985). Ecological foundations for subsistence strategies among the Mbuti Pygmies. Hum. Ecol. 13, 71–78. doi: 10.1007/BF01531089
Mkono M. (2019). Neo-colonialism and greed: Africans’ views on trophy hunting in social media. J. Sustain. Tourism 27, 689–704. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2019.1604719
National Council of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) v Openshaw (2008). (462/07), 2008. ZASCA 78; [2008] 4 All SA 225 (SCA); 2008 (5) SA 339 (SCA).
National Tiger Conservation Authority, Wildlife Institute of India, Madhya Pradesh Forest Department (2023). Introduction of cheetah in India- annual report 2022-23. Technical report (New Delhi, Dehradun & Bhopal: Wildlife Institute of India, & Madhya Pradesh Forest Department).
Navajyoti D. (2024). The leopard which had come out of Kuno National Park in MP and reached near Karanpur Simara village in Rajasthan was tranquilized by a team of experts. After this the forest department breathed a sigh of relief. Available online at: https://x.com/DailyNavajyoti/status/1786734568445223368?s=08 (Accessed November 13, 2024).
Naveen P. (2023). African winter coat’ may be proving deadly for Kuno cheetahs (Bhopal, India: The Times of India). Available at: https://timesofIndia.Indiatimes.com/city/bhopal/african-winter-coat-may-be-proving-deadly-for-cheetahs/articleshow/102370519.cms (Accessed August 10, 2023).
Pascual U., Balvanere Levy P., Christie M., Baptiste B. (2022). Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessment of the diverse values and valuation of nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (Bonn, Germany: IPBES Secretariat).
Perinchery A. (2022). Big deal: Did Namibia ask India to pull its Ivory ban in return for cheetahs? Available online at: https://science.thewire.in/external-affairs/world/Namibia-ivory-ban-India-cheetahs/ (Accessed December 17, 2024).
Pretty J., Adams B., Berkes F., De Athayde S. F., Dudley N., Hunn E., et al. (2009). The intersections of biological diversity and cultural diversity: towards integration. Conserv. Soc. 7, 100–112. doi: 10.4103/0972-4923.58642
PTI (2024). Centre turns to Reliance’s wildlife facility amidst cheetah deaths at Kuno (New Delhi, India: Hindustan Times). Available at: https://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/centre-turns-to-reliance-s-wildlife-facility-amidst-cheetah-deaths-at-kuno-101725695417440.html (Accessed September 10, 2024).
Quandt A. (2018). Measuring livelihood resilience: The household livelihood resilience approach (HLRA). World Dev. 107, 253–263. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.02.024
Qureshi Q., Bipin C. M., Sharma U. K., Bhardwaj G. S., Mallick A., Yadav S. P., Shrivastav A., Sen S., Tiwari V. R. (Eds.) (2024). Bringing back the cheetah to India Annual Progress Report 2023-2024 (Bhopal and Dehradun, India: National Tiger Conservation Authority, Government of India, New Delhi, Madhya Pradesh Forest Department, Bhopal and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun). TR No/2024/25.
Rai N., Verma S. K., Gaur A., et al (2020). Ancient mtDNA from the extinct Indian cheetah supports unexpectedly deep divergence from African cheetahs. Sci Rep. 10, 4618. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-60751-7
Rangarajan M., Shahabuddin G. (2006). Displacement and relocation from protected areas: Towards a biological and historical synthesi. Conserv. Soc. 4, 359–378.
Ranjitsinh M. K., Jhala Y. V. (2010). Assessing the potential for reintroducing the cheetah in India (Noida and Dehradun, India: Wildlife Trust of India, Noida, & Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun). TR2010/001.
Ratnam M. (2017). Dwelling in the forest: nature, society and power in tribal central India (Maryland, United States: Johns Hopkins Sheridan Libraries). Available at: http://jhir.library.jhu.edu/handle/1774.2/60934.
Saxena D. (2023). Cheetah escapes from kuno, scares villagers (The Wildlife India). Available at: https://www.thewildlifeIndia.com/2023/04/Cheetah-Escapes-From-Kuno-Scares-Villagers.html (Accessed June 10, 2024).
Schaafsma M., Ahn S., Castro A. J., Dendoncker N., Filyushkina A., González-Jiménez D., et al. (2023). Whose values count? A review of the nature valuation studies with a focus on justice. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability 64, 101350. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101350
Schlosberg D. (2007). Defining environmental justice: Theories, movements, and nature (New York, United States: OUP Oxford).
Schlosberg D. (2014). “Ecological justice for the anthropocene,” in Palgrave Macmillan (London: Palgrave Macmillan), 75–89. doi: 10.1007/978-1-349-68308-6_6
Schmidt–Soltau K. (2003). Conservation–related resettlement in Central Africa: environmental and social risks. Dev. Change 34, 525–551. doi: 10.1111/1467-7660.00317
Sehgal R. (2023). India just doesn’t have habitats african cheetahs need: ravi chellam (The Newsclick). Available at: https://www.newsclick.in/India-just-doesnt-have-habitats-african-cheetahs-need-ravi-chellam (Accessed September 8, 2024).
Shahabuddin G. (2015). Reclaiming the grassland for the cheetah science and nature conservation in India. Available online at: https://casi.sas.upenn.edu/content/reclaiming-grassland-cheetah-science-and-nature-conservation-India-ghazala-shahabuddin (Accessed October 20, 2023).
Sharma A. (2003). Displacement from Protected Areas and its implications for conservation and livelihoods-The case of Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh. Soc. Change 33, 89–114. doi: 10.1177/004908570303300307
Sheil D., Wunder S. (2002). The value of tropical forest to local communities: complications, caveats, and cautions. Conserv. Ecol. 6. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/26271895 (Accessed January 13, 2023).
Singh U. S. (2022). Kuno National Park is not yet ready for Cheetahs. Appl. Biol. Chem. J. 3, 56–61. doi: 10.52679/tabcj.2022.0006
Snodgrass J. G., Upadhyay C., Debnath D., Lacy M. G. (2016). The mental health costs of human displacement: A natural experiment involving indigenous Indian conservation refugees. World Dev. Perspect. 2, 25–33. doi: 10.1016/j.wdp.2016.09.001
Sollund R. (2013). “Animal trafficking and trade: abuse and species injustice,” in Emerging issues in green criminology. Critical criminological perspectives. Eds. Walters R., Westerhuis D. S., Wyatt T. (Palgrave Macmillan, London). doi: 10.1057/9781137273994_5
Supreme Court allows introduction of African Cheetah in India. (2020). Hindustan times (New Delhi). Available at: https://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/supreme-court-allows-introduction-of-african-cheetah-in-India/story-MTyJF0GdFiblP63A7hNkmI.html (Accessed December 4, 2024).
Tiwari S. (2022). 21 is not enough’: wildlife expert questions maths behind cheetah action plan (The Quint). Available at: https://www.thequint.com/climate-change/21-not-enough-wildlife-expert-questions-the-math-behind-cheetah-action-planread-moreread-more (Accessed December 12, 2023).
Torri M. C., Herrmann T. M. (2011). Spiritual beliefs and ecological traditions in indigenous communities in India: Enhancing community-based biodiversity conservation. Nat. Culture 6, 168–191. doi: 10.3167/nc.2011.060204
Tuck E., McKenzie M. (2015). Place in research: Theory, methodology, and methods (New York, United States: Routledge). doi: 10.4324/9781315764849
Van Der Merwe V. (2023). Expansion of the cheetah metapopulation into India (Kigali, Rwanda: International Congress for Conservation Biology).
Vignesh S. (2022). Becoming bovine and being haunted: herder-bovine relationships in south India. Soc. Anim. 1, 1–14. doi: 10.1163/15685306-bja10081
Wachter B., Portas R., Melzheimer J. (2023). The introduction of African cheetahs to India was planned without considering their spatial ecology. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 5, 1–3. doi: 10.1111/csp2.12943
Winter C. J., Schlosberg D. (2023). What matter matters as a matter of justice? Environ. Politics 33, 1205–1224. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2023.2220640
Keywords: cheetah relocations, environmental justice, ecological justice, legal wildlife trade, evidence-based decision-making, African cheetah, India
Citation: Joshi YC, Klarmann SE and de Waal LC (2025) Delineating the environmental justice implications of an experimental cheetah introduction project in India. Front. Conserv. Sci. 6:1511815. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2025.1511815
Received: 15 October 2024; Accepted: 08 January 2025;
Published: 03 February 2025.
Edited by:
Jamie K. Reaser, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute (SI), United StatesReviewed by:
Timothy C. Haas, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, United StatesCopyright © 2025 Joshi, Klarmann and de Waal. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Stephanie E. Klarmann, c3RlcGgua2xhcm1hbm5AbGl2ZS5jby56YQ==