Aathira Perinchery 
Bengaluru: India brought in 20 adult African cheetahs from Namibia and South Africa in 2022 and 2023 for its ambitious “Project Cheetah”. However, this “vanity project” – as many scientists and conservationists have called it (criticism has constantly flowed in on many fronts regarding Project Cheetah) – is unethical and unjust, not just for local communities but also for the animals that have been brought in, as per a new study published on February 19 in the journal Frontiers in Conservation Science.
The article argues that the cheetah translocations that have been conducted for Project Cheetah “have not adequately accounted for ethical considerations and face several social and species justice concerns”.
These include issues pertaining to the methodology of the first assessment based on which the Indian government gave Project Cheetah the green light.
However, former government scientist Y.V. Jhala, a co-author of the said assessment, defended its methodology to The Wire.
Social concerns
Project Cheetah, which kicked off in September 2022, aims to introduce African cheetahs into select grassland habitats in central India. Currently, all cheetahs – adults that came from Namibia and South Africa, as well as cubs born on Indian soil – are housed in Madhya Pradesh’s Kuno National Park.
India was previously home to Asiatic cheetahs (a different sub-species), but the last of them went extinct around the 1950s.
In their perspective article, a team of researchers including Yashendu Joshi, a doctoral fellow at Bengaluru’s Centre for Wildlife Studies, noted that a 2010 report by M.K. Ranjitsinh and Y.V. Jhala (the latter was then scientist at the Wildlife Institute of India and later oversaw the initial implementation of Project Cheetah, but was subsequently dropped from the Cheetah Task Force in late September 2022) – based on which the government decided to go ahead with Project Cheetah – had “evident” “justice shortcomings” for several reasons.
First, it did not take local communities’ direct inputs on the cheetah introduction but instead used “subjective assessments” (including visual assessments of interviewees’ ages and the ornaments they wore) to develop an index to show whether people would accept compensation to move away from their lands.
Second, the study noted that the 2010 report “focused on identifying economically and socially disadvantaged targets for monetary incentives”, by saying that the people living in the area were poor and that they would therefore find a compensation scheme “irresistible”.
Also read: Two Years On, How Is India’s Project Cheetah Faring?
When The Wire contacted Jhala regarding these allegations, he agreed that “we did use an index to assess the level of prosperity of local communities”. He defended the methodology they used, saying it was “objective” and more effective, and not “subjective” as the new study claimed it to be.
“I strongly believe that objective assessment using this quantitative index is far better than interviewing people who don’t always tell the truth about their income or wealth,” he told The Wire.
However, he said he didn’t think that they “ever made the connection with paying compensation based on this evaluation of local prosperity/poverty in our report”.
The new study also highlights “problematic social justifications” that proponents of Project Cheetah have put forward to justify the project.
For instance, it notes that cheetah biologist Vincent van Der Merwe – one of the international experts on a committee that authorities have said they would consult with for advice regarding Project Cheetah – had said that “the predominantly Hindu culture advocates tolerance toward animals and reduces the risk of human-wildlife conflict” with regards to the Project.
“However, there are fundamental flaws in this argument,” the study noted, adding that “conservation researchers should exercise caution when employing culture-specific terminology and generalisations without well-grounded research”.
“We need to challenge the assumption that only Hindu communities reside around KNP [Kuno] and understand that other communities may experience human-wildlife conflict,” the study noted. “Even within Hindu communities, attributing tolerance exclusively to religion would be simplistic.”
Species injustices
Along with these social injustices, the study also identifies several “species injustices” that Project Cheetah brings about. These include the fact that the African cheetahs brought to Kuno – which usually range across more than 5,000 sq km – have been restricted to enclosures less than 5 sq km in area during most of their time in India.
Additionally, the adults have been subjected to at least 90 chemical immobilisations during their time in India, the recent article noted, which raises questions on the animals’ long-term “physical and mental welfare, especially considering their long-term existence in captive conditions”.
Currently, however, seven cheetahs – two males, two females and three 13-month-old cubs – roam the wild in Kuno after they were released in small batches starting from December 2024.
The article also noted that adaptation failures (such as the cheetahs growing a thick winter coat that may have made them susceptible to skin infections during humid months in Kuno) have decreased the adults’ survival rates in India (60%, when compared to the 85% adult survival rate in reintroductions in South Africa).
Also read: Exclusive | Secrecy, Political Rivalry, Egos Problems for Project Cheetah: South African Expert
So far, eight adult cheetahs have died due to various factors including septicaemia, an infection of the blood, as The Wire has reported.
The article also calls out Project Cheetah’s “shifting” ‘acceptable’ mortality rates as they are a sign of a lack of “ethical considerations and accountability for species management failures”.
“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,” the article read.
“Our current approach risks overlooking diverse knowledge systems and values, the nuanced ways in which people interact with nature, their perceptions of wildlife and importantly, their consent to bear the consequences of such initiatives,” Joshi, the lead author of the article, said in a press release.
“Conservation efforts should focus more on their ability to maintain sustainable shared spaces between humans and wildlife, rather than causing further division and distress.”
“This paper draws our attention to important issues that are often ignored while planning and implementing conservation projects, as conservation projects are seen as inherently good things to undertake,” commented Ravi Chellam, CEO of the Metastring Foundation and coordinator at the Biodiversity Collaborative.
Chellam is also a big cat expert and among the several scientists who said that introducing African cheetahs to India was “an ill-advised conservation attempt” and an “ecologically unsound” project, in their correspondence in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution in October 2022.
“Over the years, several concerns have been raised by many people about the introduction of African cheetahs in India. The authors add to this long list by raising crucial aspects related to equity and justice while implementing the Cheetah Project,” he told The Wire.
“They have marshalled evidence to establish the failures of this project when it comes to the well-being and rights of the affected local communities. They broaden the argument by bringing up injustices committed against non-human species, in this case the African cheetahs.”