Cheetahs from Africa won’t help restore our grassland ecosystem

Three decades before the Union Environment Ministry claimed one of the underlying purposes of the much talked-about Cheetah Project is restoration of India’s grassland ecosystem, scientists at Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun had proposed creating different biogeographic zones and planning conservation accordingly.

They suggested such a zonation as the foundation for setting up a network of protected areas. Since India harbours diverse ecosystems, each one should have been represented adequately in the protected area network.

However, the science-based concept was not taken forward by the ministry as a result of which 80 per cent of India’s protected area network now consists of forests though the area under open forests or grassland is almost as big as the forests and equally crucial for animals, birds and reptiles to survive. This is also due to a flawed perception that only forests with tall trees are worth protecting. As a result, just about 5 per cent of India’s grasslands and open forests are protected. The ecosystems vital for the survival of critically endangered species like the great Indian bustard, lesser florican and Indian wolf do not enjoy such legal protection. Populations of these species are in steady and steep decline.

Legal protection of habitats without scientific understanding of the ecology is counterproductive. “Research has shown how the well-intentioned but ignorant measure of year-round curtailment of grazing to protect the grassland habitats of the great Indian bustard led to an increase in the height of the grass making the habitat unsuitable for the birds,” a group of wildlife biologists recently wrote in a letter to a panel of lawmakers.

Similarly, fencing of the grassland habitats of lesser floricans in Madhya Pradesh’s Sardarpur wildlife sanctuary, protection against grazing and fire led to the growth of a woody species in the grasslands, forcing the bird to seek refuge in a nearby soybean field, rather than using unsuitable habitats within the protected areas.

India’s wildlife conservation has worked well when its species-centric and habitat-centric approaches aligned with each other. Project Tiger is an example where protection of the tiger as an umbrella species protects its habitat (forest) and the prey base. But other species like leopards and elephants occur widely in human dominated landscapes, which necessitates a more adaptive and scientific conservation approach. This is something that the environment ministry now seeks to achieve by restoring the grassland ecosystem through its cheetah introduction programme. But the big question is whether it is the right, and the best, option.

“The cheetah programme seems to have little to do with grassland conservation. If the ministry was serious, it should have come out with a conservation plan for the existing grasslands. The government must stop categorising grasslands as wastelands,” says Abi Tamim Vanak, a wildlife biologist from Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and Environment, Bengaluru. “It is an experiment being conducted without adequate consultation.”

According to the ministry, Cheetah introduction is not only a species recovery programme but also an effort to restore ecosystems.

The cheetah will be used as an umbrella species for conserving the biodiversity of grasslands, savanna and open forest systems that have seen a more drastic decline as these sites suffered the most qualitative and quantitative decimation.

Is transplanting African cheetahs in Kuno national park the best way to initiate the restoration? This is where conservationists and wildlife biologists differ with the ministry, whose initial order on cheetah introduction was described as “arbitrary and illegal” by the Supreme Court.

The SC in a 2013 judgement (on lion translocation) found massive flaws with the cheetah programme. It noted, “The ministry of environment and forest, in our view, has not conducted any detailed study before passing the order of introducing a foreign cheetah to Kuno, which is not a historical habitat for African cheetahs.”

A few years later, the National Tiger Conservation Authority filed an affidavit claiming the introduction of cheetahs at Kuno would not impact reintroduction
of lions.

The SC while granting approval, formed a panel to guide the NTCA and asked the panel for its report every four months. It is not clear if the committee submitted its report every four months, but a 2021 action plan on cheetah introduction showed a hurried field assessment of six sites in 12 days.

“Out of the 12 days of field assessment, 4 were spent in Kuno and 8 on the other 5 sites. This rushed approach does not inspire much confidence. It seems the expert committee had decided on Kuno even prior to the field surveys, despite the NTCA approaching the Supreme Court to explore other sites,” says wildlife biologist Ravi Chellam, the CEO of Metastring Foundation and coordinator of the Biodiversity Collaborative.

Experts are unanimous that cheetah introduction will further delay translocation of lions from the Gir sanctuary to Kuno as the action plan talks about reintroduction of lions only after establishing a “cheetah population”, which may take up to 15-20 years depending on the survival and mating pattern of the spotted cats. Kuno was originally readied as the second habitat for Asiatic lions on the advice of scientists, but the plan did not reach the execution stage due to persistent opposition by Gujarat.

The Union environment ministry is now funding Gujarat to prepare areas adjacent to Gir for the dispersal of lions while there are reports that the ministry’s lion conservation plan does not talk about transferring lions outside Gujarat in the next 25 years, contradicting the scientific advice and skirting the top court’s ruling.

“This initiative to introduce African cheetahs is based on weak science and is not a national conservation priority. The claims made in the Action Plan do not match the data presented.

Unfortunately, this will significantly distract attention and resources from higher priority conservation issues like the conservation of the critically endangered great Indian bustard and the much-delayed lion translocation -- both of which have been directed by the SC. It is going to be a very costly mistake and the nation will have to bear the consequences for many years to come,” noted Chellam.