A recent peer-reviewed study has sharply criticized Project Cheetah—India’s high-profile initiative to reintroduce African cheetahs into the wild—as ethically compromised, scientifically flawed, and socially unjust. Titled “Delineating the Environmental Justice Implications of an Experimental Cheetah Introduction Project in India”, the paper is authored by Yashendu C. Joshi, Stephanie E. Klarmann, and Louise C. de Waal, and was published in Frontiers in Conservation Science.The authors argue that the cheetah translocation effort has not only failed to meet scientific standards but has also violated environmental justice principles—undermining both human and animal rights in the process.
The project has translocated 20 African cheetahs—eight from Namibia in 2022 and twelve from South Africa in 2023—to Kuno National Park (KNP) in Madhya Pradesh. While the stated aim is to restore India’s lost cheetah population (extinct since the 1950s), the project has been plagued by high mortality and stalled progress.
According to the study, “40.0% adult mortality and 29.4% cub mortality” have been recorded to date. “Currently, no cheetahs exist in KNP’s extensive wild systems,” the authors note, adding that the surviving cheetahs—12 adults and 12 cubs—remain in captivity within small, fenced enclosures called soft-release bomas (SRBs).
Despite this, the plan envisions a 30–40 year horizon with an annual import of 12 cheetahs from southern Africa to build a viable population—raising questions about the sustainability and ethics of the project. The authors criticize this as "knowingly subjecting animals to substantial stress, existential risks, and mortality."
Displacement Without Consent
The paper draws attention to the human cost of this conservation effort, particularly the displacement of 5,000 people from 24 villages between 1999 and 2001—originally for an Asiatic lion reintroduction plan that never materialized. The decision to repurpose KNP for African cheetahs ignored this social history and failed to engage with local communities meaningfully.
The authors write:
“This lack of community engagement can lead to disenfranchisement and exacerbate existing power imbalances… leading to unjust outcomes, such as ‘conservation refugees.’”
Even worse, site assessments used to justify relocations were based on visual markers of “economic well-being”—like clothing and watches—rather than any participatory process. The report quotes the original planning document’s disturbing rationale:
“The people residing in the forested areas outside KNP are poor and backward and a good compensation package… would be irresistible.”
The paper identifies this as a clear case of procedural and distributive injustice, where local people bore the brunt of conservation costs with little agency or recognition.
From an animal welfare standpoint, the study highlights severe concerns. African cheetahs, which require vast ranges (averaging 4.3 km/day and territories up to 5,441 km²), have been confined in 0.5–1.5 km² bomas. Many have been repeatedly tranquilized—“more than 90 chemical immobilizations,” as per the paper—and subjected to stressful veterinary interventions.
“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 authors state.
Unnatural Confinement
The practice of releasing live prey into the enclosures for hunting has also been condemned as “unnatural confinement and exposure to immediate attack with no recourse”—a practice the South African judiciary has previously ruled unethical.
The report warns that such suffering amounts to “species injustice”, where a vulnerable species is used for experimental conservation without adequately considering its biological needs or survival chances.
The authors argue that the project violates all three pillars of environmental justice: distribution (who bears the costs and receives benefits), procedure (participation in decision-making), and recognition (respect for local knowledge and values).
“We argue that Project Cheetah exemplifies broader issues applicable to rewilding and restoration projects that necessitate attention,” the paper states, adding that “conservation strategies must be robust, scientifically grounded, and locally accepted.”
With an estimated budget of USD 50–60 million, the authors question whether this money would have been better spent on in-situ conservation or the upliftment of displaced communities. The paper also raises doubts about the political motivations behind the project, including alleged negotiations tied to ivory trade policy.
The study can be called a powerful indictment of conservation initiatives that sideline ethics, ignore local communities, and endanger animal welfare in the name of ecological restoration. As India continues to scale up its wildlife conservation programs, the authors call for “justice-informed and evidence-based decision-making” that respects both human dignity and species welfare.
Comments