Project Cheetah is an ill-advised wildlife relocation that seems doomed to failure

Daily Maverick

12-05-2025

In an ill-advised attempt to establish a population of African cheetahs in India, Project Cheetah aimed to restore India's long-extinct cheetah population.
To initiate this, 20 cheetahs from southern Africa were sent to Kuno National Park in India from 2022 to 2023. Reports suggest a further 20 cheetahs are to be sent from Kenya this year, as well as potentially more cheetahs from South Africa.
Despite its portrayal as a conservation and restoration success story, Project Cheetah has experienced high mortality rates, with eight adults (40%) and five cubs (29.4%) dying due to kidney failure, fighting injuries, extreme heat and humidity and fly-strike-related skin infections.
In a recent research paper, co-authored with researchers from Blood Lions, we addressed how Project Cheetah exemplifies broader issues related to rewilding and restoration projects. We argue that proponents and authorities issuing Cites permits need to be cognisant of the consequences of their decisions.
Project Cheetah alone is estimated to cost between $50-million and $60-million, an amount that could arguably be used more effectively for in-situ conservation and social upliftment efforts.
Concerns about Project Cheetah are not new — cheetah experts have been raising alarms since the project's inception, yet South Africa's Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) approved the export permits for 12 cheetahs to leave South Africa, with the other eight originating from Namibia.
Scientists opposed to the project agree that Project Cheetah lacks conservation and scientific merit, especially demonstrating shortfalls in the ecological criteria that guided decision-makers. Critics have also suggested underlying political motives, including an alleged request from Namibia for India to withdraw its ban on the ivory trade.
Global conservation efforts have witnessed a necessary shift towards equity and justice in protecting biodiversity. So often, conservation efforts and biodiversity loss disproportionately affect marginalised communities and indigenous people. More recently, there's a significant movement to recognise that non-human species also suffer immense injustices, not only in the illegal trade but also in the legal trade.
In the case of Project Cheetah, our research shows that cheetahs translocated to India for restoration purposes have had their welfare compromised, in addition to the unjust social implications for local and indigenous communities surrounding Kuno.
Further challenges exist, including differences in climate, prey species and habitat that African cheetahs need to adapt to, and the potential human-wildlife conflict for communities not accustomed to the presence of cheetahs.
Why is Project Cheetah problematic?
Kuno is a biodiverse region of 784km2 in the central Indian Vindhya Hills. Initially, it was earmarked as the site for the reintroduction of Asiatic lions, which was due to start in 2008. To accommodate the Asiatic lion reintroductions, 5,000 people from 24 villages were displaced between 1999 and 2001.
However, the project never went ahead as the Gujarat state government was reluctant to release lions to another state. With 669 Asiatic lions dying in the last five years, the species is now listed as 'largely depleted' in the latest IUCN Listing as of 27 March 2025.
A report released in 2010 on the translocation of cheetahs into Kuno shows many shortcomings. Instead of recognising diverse values, understanding potential inequitable impacts, and focusing on historically burdened groups, the surveyors made subjective judgments about community members by looking at their age, sex, clothing condition, the use of jewellery and wristwatches, and transport.
The goal behind this assessment was to determine which populations would be most likely to accept once-off compensation for relocating.
What the report failed to acknowledge included important social dimensions like attitudes towards relocation, exotic species introduction, project acceptance and perceived risks and benefits.
Instead, it focused on identifying economically and socially disadvantaged targets for monetary incentives, further exacerbating disenfranchisement and power imbalances. Unjust conservation efforts that explicitly exclude and remove people have led to conservation refugees who were forcibly removed from their homes.
Neglecting the human dimensions of conservation
Project partners have stated that the cheetah translocations to India were largely justified by the tolerance displayed by those of predominantly Hindu faith. It was implied that people of Hindu faith would tolerate any risk of human-wildlife conflict.
But such broad generalisations need to be challenged: communities surrounding Kuno are of many faiths and may experience human-wildlife conflict, and even within Hindu communities, attributing tolerance exclusively to religion is simplistic.
Such statements demonstrate severe neglect in accounting for the complex web of socio-ecological systems and the challenges of co-existing with wildlife. Relying on generalisations to justify translocations demonstrates little appreciation of the human dimension of conservation, often overlooking diverse knowledge systems and values, and the complex relationships people have with nature, how they perceive wildlife, and consent to bear the consequences of such conservation work.
Unethical and unjustifiable threats to cheetahs
As part of Project Cheetah, all cheetahs were initially released into nine bomas designed for 'soft release'. The bomas range in size from 0.5-1.5km2 (compared to the 4.3km2 in which cheetahs can roam daily in Kuno's range of 5,441km2).
Some pregnant females have never left these bomas, whereas others have been moved from free-roaming in Kuno back to their bomas on a regular basis. Some have escaped Kuno and have been seen roaming neighbouring villages and towns.
According to the most recent publicly available information, all surviving cheetahs have been returned to the bomas. Even more worrying, initial projections have suggested that establishing a viable population in India could take 30-40 years, necessitating that at least 12 cheetahs are imported annually to account for these unacceptable mortality rates.
With the adult cheetah mortality at 40%, nearly half of all cheetahs imported for Project Cheetah are likely to die prematurely.
Project Cheetah presents serious threats to cheetah welfare, including stress, trauma and adaptation failures, especially considering cheetahs are a stress-prone species.
The cheetahs translocated to Kuno have not only undergone intercontinental transportation, but they are also regularly subjected to veterinarian interventions, with more than 90 medical immobilisations conducted so far. It's vital to consider how this can affect their long-term physical and mental welfare, in addition to being kept in captive conditions in bomas for long periods.
As a result, the project has seen low survival rates of 60% in adult cheetahs, which is far below the average survival rate of 85% for reintroductions in South Africa's fenced private reserves. The survival rate for Kuno's newly introduced cheetahs is likely to fall even further when all the animals are released from the bomas and encounter other large and unfamiliar predators indigenous to India.
On social media, anecdotal reports of cheetahs being stoned by villagers and being harassed during sedation reveal further risks faced by cheetahs struggling to adapt and thrive following their release, highlighting once again the complex interplay of welfare concerns, human-wildlife conflict, and conservation priorities marring Project Cheetah​.
More recently, cheetahs that appear to be in poor health have been seen hunting cattle in the villages while people attempt to scare them off by throwing stones at them.
Senior wildlife biologist and conservation scientist Dr Ravi Chellam says that 'unlike leopards and tigers, these cheetahs, due to their long-term captivity and constant following, are very used to human presence. I expect such interactions to be more common in the future.
'Having said that, it is still very unusual for the cheetahs to attack a prey animal when surrounded by such a boisterous crowd of people. This seems to suggest that the cats are desperately hungry. It has, of course, been very clear right from the start that India does not have the required extent of habitat of suitable quality and the space for the cheetahs to range free in the wild.'
How can translocations be improved?
Wildlife relocation projects that fail to acknowledge environmental and social issues highlight an urgent need for conservationists to engage in scientifically grounded and locally accepted conservation strategies.
Poorly planned community relocations disrupt social structures, similar to forced land reform, and may cause severed cultural connections to land and animals. Our beliefs and traditions intertwine with our experiences in nature, and forced removals can affect the mental health of local and indigenous communities who so closely identify with their culture and the surrounding land and animals.
While we agree that community relocations may sometimes be necessary for medical, educational, law enforcement or conservation reasons, our research shows just how important it is to consider residents' preferences and needs to prevent unjust consequences.
Given the age-old shaping of nature by local and indigenous communities, relocations may not even be desired where co-existence is preferred. It's vital to acknowledge people's profound connections to land and non-human species and to embrace diverse values of nature.
The cheetah translocations to Kuno have shown serious ethical concerns by experimenting with an IUCN-listed 'vulnerable ' species and knowingly subjecting these animals to substantial stress, risks and mortality. We need to challenge and critically think about how we measure conservation successes to go beyond measuring ecological processes of births and deaths, but also to understand the impacts on an animal's physical and mental welfare.
When 40-50% of the animals die in a relocation project, we need to reconsider what an ethically acceptable mortality rate should be. Can this really be considered a 'successful reintroduction'?
If conservation practices prioritise respect, inclusivity and justice, we are more likely to see positive outcomes for people and nature. DM