Editorial 1 : NINE TOO MANY
Context: Deaths of cheetahs, concerns raised by South African and Namibian scientists, are wake-up calls. Government must heed them.
Introduction
- The cheetah casualty count at Kuno National Park has gone up to nine. Six of the dead animals, including Dhatri who breathed her last on Wednesday, had been relocated to the protected area in Madhya Pradesh from Namibia and South Africa in an ambitious programme that began in September last year.
About Cheetah
- Cheetah is a large cat native to Africa and central Iran. It is the fastest land animal, capable of running at 80 to 128 km/h.
- The cheetah occurs in a variety of habitats such as savannahs in the Serengeti, arid mountain ranges in the Sahara and hilly desert terrain in Iran.
- Habitat loss, conflict with humans, poaching and high susceptibility to diseases are major threats faced by Cheetahs
- It is listed as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List.
Cheetah in India and it’s reintroduction
- Cheetahs in India went extinct long back in 1952 due to too much reckless hunting activities. In the 1970s the Indira Gandhi government opened negotiations with Iran for bringing Persian cheetahs to India in exchange for Asiatic lions.
- India has a project to reintroduce the cheetah in its forests, seven decades after the last member of the species went extinct in the country. Under Project Cheetah, the animals are translocated from the forests of South Africa and Namibia to the Kuno National Park in Madhya Pradesh.
Project status and concerns raised
- The re-introduction of the big cat is a long-term project and 11 months is too early to pass judgment on Project Cheetah. The high mortality rate of the animal in its new home is, however, worrying.
- More so, because South African cheetah specialists — they were roped into the steering committee of the translocation programme — have raised serious concerns about the project’s implementation in a letter to the Supreme Court.
- A report in this newspaper has revealed that in the letter, dated July 15, the wildlife biologists accused the government of keeping them in the dark about the health of the animals.
- The government’s claim that the scientists have since dissociated themselves from the letter doesn’t appear convincing, given that the young project has invited allegations of giving short shrift to expert opinion from other quarters as well.
Criticism on the reintroduction of Cheetah Project
- Criticism on the reintroduction of cheetahs has been raised by Indian scientists and the global community.
- These critiques have highlighted the spatial and habitat ecology requirements of cheetahs, as well as the potential for conflict with humans and other carnivores such as tigers and leopards during large-scale dispersal.
- The preservation of carnivores in environments that are heavily influenced by human activity necessitates a multidisciplinary approach that extends beyond the purview of wildlife biologists.
- This is evidenced by the numerous scientific publications of international scope that are co-authored by specialists from diverse fields.
Pressing concerns and Way forward
- In another missive to the Court, Laurie Marker, executive director of Namibia’s Cheetah Conservation Fund, has flagged similar concerns. She reportedly underlined the need for “better communication with experts.” The environment ministry has reportedly placed the letters before the project’s steering committee for “detailed deliberations”. It should heed the SC’s warning and not reduce cheetah relocation to a “prestige project”.
Editorial 2 : A question from Joshimath
Context: As the mountains are turning into places unfit for habitation, where will the mountain dwellers go?
Introduction
- The news of the sinking of Joshimath was widely covered. It evoked fear and anxiety in other Himalayan habitations in and outside Uttarakhand, lest a similar fate befall them. Most Himalayan sites, undergoing similar violative “development” as the Joshimath region, lie khurd-burd, as a pahari put it — hollowed out and mutilated, and thus, vulnerable to disasters.
Sinking of Joshimath
- The sinking of Joshimath has not yet stopped. Newer cracks are appearing in its houses and fields, and older ones are widening. Locals fear that particular stretches of land could slide down in heavy rainfall.
- Their dharna to demand rehabilitation continued from January till early April, when they were asked to discontinue it before the start of the yatra season, with assurances of prompt action.
- They are reportedly resuming the protests because they have no option but to stay in their damaged houses in the absence of formulation of a proper rehabilitation plan.
Need of serious reflection and question raised
- Firstly, how is it that no accountability gets fixed for such calamities? A series of so-called run-of-the-river (RoR) hydropower projects have been pushed in all Himalayan states, despite the region being ecologically and geologically sensitive and seismically highly active.
- Studies have shown that the green energy claims of these projects are not correct. Instead, they are “risk-laden artefacts” that have proved to be socially and ecologically unjust.
- The Tapovan Vishnugad project in Joshimath has been linked to the build-up of socio-ecological problems in the region since its commencement in 2005.
- Second, why are the locals kept in the dark regarding the terrain’s safety, even as they are forced to spend sleepless nights in their damaged houses? Even after seven months have passed, no comprehensive report about the causes, extent, and future threats of land subsidence in Joshimath has come forth.
- Third, if the government insists on pushing the RoRs despite all the risks, why must it not ensure the rehabilitation of the affected people? Even years after such projects have been in operation in the Himalayan states, there are no clear guidelines defining liabilities or official recognition of their impacts. RoRs’ impact on the mountain topography is not one-time, but long-term and widespread.
- In several villages in Joshimath, the government’s rehabilitation policy is inadequate. There have scarcely been any attempts to frame an appropriate policy to take care of involuntary displacement by development projects. Instead of focusing on rehabilitation, the government’s endeavours remain limited to a “one-time-settlement”.
Conclusion
- The approach of the government has been of downplaying the disaster to let yatra tourism go smoothly. No limit was put on the number of tourists. This begs the larger question: As the mountains are turning into places unfit for habitation, where will the mountain dwellers go? What will be the relevance of the “development” that is being promoted in “their” region, if it turns uninhabitable?