💥Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Type: Species

  • New cat in habitat, and some glimmer of hope

    Why in the News

    A new species of wild cat, Leopardus tilcayo, has been described in Bolivia, the first feline species identified in a hundred years. A new penguin species, also the first in a century, has been described on a group of subantarctic islands, and a new snake species has been described in New Guinea. A 2025 University of Arizona study records that 15 per cent of all known species were described in the last 20 years. The tension the item raises is that species are being found faster than ever at the same moment that loss of species dominates public attention, and that most of these discoveries reach no audience beyond the scientific and conservation communities.

    What has actually been described?

    1. A new wild cat: Leopardus tilcayo has been described in Bolivia. It is the first discovery of a feline species in a hundred years, which is why it drew the loudest response of the three.
    2. A new penguin: A new penguin species has been described on a group of subantarctic islands, and it too is the first in its group in a century.
    3. A new snake: A new snake species has been described in New Guinea and named after the guitarist Slash.
    4. What a description is: A species is described when a specimen is formally published with a diagnosis separating it from every named relative and a binomial name. Recognition of the animal by local communities usually long predates the formal description.

    Why is the rate of description rising?

    1. The measured pace: The 2025 University of Arizona study finds that 15 per cent of all known species were described in the last 20 years, so the quest to identify every species has accelerated rather than exhausted itself.
    2. Genetic tools separate look alike populations: DNA sequencing distinguishes populations that field observation had grouped as one species, which converts a known animal into two or more named ones.
    3. Survey effort has widened: Camera traps, acoustic recorders and systematic surveys in regions that were never surveyed intensively produce records that no expedition method previously returned.
    4. Museum collections are being re examined: Specimens collected decades ago and shelved without close study are now being sequenced, and some are found to belong to undescribed species.

    Why do most of these discoveries go unnoticed?

    1. The preference for the photogenic: Public and media attention follows animals that are visually appealing, which is why a wild cat and a penguin were reported and the invertebrate descriptions of the same period were not.
    2. Attention decides funding: Conservation money follows public interest, so charismatic vertebrates draw project funding while the taxa that carry most of the planet’s species diversity do not.
    3. The scale of what is unrecorded: Most described species are insects and other invertebrates, and the undescribed share of global diversity sits overwhelmingly in those groups rather than among mammals and birds.

    Challenges to protecting newly described species

    1. A name confers no protection: Formal description creates a scientific record, not a legal status, and assessment and listing are separate processes that follow it. Eg. An International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List assessment and a Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species listing are each decided after a species has been named.
      The Fix: Grant an interim protected status on description, lapsing once a formal assessment is completed.
    2. Publicity raises collection pressure: A newly named species with a small known range becomes a target for private collectors and the exotic pet trade, and the published description tells them where to look. Eg. Newly described reptiles and amphibians have appeared in the international pet trade shortly after their descriptions were published.
      The Fix: Withhold precise locality coordinates from published descriptions of small range species and release them only to designated authorities.
    3. Taxonomy has too few working specialists: The number of trained taxonomists able to describe a group has fallen while the backlog of collected specimens has grown. Eg. Specimens from tropical surveys routinely wait years in museum collections before anyone describes them.
      The Fix: Fund standing taxonomy positions tied to national collections and digitise specimen records so that identification is not gated on a single expert.
    4. Splitting one species into several shrinks each unit: When genetic work divides a widespread population into separate species, each resulting species holds a smaller range and a smaller population than the original did. Eg. A taxon once assessed as secure can yield two narrowly distributed species that each qualify as threatened.
      The Fix: Require a conservation reassessment of every resulting species immediately after a taxonomic split, rather than at the next scheduled review.
    5. Habitat is lost faster than it is surveyed: Land conversion in the regions that hold the most undescribed diversity removes populations before anyone records that they existed. Eg. Andean and New Guinean forests, where two of these three species were found, are under conversion and fragmentation pressure.
      The Fix: Protect habitat at the landscape level in high endemism regions rather than species by species after each description.

    Conclusion

    The rate of description and the rate of loss are both rising, and the two are not in tension, because a species can be named and lost within the same decade. What the description of a large mammal after a hundred year gap establishes is that the inventory is far from complete, which undercuts any assumption that conservation is working on a known list. The part that remains unaddressed is the gap between naming a species and protecting it, since nothing in the act of description obliges any state to do anything. What to watch is whether these three species receive conservation assessments and any protected status, and how quickly.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “No direct PYQ traced in the provided files”

  • Saving the rhino, restoring grasslands

    Why in the News

    The Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change has set out a shift in India’s rhino conservation strategy on World Rhino Day, September 22, from safeguarding existing concentrations of the greater one-horned rhinoceros to establishing secure populations across suitable parts of its historical range. The framework for that shift is the National Conservation Strategy for the rhinoceros, launched in 2019, which had already committed to restoring the species to suitable former habitats. The species has recovered from around 1,500 animals in the 1980s to more than 4,000 as of September 2024. The recovery now runs into a habitat problem rather than a protection problem, because the grasslands the species depends on degrade without active management.

    What is the National Conservation Strategy for the rhinoceros?

    1. Scope of the strategy: It provides the framework for strengthening existing rhino populations and for restoring the species to suitable former habitats.
    2. Genetic and spatial security: It commits to maintaining genetic security and habitat connectivity, so separated populations do not become isolated breeding units.
    3. Planned movement of animals: It promotes scientifically planned translocation, the deliberate capture and release of animals into a new site to found a population there.
    4. Climate in the protection framework: It recognises climate-resilient management as part of the protection framework for the species rather than as a separate exercise.

    Where does the rhino live now, and where did it once live?

    1. Present distribution: The wild population in India is concentrated mainly in Assam, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.
    2. Historical range: The animal’s range extended across the northern Indian Subcontinent, along the Indus, Ganga and Brahmaputra river systems.
    3. The two landscapes it belongs to: It is an integral part of the ecological and cultural landscape of the Brahmaputra floodplains and the Terai grasslands.
    4. The strategic consequence: Conservation confined to existing concentrations leaves most of that historical range empty, which is the gap range expansion is meant to close.

    What does Phase I of the range expansion commit to?

    1. Duration and funding route: The five-year Phase I runs from 2026 to 2031 and is proposed for support through the National CAMPA Authority, which holds compensatory afforestation funds collected when forest land is diverted.
    2. States brought together: It covers Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.
    3. Named focus areas: Scientific monitoring, protection, habitat restoration and management, translocation planning, coexistence and capacity building.
    4. The expansion target: Beyond consolidating existing populations, it seeks to support the species’ expansion into suitable areas in Bihar and Arunachal Pradesh.
    5. The habitat instrument: The Rhino Conservation Action Plan provides for mapping grasslands and wetlands, identifying invasive species, prioritising habitats for intensive restoration and developing management protocols specific to each protected area.

    Why does saving the rhino depend on how grasslands and floodplains are managed?

    1. Grasslands as dynamic systems: Grasslands require science-based management to prevent degradation, inappropriate succession, meaning the drift of grassland into woody cover, and the spread of invasive species.
    2. Species riding on the same habitat: Rhino habitat also carries swamp deer, wild buffalo, elephants, tigers, grassland birds and several smaller species, so habitat condition decides outcomes well beyond one animal.
    3. A national grassland assessment: A five-year project running from 2026 to 2031 on the Comprehensive Assessment of Indian Grasslands will be implemented by the Wildlife Institute of India, the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education and the Forest Survey of India.
    4. What it will measure: It will assess grassland extent, ecological condition, biodiversity, degradation, ecosystem services and carbon potential, and will support a National Grassland Atlas, restoration priorities and long-term management guidelines.
    5. Flooding as a design condition: Flooding is intrinsic to landscapes such as Kaziranga, and the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme climatic events create new conservation pressures on top of it.
    6. What flood management requires: Maintaining access to higher ground, securing ecological connectivity, protecting dispersal routes and managing habitats are the named requirements.

    Who actually delivers protection on the ground?

    1. What technology adds: Modern surveillance, spatial monitoring, veterinary diagnostics, genetic tools and decision-support systems reinforce traditional fieldcraft.
    2. What technology cannot replace: No technology substitutes the forest guards, watchers, mahouts, veterinarians and field officers who patrol these landscapes.
    3. Communities around the habitat: The communities living around rhino habitats are equally important to the outcome, since the animals move through land those communities use.
    4. Conservation as shared enterprise: The future of the species depends on conservation being treated as a shared enterprise rather than an isolated governmental activity.

    How far does cooperation extend beyond national boundaries?

    1. The regional forum: The Second Asian Rhino Range States Conservation Meeting was held in New Delhi in 2019.
    2. The New Delhi Declaration: India joined Bhutan, Indonesia, Malaysia and Nepal in adopting the Declaration to strengthen conservation cooperation for Asian rhinoceros species.
    3. What followed: The Centre and the rhino-bearing states have continued to work within that broader framework, which places a domestic range expansion inside a regional commitment.

    Challenges to rhino range expansion

    1. Founder population size at a new site: A population begun from a few released animals carries low genetic variation and can fail to establish. Eg. Rhinos moved to Manas National Park under Indian Rhino Vision 2020 were lost to poaching in the years after release, setting that site back.
      The Fix: Fix a minimum release cohort and sex ratio for each new site before a release is authorised, with monitoring obligations running for a set number of years afterwards.
    2. Invaded habitat at the release site: Grassland taken over by weedy or woody cover no longer carries the grazing biomass a rhino needs, so a site can be legally protected and biologically unsuitable. Eg. Mikania micrantha has spread through Kaziranga’s grasslands and displaced native forage.
      The Fix: Make invasive removal and a measured forage-biomass threshold conditions of certifying a site as suitable, rather than treating protected status as sufficient.
    3. Mortality outside the protected area during floods: Animals leaving a flooded park cross roads and settlements, so deaths occur where the park’s protection does not reach. Eg. Animals crossing from Kaziranga to the Karbi Anglong hills during floods are killed by vehicles on the national highway that separates the two.
      The Fix: Complete elevated animal passages on the highway stretches identified as crossing points and enforce speed restrictions through the flood months.
    4. Persistent demand for horn: The horn holds high value in illegal trade, so the cost of protection does not fall as the population grows. Eg. Assam publicly burned a stockpile of over 2,400 rhino horns in 2021 to signal that the horn carries no medicinal value.
      The Fix: Extend stockpile audits and DNA profiling of seized horn to every rhino-bearing state, so a seizure can be traced back to the population it came from.

    Conclusion

    The rhino’s recovery was achieved inside a small number of well-protected areas, and it is a genuine result. Expansion asks a harder question, whether land outside those areas can be brought to a condition that will hold a founder population and keep it. That makes habitat condition, and not animal numbers, the binding constraint on the next phase. What to watch is whether the programme begins reporting grassland condition alongside population counts, because a range that cannot feed the species is not range.

    Grasslands in India

    1. Extent and loss: Grassland area has declined by 31 per cent, from 18 million hectares to 12.3 million hectares, and common lands by 19 per cent, from 90.5 million hectares to 73.02 million hectares.
    2. Conversion pressure: Humans have converted 70 per cent of the world’s grasslands and 50 per cent of savannahs for agriculture and grazing, compacting soil and accelerating desertification.
    3. Species that depend on them: Grassland conversion has contributed to the decline of the Great Indian Bustard and the Lesser Florican.
    4. Invasive spread: Prosopis juliflora is spreading across Rajasthan and degrading grassland there.

    Government Initiatives for wildlife habitat conservation

    1. Project Tiger (1973): Uses core and buffer reserve management to reduce habitat pressure and limit human-tiger interaction in tiger-bearing landscapes.
    2. Project Elephant (1992): Protects elephant habitats and corridors, which reduces crop damage and accidental deaths in the districts those corridors run through.
    3. National Wildlife Action Plan (2017-31): Sets the national agenda on habitat conservation, protection of endangered species and coexistence strategies.
    4. Mission Sahbhagita (2022) and the Save Wetlands Campaign (2023): Mobilised more than 2 million citizens, resulting in the ground-truthing of over 170,000 wetlands and boundary demarcation of nearly 100,000 of them.

    Back2Basics: Greater one-horned rhinoceros

    1. Conservation status: Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List, listed in CITES Appendix I, and placed in Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
    2. The only rhino in India: It is the sole rhino species found in India, also called the Indian rhino, and is Asia’s largest rhino among the five rhino species worldwide.
    3. Core protected areas: Pabitora Wildlife Reserve, Rajiv Gandhi Orang National Park, Kaziranga National Park and Manas National Park.
    4. Identification: A single black horn and a grey-brown hide with pronounced skin folds, and it is an excellent swimmer.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2019] Consider the following statements: 1. Asiatic lion is naturally found In India only. 2. Double-humped camel is naturally found in India only. 3. One-horned rhinoceros is naturally found in India only. Which of the statements given above is / are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 (a)”

  • Research team documents 3,261 flowering plant species in Agasthyamalai reserve

    Why in the News

    A research team at the Jawaharlal Nehru Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute (JNTBGRI), Thiruvananthapuram, has compiled the first comprehensive checklist of the flowering plants of the Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve (ABR). The checklist records 3,261 species, 26 sub species and 28 varieties. It has been published in the journal Plant Science Today. The work reaffirms the global significance of the Western Ghats as a biodiversity hotspot. It also states a claim that follows from the data, that protection of the range requires focussed, region specific strategies rather than a uniform one.

    What does the checklist actually record?

    1. Taxa documented: The team documented 3,261 species, 26 sub species and 28 varieties in the Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve.
    2. Taxonomic spread: Those taxa belong to 1,139 genera across 190 families.
    3. Standing claim it supports: The scale of the reserve’s floral wealth upholds its position as one of the most significant centres of angiosperm diversity and endemism in the Indian subcontinent.
    4. Publication: The checklist has been published in Plant Science Today as the Comprehensive checklist of the flowering plants of the Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve, South India.

    Which families dominate the reserve’s flora?

    1. Fabaceae leads: The legume family Fabaceae is the most species rich in the reserve with 349 taxa.
    2. Rubiaceae: The coffee family Rubiaceae follows with 194 taxa.
    3. Poaceae: The grass family Poaceae records 193 taxa.
    4. Orchidaceae: The orchid family Orchidaceae records 168 taxa, and Paphiopedilum druryi, an orchid endemic to Agasthyamalai, sits within it.

    What does the endemism pattern show?

    1. Share endemic to India: A remarkably high level of endemism was recorded, with 1,018 taxa, or 31.2 per cent of the total, endemic to India.
    2. Narrow range endemics: That figure includes 245 steno endemic taxa, meaning taxa confined to highly specialised habitats within a very small range.
    3. What narrow endemism implies: A taxon restricted to one specialised habitat cannot relocate when that habitat is altered, so the loss of a single slope or stream margin can remove it entirely.

    What do the shared taxa say about the reserve’s biogeography?

    1. Affinity with Sri Lanka: The flora shows a strong biogeographic affinity with Sri Lanka, with the two regions sharing 347 taxa.
    2. Explanations offered: The reasons range from historical land connections during periods of lower sea level, to a shared Gondwanan history, to long term climatic similarities.
    3. A transatlantic element: 102 taxa display affinity with tropical American flora.
    4. How that is explained: That pattern possibly reflects long distance dispersal events, or naturalisation after introduction by humans.

    Why does a region specific checklist matter for conservation?

    1. Baseline for protection: A complete inventory establishes what exists before change is measured, which is the precondition for any claim that a species has been lost.
    2. Fragility of the landscape: The hill systems and vegetation of the reserve constitute a biologically unique yet ecologically fragile landscape.
    3. Administrative spread: The reserve is spread over Keralam and Tamil Nadu, so any protection strategy has to work across two State administrations.
    4. Position among reserves: The ABR is one of four biosphere reserves in south India, which places the checklist within a comparable set rather than as an isolated record.

    Challenges to conserving the Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve

    1. Fragmentation of the habitat: Plantation estates, roads and reservoirs cut continuous forest into blocks and isolate the populations of narrow range plants. Eg. Tea and cardamom estates in the Agasthyamalai landscape sit between the protected blocks of the reserve.
      The Fix: Notify and restore the identified corridor stretches between the reserve’s blocks as eco restoration zones under the State forest working plans.
    2. Invasive species displacement: Introduced plants colonise disturbed ground and crowd out the endemic understorey that the checklist records. Eg. Lantana camara and Mikania micrantha have spread widely through Western Ghats forest margins.
      The Fix: Fund a scheduled removal and native replanting cycle at forest edges, with monitoring keyed to the checklist’s endemic taxa.
    3. Collection pressure on high value taxa: Orchids and medicinal plants with narrow ranges face extraction for horticulture and for the herbal trade. Eg. Paphiopedilum druryi, endemic to Agasthyamalai, has been depleted by collection from the wild.
      The Fix: Place the steno endemic taxa on the State’s restricted collection list and pair it with nursery propagation at JNTBGRI to supply legitimate demand.
    4. Split administration across two States: A single ecological unit managed by two State forest departments produces divergent rules on the same slope. Eg. The reserve is spread over Keralam and Tamil Nadu with separate working plans on each side.
      The Fix: Constitute a standing joint management committee for the reserve with a common monitoring protocol and a shared annual report.
    5. Climate driven upslope shift: Warming pushes montane species upward, and taxa already at the summit ranges have nowhere to move. Eg. Shola grassland systems in the higher Western Ghats are already recording shifts in species composition.
      The Fix: Establish permanent altitudinal monitoring plots along the reserve’s elevation gradient, so range shifts are detected against the new baseline rather than inferred later.

    Conclusion

    The reserve now has a documented floristic baseline where it previously had none. The value of that baseline is that endemism can be located precisely, down to taxa confined to single specialised habitats, which is what makes uniform protection inadequate for this landscape. The finding the checklist leaves unresolved is how two State administrations manage one ecological unit against a single standard. What follows is whether the endemic taxa the list identifies are translated into a protected species schedule and a monitoring cycle.

    Back2Basics: Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve

    1. Designation: It was designated a biosphere reserve in 2001 and was added to the UNESCO World Network of Biosphere Reserves in 2016.
    2. Location: It lies in the southern Western Ghats across Keralam and Tamil Nadu, and takes its name from the Agasthyamalai peak.
    3. Constituent protected areas: It includes Neyyar, Peppara and Shendurney Wildlife Sanctuaries and the Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve.
    4. Cultural association: The Kani tribal community inhabits the landscape and its knowledge of the plant Trichopus zeylanicus produced India’s first benefit sharing arrangement for traditional knowledge.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2019] Which of the following are in Agasthyamala Biosphere Reserve? (a) Neyyar, Peppara and Shendurney Wildlife Sanctuaries; and Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve (b) Mudumalai, Sathyamangalam and Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuaries; and Silent Valley National Park (c) Kaundinya, Gundla Brahme-swaram and Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuaries; and Mukurthi National Park (d) Kawal and Sri Venkateswara Wildlife Sanctuaries; and Nagarjunasagar-Srisailam Tiger Reserve | Answer: (a)”

  • Conservation, compensation: Tackling Himachal monkey menace

    Why in the News

    A 63 year old woman in Shimla has died of injuries, including spinal damage, sustained when a pack of rhesus macaques attacked her on the roof of her house. The death has returned attention to the legal position of the species. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 had listed the rhesus macaque as a protected species under Part I of Schedule II. The Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2022 removed it from that listing. The contest now is that responsibility has passed from State forest departments to urban local bodies without the funds, the trained staff or the compensation cover moving with it.

    What changed for the rhesus macaque after the 2022 amendment?

    1. Loss of protected status: The 2022 amendment removed the rhesus macaque from Part I of Schedule II of the parent Act, ending its treatment as a protected species.
    2. Transfer of responsibility: The Chief Wildlife Warden of Himachal Pradesh has stated that State forest departments are no longer responsible for the monkey menace.
    3. Reclassification in practice: A monkey is now treated like a stray animal, which places it within the purview of civic bodies rather than of the wildlife administration.
    4. Central funding stopped: State forest departments earlier received funds from the Centre to control the monkey menace, and that flow ended once the species ceased to be protected.

    Why are urban local bodies not equipped to take this on?

    1. Absence of funds: A senior Indian Forest Service officer has identified the lack of funds as the first reason urban local bodies such as the Shimla Municipal Corporation are not fully competent to handle the task independently.
    2. No trained manpower: The second stated reason is the absence of expertise and trained manpower to capture monkeys and to sterilise the captured animals.
    3. Capacity is still being built: The Shimla Municipal Commissioner has stated that the corporation is in the process of training its manpower on how to capture monkeys, and takes the assistance of the forest department when a situation arises.
    4. Assistance is now priced: The forest department continues to intervene largely in and around forest areas and charges urban local bodies for capture and sterilisation, at a cost of Rs 700 per monkey sterilised.

    What do the population and incidence numbers show?

    1. A falling population: Official numbers show Himachal Pradesh’s estimated rhesus macaque population fell from 3,17,512 in 2004 to 2,26,086 in 2013, and then to 1,36,443 in 2019 to 2020.
    2. Sterilisation as the stated cause: The State forest department attributes much of that decline to sustained sterilisation, having sterilised 1,86,448 monkeys between 2006 and March 2024.
    3. Conflict has not fallen with numbers: Shimla Municipal Corporation officials record 50 to 55 cases of monkey attack every month in the city.

    Why has compensation become the sharper grievance?

    1. Existing entitlements: Under the Himachal Pradesh wildlife compensation policy cited by officials, severe monkey attack injuries attract Rs 75,000, permanent disability Rs 1 lakh and death Rs 4 lakh.
    2. Delisting closes the door: Since the rhesus macaque is no longer covered by the Act, officials have indicated that the deceased woman’s family is unlikely to qualify under this framework.
    3. The demand on the ground: A Shimla based non governmental organisation has protested outside the Municipal Commissioner’s office demanding compensation of Rs 5 lakh for the deceased woman.
    4. A parallel demand on behaviour: The same protest demanded stricter action against those found feeding monkeys in Shimla.

    Why is the vermin versus protected species question still unsettled?

    1. Opinion is divided: A wildlife expert has recorded that opinion remains split on whether monkeys should be treated as vermin or as a protected animal, despite rapid population growth.
    2. Human behaviour drives the conflict: Public feeding of wild animals, including monkeys, forces animals out of the forest in search of easy food, which locates the cause of conflict outside the species itself.
    3. Delisting answers only the legal question: Removing protection settles who is liable and does not settle whether culling, sterilisation or behaviour control is the correct instrument.

    Challenges to managing human macaque conflict after delisting

    1. Mismatch between mandate and capacity: Responsibility now sits with municipal bodies that have neither wildlife budgets nor trained handlers, while the expertise stays in a department that is no longer accountable for the outcome. Eg. Shimla Municipal Corporation must pay the forest department Rs 700 an animal for a service it cannot perform itself.
      The Fix: Fund a standing joint capture and sterilisation cell staffed by the forest department and paid for from the municipal budget, so the mandate and the skill sit in one unit.
    2. Compensation vanishes with protected status: A State compensation policy keyed to species listed under the Act leaves victims of a delisted species with no claim, even where the injury is identical. Eg. The Shimla family faces a death under a schedule that no longer covers the animal responsible.
      The Fix: Rewrite the State compensation policy to key entitlement to the injury and the location rather than to the schedule the animal sits in.
    3. Sterilisation without an exit point: A programme that runs for two decades without a stated target population becomes a permanent budget line rather than a solution. Eg. 1,86,448 monkeys were sterilised between 2006 and March 2024 while attack incidence in Shimla stayed at 50 to 55 cases a month.
      The Fix: Set a district level target population with published annual monitoring, so the programme is measured against conflict incidence rather than against animals processed.
    4. Food subsidy from human waste: Open garbage and religious and recreational feeding supply a reliable calorie source that sustains urban troop numbers regardless of sterilisation. Eg. Shimla’s hill slope waste collection points and temple precincts draw troops into residential areas.
      The Fix: Enforce monkey proof waste containment along the affected wards and prosecute feeding under municipal bye laws with a stated penalty.
    5. Vermin declarations are politically fraught and short lived: Section 62 of the parent Act allows the Centre to declare a species vermin for a limited period in a specified area, and such notifications draw litigation and lapse without resolving the problem. Eg. Himachal Pradesh’s earlier vermin notification for rhesus macaques was repeatedly renewed and then allowed to lapse.
      The Fix: Replace episodic vermin notifications with a standing conflict management plan that fixes responsibility, funding and compensation irrespective of the species’ schedule.

    Conclusion

    The 2022 delisting shifted the rhesus macaque from a conservation problem to a municipal nuisance without shifting the money, the staff or the compensation cover to match. The result is a hill town recording 50 to 55 attacks a month with no department fully answerable for either prevention or redress. The status question that remains open is whether responsibility is returned to the forest department with funding, or left with civic bodies and financed properly. The next marker is whether Himachal Pradesh amends its wildlife compensation policy to cover injuries caused by species the Act no longer lists.

    Back2Basics: Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972

    1. Purpose: It is the central law providing for the protection of wild animals and plants and for the establishment of protected areas such as national parks and wildlife sanctuaries.
    2. Schedule structure after 2022: The 2022 amendment reduced the schedules, with Schedule I covering species receiving the highest protection, Schedule II covering species with lesser protection, Schedule III covering plants and Schedule IV listing species regulated under CITES.
    3. Vermin provision: Section 62 allows the Centre to declare a wild animal other than one in Schedule I to be vermin for a specified area and period, which removes protection for that duration.
    4. Administration: Each State has a Chief Wildlife Warden who exercises the Act’s powers over hunting permissions, captivity and the management of protected areas.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2024] Consider the following statements: Statement-I: The Indian Flying Fox is placed under the “vermin” category in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Statement-II: The Indian Flying Fox feeds on the blood of other animals. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements? (a) Both statement I and Statement II are correct and statement II explains statement I (b) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I (c) Staement- I is correct , but Statement II is incorrect* (d) Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct”

  • Botswana cheetah released in MP’s Gandhi Sagar park

    Why in the News

    The Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister has released CCB-2, a female cheetah brought to India from Botswana, into Gandhi Sagar Wildlife Sanctuary on the boundary of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. Gandhi Sagar became the country’s second cheetah habitat in April 2025, when two male cheetahs, Pawak and Prabhas, were moved there from Kuno National Park. The release follows the birth of four cubs at Kuno on 18 September to an India born female, the first cheetahs of a second generation born on Indian soil. The tension is that Project Cheetah is now producing animals inside India faster than it is establishing sites able to hold and breed them, and the cheetahs already moved to the second site have not reproduced there.

    What is Project Cheetah?

    1. About: Project Cheetah is the programme to reintroduce the cheetah to India by importing animals from Africa, the species having been declared extinct in the country in 1952.
    2. Who runs it: It is administered by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change through the National Tiger Conservation Authority, with the Wildlife Institute of India as technical partner.
    3. The imports so far: Eight cheetahs were brought from Namibia in September 2022 and twelve from South Africa in February 2023, with Kuno National Park as the first release site.
    4. Why more than one site: The programme’s action plan requires multiple release sites, because a single population in one park carries the full risk of disease, prey failure and territorial conflict.

    What does the CCB-2 release change at Gandhi Sagar?

    1. The animal and the move: CCB-2 is around three years old and was relocated from Kuno National Park in the Gwalior and Chambal region of Madhya Pradesh.
    2. The site’s population: Her arrival takes Gandhi Sagar to four cheetahs, two males and two females.
    3. The breeding objective: Wildlife officials expect her to start a new family at the site, because the female already there has not mated with either of the two resident males.
    4. What a working second site would mean: A second breeding site converts the programme from a single park holding every animal into a landscape with more than one viable population.

    What does the Kuno birth signify for the programme?

    1. The litter: An India born female, KGP12, gave birth to four cubs at Kuno on 18 September.
    2. Second generation born in India: KGP12 was herself born in India to a cheetah brought from South Africa, which makes her cubs part of a second generation born on Indian soil.
    3. The population count: The latest births took India’s total cheetah population to 56.
    4. Why generation depth matters: A population reproducing across two generations inside the country no longer depends on continued imports to sustain its numbers.

    Challenges to Project Cheetah

    1. The prey base has to exist before the animal arrives: A release site needs a stocked ungulate population before a cheetah is introduced, and building one takes years of protection and supplementation. Eg. Chital were translocated into Kuno from other reserves to raise prey density ahead of the first release in 2022.
      The Fix: Fix a measured prey density threshold for each site and make meeting it a precondition for any further release.
    2. Enclosure survival is not wild survival: Animals held in soft release bomas and large fenced enclosures are managed rather than free ranging, so survival figures recorded inside them do not test the reintroduction. Eg. Several Kuno cheetahs were returned to enclosures after wandering out of the park into surrounding farmland.
      The Fix: Publish the share of the population that has completed a full year free ranging outside enclosures as the programme’s headline metric.
    3. Mortality from conditions the source population never faced: Indian monsoon humidity produced infection under radio collars, a failure mode absent in the African range. Eg. Cheetahs at Kuno died in 2023 from septicaemia arising beneath satellite collars during the wet season.
      The Fix: Standardise a monsoon collar protocol with scheduled removal and veterinary inspection through the wet months.
    4. Conflict at the boundary of a small park: A cheetah ranges far beyond a sanctuary’s notified area, so animals enter village land where compensation and local tolerance decide whether they survive. Eg. Kuno cheetahs have repeatedly moved into farmland in Sheopur district and been recaptured.
      The Fix: Extend a dedicated compensation and rapid response scheme across every village in the dispersal belt of each release site.
    5. One state carries the whole programme: Both release sites lie in Madhya Pradesh and in the same Chambal basin, so a disease outbreak or a drought in that landscape reaches the entire Indian population. Eg. The cheetah conservation breeding centre approved at the Banni grasslands in Gujarat remains outside the active release plan.
      The Fix: Bring a release site outside Madhya Pradesh into the plan on a fixed timeline rather than as a future option.

    Conclusion

    Project Cheetah has passed the point at which its success is measured by arrivals. A population that has now bred to a second generation inside the country is no longer an import programme, it is a management problem, and the binding constraint has shifted from securing animals to securing landscapes that can hold them. What to watch is whether the pair at Gandhi Sagar produces a litter in the coming season, because a second site that holds cheetahs without breeding them extends the programme’s footprint without reducing its concentration of risk.

    Back2Basics: Gandhi Sagar Wildlife Sanctuary

    1. Designation and location: Gandhi Sagar Wildlife Sanctuary was notified in 1974 and spreads across the Mandsaur and Neemuch districts of Madhya Pradesh.
    2. River and reservoir: It lies along the Chambal river and adjoins the Gandhi Sagar dam reservoir, which forms part of its boundary.
    3. Terrain: The habitat is open savanna type grassland over rocky ground with dry deciduous scrub, which is the terrain the cheetah hunts in.
    4. Contiguity across the border: It adjoins the Bhainsrodgarh Wildlife Sanctuary in Rajasthan, which gives the two states a shared dispersal landscape.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “Recently there was a proposal to translocate some of the lions from their natural habitat in Gujarat to which one of the following sites? (a) Corbett National Park (b) Kuno Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary (c) Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary (d) Sariska National Park”

  • Urban demand is reorganising global wildlife trafficking web

    Why in the News

    Five critically endangered baby orangutans, each around a year old, have been recovered from a forest in Odisha, roughly 2,000 km from their natural range in the rainforests of Borneo and Sumatra. The animals showed no fear of humans, which indicates they had been held in captivity for a period before the recovery. India’s Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB) has been asked to investigate how they entered the country and who held them. The recovery coincides with a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) that combined thirty years of confiscation records with spatial network analysis and found that urban centres, rather than source habitats, are now the demand nexuses of the wildlife trade. The tension is that enforcement is built around seizures at the point of recovery, while the network that produced the consignment is organised around a city thousands of kilometres away.

    What does the Odisha recovery reveal about the route?

    1. Condition at recovery: The five apes were found on 8 September with limited mobility, huddled together and feeding from a container, and are now being monitored at a zoo in Bhubaneswar.
    2. Evidence of captivity: The complete absence of fear of humans indicates the animals had been kept in captivity for a while, according to the chief executive of the Wildlife Trust of India.
    3. A prohibited trade with a market price: The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) prohibits commercial trade in orangutans, and they are nonetheless sold routinely as exotic pets at up to Rs 20 lakh each.
    4. Not the first instance: Two baby orangutans were found abandoned near the Assam and Mizoram border in 2022.
    5. What remains unknown: The route taken, whether by sea, air or road, the identity of those who captured and smuggled the animals, and the identity of the intended collectors are all still open.

    How was the trafficking network mapped?

    1. The dataset: The study integrated thirty years of confiscation data with spatial network analysis to reconstruct trade routes end to end.
    2. The species studied: It traced the movement of Mexico’s parrots from biodiverse habitats to urban centres around the world.
    3. A transferable method: The same approach can be adapted to map other complex illicit networks, including the trafficking of timber, marine life, drugs and weapons.
    4. What it offers enforcement elsewhere: The reconstruction provides clues to criminal networks in parts of the world that hold no comparable confiscation record of their own.

    What does the shift of demand to cities do to the trade?

    1. Cities as the demand nexus: Urban centres are now the nexuses of demand, and that demand is reorganising the global trafficking network rather than merely feeding it.
    2. Distance between habitat and seizure: For many commonly traded species, confiscations occurred hundreds of kilometres from native habitats, frequently in major cities such as Mexico City.
    3. Extinction risk from trade alone: No less than half of Mexico’s native parrot species are directly threatened by the illegal wildlife trade, which elevates their risk of extinction.
    4. Selective poaching: Poachers consistently targeted charismatic and high value species at unsustainable rates, particularly macaws and Amazon parrots.

    Where does wildlife trafficking converge with organised crime?

    1. Shared logistics with narcotics: Drug cartels in Mexico run illegal logging operations, sharing transport logistics and laundering illicit timber alongside narcotics.
    2. Scale of the enterprise: The illegal wildlife trade comprises global, multibillion dollar criminal enterprises rather than a set of opportunistic local offences.
    3. A public health dimension: The trade threatens biodiversity and elevates the risk of zoonotic disease transfer and emergence.
    4. Why these networks resist mapping: The networks are complex, adaptive and largely invisible, which makes them difficult to map, to track and to disrupt.

    What does this mean for India’s own trafficking profile?

    1. Most smuggled groups: Primates, turtles and lizards are the species most smuggled into India.
    2. Principal route: The movement runs primarily through land routes between India and Myanmar.
    3. How the network behaves: The criminal network reconfigures itself to safeguard the business, so a disrupted route is replaced rather than closed.
    4. The enforcement gap: The lacunae in understanding the mechanisms that feed these networks obstruct law enforcement, which is why a seizure rarely reaches the network behind it.

    Challenges to curbing wildlife trafficking

    1. Seizure based enforcement measures the wrong thing: A confiscation records the failure of one consignment, not the disruption of a network, so a rising seizure count is fully consistent with a growing trade. Eg. The Wildlife Crime Control Bureau runs periodic pan India drives such as Operation Save Kurma for turtles and Operation Lesknow for lesser known species, built around recovery rather than prosecution of the network.
      The Fix: Require every confiscation to open a parallel financial investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, so a recovery starts a case rather than closing one.
    2. Penalties are set against the offence, not the market: Statutory punishment is fixed by schedule while the return is fixed by the buyer, so the expected cost of detection stays below the commercial value of the animal. Eg. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 prescribes imprisonment of up to seven years for a Schedule I offence.
      The Fix: Add a proceeds linked fine calculated on the traded value of the specimen, imposed in addition to the statutory term.
    3. Exotic species sit outside domestic schedules: The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 protects species listed in its own schedules, and a foreign species such as an orangutan historically fell outside that list. Eg. The Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2022 added a schedule for CITES listed specimens precisely because the earlier schedules did not reach them.
      The Fix: Make registration of every live exotic specimen mandatory against a traceable identifier, so possession without a record is itself the offence.
    4. Detection capacity sits at the wrong points: Customs and forest staff are posted at ports and protected areas while the demand nexus is an urban household, so a consignment is intercepted only while in transit. Eg. The Wildlife Crime Control Bureau operates through a small set of regional, sub regional and border units for the entire country.
      The Fix: Extend enforcement to the demand side by requiring online marketplaces and pet traders to verify a legal acquisition record before listing any exotic specimen.

    Conclusion

    The unit of the wildlife trade has moved. It is no longer the forest the animal came from, it is the city that ordered it, and a network organised around demand will not be broken by enforcement organised around habitat. What the confiscation study offers is not another inventory of losses but a method, since the same records that currently close a case can be read as a map of where a network is thin. What stays unresolved is that the authority to act on such a map sits with forest and customs enforcement, while the vulnerability it identifies lies in urban markets that no wildlife agency polices.

    Back2Basics: CITES

    1. What it is: The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora is an agreement between governments regulating trade in listed species across national borders.
    2. Origin: It was drafted in 1973 and entered into force in 1975, and its Secretariat is administered by the United Nations Environment Programme.
    3. How it lists species: Appendix I bars commercial international trade in species threatened with extinction, Appendix II regulates trade in species that could become threatened, and Appendix III covers species a member country asks others to help protect.
    4. Legal character: It is legally binding on the States that have joined it, and it does not take the place of national laws, which each party has to enact to give the convention effect.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “With reference to the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which of the following statements is/are correct? (1) IUCN is an organ of the United Nations and CITES is an international agreement between governments. (2) IUCN runs thousands of field projects around the world to better manage natural environments. (3) CITES is legally binding on the States that have joined it, but this Convention does not take the place of national laws. Select the correct answer using the code given below. (a) 1 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3”

  • Orangutans in Odisha: The laws governing animal trade and repatriation

    Why in the News

    The Odisha Forest department has rescued five baby orangutans, a critically endangered animal, from a forest in Balasore district. Orangutans are native to the rainforests of Indonesia and Malaysia, and the animals found in Odisha are suspected to be from Sumatra. All three orangutan species are listed under Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which restricts their movement to non commercial purposes. The tension is that a suspected commercial trafficking case creates an obligation to secure the animals’ welfare but no obligation to return them. The case also marks a shift that wildlife crime control experts have repeatedly flagged, that India is no longer only a transit route but is itself fuelling demand for exotic pets.

    What is CITES?

    1. Regulation rather than prohibition: International trade in wildlife, their body parts and trophies is not prohibited, and the treaty instead regulates it strictly. Its aim is that cross border trade in wildlife and plants is legal, sustainable and traceable without harming survival in the wild.
    2. How it operates: It is essentially a licensing system that places checks and controls on the import, export and re export of live animals and plants, wildlife body parts and trophies.
    3. The three appendices: Controls run through an exhaustive CITES species list divided into three appendices, and the appendix a species sits in determines the level of protection it is accorded.
    4. Coverage: The treaty protects around 6,700 animal species, comprising 339 mammals, 159 birds, 113 reptiles, 24 amphibians, 26 fish and 69 invertebrates.

    What does Appendix I listing mean for the orangutans?

    1. The Appendix I threshold: Appendix I lists species that face the threat of extinction.
    2. What trade remains permitted: Such species can be traded only with valid permits, provided the specimens are captive bred and the purpose is conservation.
    3. Contested allowances: Trade permitted for some charismatic species includes elephant ivory, rhino horn, elephant and lion trophy hunting, and crocodile skin.
    4. The three orangutan species: The Bornean, Sumatran and Tapanuli orangutans are all Appendix I listed, so their movement is confined to research, transfers between recognised zoos and breeding projects.
    5. The alleged breach: The Odisha animals appear to have been traded for commercial purposes, which would place the consignment in violation of the treaty.

    How does Indian law connect to the treaty?

    1. Treaty membership: CITES came into force in 1975 and India became a party to it in 1976.
    2. The harmonising amendment: The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 was amended in 2022 to harmonise it with the treaty. The amendment added a Schedule covering CITES listed species.
    3. What the amended Act requires: It calls for consultation with the country of export for the animal’s return. Where return is not possible it provides for the animal’s welfare at a recognised zoo or rescue centre.

    Does India have to send the orangutans back?

    1. No obligation to return: The treaty does not make it obligatory to return confiscated animals to the wild.
    2. Survival comes first: The first task facing enforcement agencies is the survival of the trafficked animals.
    3. Who decides: The management authority implementing the treaty’s provisions, here the Environment Ministry, is recommended to consult the scientific authorities and, where possible, the state of export or origin before taking a call on repatriation.
    4. Who pays: Where repatriation is feasible it has to be carried out at the expense of the state of origin. Where it is not feasible the animal goes to a rescue centre or such other place as the management authority deems appropriate.
    5. Indonesia’s approach: Indonesia’s Ministry of Forestry has reached out to Indian authorities and is preparing technical requirements for repatriation if investigations confirm the animals came from there.
    6. Informed receipt: The confiscating authority must ensure that recipient states are aware of the impacts of a repatriation before it happens.

    Why is repatriation difficult in practice?

    1. Establishing origin: A repatriation requires the country of origin to be established, the protocols to be followed and the legal tangles to be resolved first.
    2. Animal health through the process: Maintaining the health of confiscated animals across that period is the hardest part of it.
    3. Consignments change hands: Wildlife consignments pass through multiple holders and geographies, which makes a return to the wild rarely feasible.
    4. Captive bred specimens: Many species in this trade are captive bred and carry no known geographic origin at all.
    5. Origin is not the same as habitat: The place of origin is frequently not the range or the habitat where the species is found in the wild.
    6. Airport seizures work differently: Most seizures at airports are returned immediately to the place of origin, under the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) guidelines of July 2025.

    What does India’s exotic pet trade now look like?

    1. From transit route to demand market: The appeal of unique and unusual pets is driving rising trade in exotic wildlife within India rather than only through it.
    2. Two routes: Seizures indicate overland movement through the North East’s borders with Bangladesh and Myanmar, and movement by air through the international airports at Chennai, Bengaluru and Mumbai.
    3. Trade beyond the treaty list: Indians are acquiring many CITES listed species, and there is also a large trade in species that carry no CITES listing at all.
    4. What the amnesty revealed: A voluntary disclosure scheme in 2021 drew 43,693 applications for amnesty from 30 States and Union Territories, on data obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Lemurs, kangaroos and rhinoceros iguanas were among the species declared.
    5. How a typical seizure looks: Consignments intercepted at airports, sea ports and land border posts usually carry multiple animals in bulk, with small mammals, reptiles and amphibians stuffed into gunny sacks, small cages or plastic boxes.
    6. Why Odisha is atypical: A rescue of five animals from a forested area does not fit that pattern. Eg. Authorities in Mizoram’s Champhai district near the Myanmar border seized 468 animals from six or seven different species in May 2022.

    Challenges to enforcing CITES in India

    1. Exotic species sat outside Indian law until 2022: Foreign species held in India had no schedule under domestic wildlife law, so possession itself could not be penalised. Eg. The 2021 scheme offered voluntary amnesty to holders rather than prosecution.
      The Fix: Require registration and microchipping of every CITES listed exotic animal in private possession, with periodic physical verification.
    2. Porous land borders: The North East’s forested international borders are hard to police against small consignments moved on foot. Eg. Cross border movement along the India Myanmar border has long been governed by a special regime for border residents.
      The Fix: Station Wildlife Crime Control Bureau officers alongside customs at the main land border posts rather than only at international airports.
    3. Welfare during custody: Recognised rescue and holding facilities are scarce, so confiscated animals die before any decision on their future is taken. Eg. Trafficked reptiles and small mammals arrive dehydrated and injured after transport in sacks and boxes.
      The Fix: Designate and fund a national network of rescue centres with species specific quarantine capacity.
    4. Demand generated online: Listings on social media normalise exotic pet ownership and create buyers faster than enforcement can identify sellers. Eg. Data drawn from social media and seizures shows Indian buyers acquiring many treaty listed species.
      The Fix: Place exotic wildlife listings under a takedown obligation for online intermediaries, with mandatory reporting to the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau.
    5. The treaty list does not cover the whole trade: CITES controls reach only species in its appendices, so a large part of the exotic pet trade is lawful to import. Eg. Many small reptiles and amphibians sold as pets carry no listing under the treaty.
      The Fix: Extend the domestic Schedule to species assessed as threatened by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) even where CITES does not list them.

    Conclusion

    The case sits at the point where a rescue turns into a legal question with no default answer. The treaty and the amended Act both supply a procedure and neither supplies an outcome, so the decision rests on what can be established about origin and on what the animals can survive. The unresolved part is the demand side, because enforcement acts on consignments while the market pulling them in keeps growing. The immediate marker is whether the consultation between the Environment Ministry and Indonesia’s Ministry of Forestry ends in a repatriation or in placement at a domestic rescue centre.

    Back2Basics: Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972

    1. Purpose: It provides for the protection of wild animals, birds and plants, and for the regulation of hunting and of trade in wildlife and its derivatives.
    2. Protected areas: It is the statutory basis for national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, conservation reserves and community reserves.
    3. Institutions: It provides for the National Board for Wild Life and the State Boards for Wild Life, and it is the Act under which the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau functions.
    4. Schedules after 2022: The 2022 amendment reduced the schedules of protected species to four, the fourth of which covers specimens listed in the appendices of CITES.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2015] With reference to the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which of the following statements is/are correct? (1) IUCN is an organ of the United Nations and CITES is an international agreement between governments. (2) IUCN runs thousands of field projects around the world to better manage natural environments. (3) CITES is legally binding on the States that have joined it, but this Convention does not take the place of national laws. Select the correct answer using the code given below. (a) 1 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 Answer: (b)”

  • Hog in the limelight

    Why in the News

    The Assam government has praised a captive breeding programme for lifting the State’s pygmy hog population over the last three decades. The species was believed extinct by the mid twentieth century, and a few individuals rediscovered in 1971 prompted the conservation effort that the Pygmy Hog Conservation Programme formalised in 1995. The recovery in captivity has outpaced the recovery of the habitat. Numbers held in breeding centres can be raised on a schedule, while the alluvial floodplain grasslands the species needs in the wild continue to fragment, which is what decides whether released animals survive.

    What is the pygmy hog?

    1. Sole surviving species of its genus: The pygmy hog is the only living species of the genus Porcula and the world’s smallest wild suid (a member of the pig family).
    2. Grassland dependence: It relies on dense grassland to feed, to conceal itself and to reproduce, so it cannot persist where tall cover is removed.
    3. Range: Its surviving distribution is confined to the alluvial floodplain grasslands of Assam.

    Why does the pygmy hog work as an indicator species?

    1. Distress signals habitat degradation: Decline in an animal that lives inside dense grassland is read directly as degradation of the floodplain that produces that grassland.
    2. Protection carries other species with it: Securing the grassland the pygmy hog needs also extends protection to the Bengal florican, the hispid hare, the hog deer and the greater one horned rhinoceros.
    3. The unit of conservation is the ecosystem: Survival in the wild depends on the survival of a specific ecosystem rather than on the numbers held in any one facility.

    How was the species brought back from presumed extinction?

    1. The original cause of decline: Floodplains were converted for farms, tea plantations and flood control infrastructure, then degraded by invasive plants and altered flood cycles, with unscientific burning of grasslands fragmenting what remained.
    2. Rediscovery and programme: A few individuals found in 1971 prompted an early conservation effort, and the current work descends from the Pygmy Hog Conservation Programme begun in 1995.
    3. The measured gain: Captive breeding raised the pygmy hog population in Assam 32-fold over the last three decades.
    4. What breeding from a small stock demands: Conservationists must track pedigree, follow biosafety protocols because suids are highly susceptible to swine diseases, and condition individuals before release.

    Why is the recovery still not secure?

    1. Numbers remain small: The Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust records some 250 individuals in early 2025.
    2. Counting is unreliable: The animals are difficult to spot and count, so how many exist in the wild cannot be stated with confidence.
    3. One natural population is left: The last surviving natural population sits in the Panbari grasslands area of Manas National Park.
    4. Insurance is not a guarantee: Captive individuals form the insurance group against loss in the wild, and the long term evolutionary fitness of that group is not assured.

    Challenges to pygmy hog recovery

    1. Genetic bottleneck: Breeding from a small founder stock accumulates harmful gene variants and holds genetic diversity low. Eg. Researchers working on the programme flag both as limits on the captive group’s long term fitness.
      The Fix: Manage the captive population as a single studbook with planned pairings and periodic exchange between breeding centres.
    2. Disease susceptibility: Pigs carry high susceptibility to swine diseases, so one outbreak can erase decades of breeding in a single season. Eg. African swine fever outbreaks in Assam from 2020 killed domestic pigs across multiple districts.
      The Fix: Hold breeding stock at physically separated centres under enforced biosafety protocols rather than at one site.
    3. Fire used as grassland management: Widespread dry season burning carried out to ‘save’ grasslands destroys the dense cover the species feeds and breeds in. Eg. Fires set across whole grassland blocks remove the tall cover in a single sweep.
      The Fix: Move to mosaic burning on a rotation that leaves unburnt refuge patches in every season.
    4. Woody encroachment: Suppressing ecological processes altogether allows trees and shrubs to convert grassland into woodland. Eg. Embankments and flood control works on the Brahmaputra floodplain have cut the natural flooding that renews grassland.
      The Fix: Restore periodic flooding and controlled disturbance so grassland succession is held in check.
    5. Habitat fragmentation: Protected grasslands survive as disconnected blocks, so released animals cannot disperse or recolonise adjoining areas. Eg. Fragmentation of protected grassland in Rupahi and Kanchanbari separates the sites Assam is relying on for release.
      The Fix: Reconnect the fragments and restore buffer zones around Manas and Orang National Parks and the Sonai Rupai Wildlife Sanctuary.
    6. Invasive plants: Introduced species change grassland structure and displace the native grasses the species depends on. Eg. Invasive growth has spread through degraded floodplain grassland alongside altered flood cycles.
      The Fix: Fund sustained mechanical removal at release sites as a recurring operation rather than a one time clearance drive.

    Conclusion

    Assam plans to raise the wild pygmy hog population to 300 by 2040. That target is a grassland target rather than a breeding target. Captive numbers can be scaled inside a facility, and the constraint sits outside it, in whether protected grassland is reconnected and buffer zones around the northern Assam parks are restored fast enough to receive the animals. Watch whether grassland restoration is funded as a standing operation, because the breeding side of the programme has already shown what it can deliver on its own.

    Back2Basics

    1. Manas National Park: Located in Assam along the foothills of the Bhutan Himalaya, on the Manas river, a tributary of the Brahmaputra.
    2. Designations: It is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, a tiger reserve, an elephant reserve and a biosphere reserve.
    3. Contiguity: It adjoins the Royal Manas National Park in Bhutan, forming a transboundary conservation landscape.
    4. Species: It holds the last natural pygmy hog population and is also known for the Bengal florican, the hispid hare and the golden langur.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “Consider the following : 1.Star tortoise 2.Monitor lizard 3.Pygmy hog 4.Spider monkey Which of the above are naturally found in India?”

  • As India probes origin of 5 baby orangutans, Indonesia prepares ground for repatriation

    Why in the News

    Indonesia’s Ministry of Forestry has written to India offering government to government and Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) coordination on five baby orangutans, and is preparing the technical requirements for their repatriation. The letter, sent by its Directorate of Species and Genetic Conservation, went to the Director General of Forests and Special Secretary in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, who is also India’s CITES Management Authority. It follows the rescue of the five animals from a forest in Balasore district of Odisha, after which a preliminary assessment placed them as Sumatran and raised the possibility of an organised transnational wildlife trafficking network. Indonesia has stated that it respects the judicial and statutory procedures applicable in India, and the Indian side has replied that state forest authorities must finish their official investigation first. Any decision on custody, transport or transfer also needs the authorisation of a competent judicial court. Repatriation is therefore not held up by either government’s willingness, and it waits on a genetic result and a court order.

    What does CITES do, and what does Appendix I mean?

    1. What the treaty regulates: CITES is a multilateral treaty more than 50 years old that regulates global trade in wild animals and plants, so that the trade is legal, sustainable, traceable and does not threaten a species’ survival in the wild.
    2. What Appendix I does: It prohibits trade in species that are endangered, which removes commercial international trade in a listed species from the set of lawful transactions.
    3. How it operates inside a country: Each party designates a Management Authority that issues permits, verifies specimens and handles correspondence with other parties, which is why Indonesia’s letter went to that office in India rather than through a general diplomatic channel.
    4. What it does not settle: The Convention regulates trade and leaves the disposal of confiscated live animals, including whether they return to the country of origin, to the seizing country’s own law and courts.

    What has Indonesia asked for, and what has it offered?

    1. The information sought: Its communication asked for details of the incident, the species, the animals’ health, the investigation being carried out, and the collection of genetic samples.
    2. The offer on verification: It conveyed its readiness to cooperate with India on species and origin verification.
    3. The commitment if origin is confirmed: If the animals are confirmed as originating from Indonesia, it would undertake the measures needed for repatriation under CITES and its own national laws.
    4. The logistics already being assembled: It is preparing health examinations, quarantine arrangements, genetic identification, transport, animal welfare safeguards and appropriate post arrival rehabilitation.

    Why does the origin question turn on DNA rather than appearance?

    1. What the current assessment rests on: The animals are suspected to be from Sumatra on the basis of preliminary observations of their physical and morphological characteristics.
    2. What morphology cannot establish: Conclusive identification requires a DNA examination, which would fix their species, their geographical origin, and whether they came from the wild or had been held in captivity earlier.
    3. The range is wider than the working assumption: The animals could be from either Indonesia or Malaysia, and only DNA sampling can establish which population they belong to.
    4. Why the wild or captive finding matters: It separates a fresh capture from the wild from an animal moved out of an existing captive collection, and the two point to different chains of supply.

    What does the case suggest about the trafficking chain?

    1. A network rather than a single consignment: The possibility of an organised transnational wildlife trafficking network is being taken seriously on the Indonesian side.
    2. An enforcement arm has been brought in: Indonesia’s Directorate General of Forestry Law Enforcement has been roped in alongside its conservation directorate.
    3. The chain details sought from India: It has asked for the suspected trafficking route, the point of entry, the transit countries, the documentation, and the preliminary investigation findings.
    4. The jurisdictional follow through: Where the evidence reveals persons, transactions or collection points inside Indonesian jurisdiction, Indonesian authorities would act under national law and through international law enforcement cooperation.
    5. No names at this stage: The stated position is that identifying particular individuals or networks before the evidence is formally established would be premature.

    Challenges to returning trafficked wildlife to its country of origin

    1. Statutory machinery for the Convention arrived late: A Management Authority with powers written into domestic law is what lets a seizure move through a treaty process rather than an ad hoc one. Eg. India joined CITES in 1976 and acquired statutory CITES provisions, including a designated Management Authority and a schedule for listed specimens, only through the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2022.
      The Fix: Publish a standing disposal protocol for confiscated live exotic animals, so custody, testing and transfer follow one written sequence from the day of seizure.
    2. A genetic result needs something to compare against: A DNA sample names a population only where reference profiles for wild populations already exist in an accessible library. Eg. Orangutans are recognised as three separate species, Bornean, Sumatran and Tapanuli, so a match has to resolve to a population rather than to an island.
      The Fix: Route seizure samples through a designated wildlife forensic laboratory that holds or can obtain source country reference profiles under a standing arrangement.
    3. Custody cost and welfare risk grow with the proceedings: Infant animals have to be housed, fed and treated for as long as the investigation and the court process run, and the holding facility is rarely built for the species. Eg. The five animals are being held in a zoological park in Odisha while the state investigation continues.
      The Fix: Set a statutory outer limit for a disposal decision on confiscated live animals, with interim custody vested in a facility equipped for the species.
    4. A returned great ape cannot simply be released: Infant orangutans learn foraging, nest building and predator avoidance from their mothers, so an orphaned animal needs years of rehabilitation before any release is possible. Eg. Indonesia’s own orangutan centres in Sumatra and Kalimantan run multi year forest school programmes before a release attempt.
      The Fix: Name the receiving rehabilitation centre and its capacity in the repatriation arrangement before the transfer is authorised, not after.
    5. No single authority covers the whole route: Source, transit and seizure fall under different national agencies, so the chain is investigated in fragments by bodies with no shared case file. Eg. The South Asia Wildlife Enforcement Network and its Southeast Asian counterpart exist precisely because wildlife crime routes cross the jurisdiction of several enforcement agencies.
      The Fix: Constitute a joint investigation team with named nodal officers in the source, transit and seizure countries at the point of seizure rather than after the first findings.

    Conclusion

    Both governments have already agreed on the process, so neither the treaty nor diplomacy is what decides where these animals end up. The sequence runs through a state forest investigation, a genetic result, and a court’s authorisation for custody and transfer, in that order. The step to watch is whether the genetic examination is commissioned early enough to be available when the court takes up the custody question, since a case decided without it settles the animals’ future on appearance alone. The wider test is whether the seizure produces a traced route and named collection points, or ends as five rescued animals and no network.

    Back2Basics: Orangutans

    1. What they are: The only great apes found in Asia, tree dwelling and native to the rainforests of Borneo and Sumatra in Indonesia and Malaysia.
    2. How many species: Three are recognised, the Bornean, the Sumatran and the Tapanuli, the last described as a separate species in 2017 and the rarest of the great apes.
    3. Conservation status: All three are listed as critically endangered on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List.
    4. Reproductive pace: Females give birth once in six to eight years, the longest interval of any land mammal, which is why a poached infant is not replaced within a generation.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2015] With reference to the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which of the following statements is/are correct? (1) IUCN is an organ of the United Nations and CITES is an international agreement between governments. (2) IUCN runs thousands of field projects around the world to better manage natural environments. (3) CITES is legally binding on the States that have joined it, but this Convention does not take the place of national laws. Select the correct answer using the code given below. (a) 1 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 ANSWER: (b)”

  • International Vulture Awareness Day 2026

    Why in News

    The Union Environment Minister led the International Vulture Awareness Day 2026 celebrations on 6 September 2026. The day falls on the first Saturday of September each year.

    Key Points

    1. The collapse: India’s Gyps vulture populations collapsed from tens of millions to near extinction from the mid 1990s. The cause was diclofenac, a painkiller given to cattle. Vultures that fed on treated carcasses suffered fatal kidney failure.
    2. The ban: India banned the veterinary use of diclofenac in 2006. Later restrictions targeted other toxic veterinary drugs such as aceclofenac and ketoprofen.
    3. Conservation effort: The Vulture Action Plan guides recovery through captive breeding and safe zones. Conservation breeding runs at centres such as the one at Pinjore, Haryana. Several Indian vulture species remain Critically Endangered on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List.
    4. Ecological role: Vultures are scavengers that clear carcasses. Their loss raised feral dog numbers and disease risk.

    Prelims angle

    • The diclofenac link to the vulture decline; the 2006 veterinary ban; Gyps species and their Critically Endangered status; vultures as scavengers in the food chain.

    [2012] Vultures which used to be very common in Indian countryside some years ago are rarely seen nowadays. This is attributed to

    (a) the destruction of their nesting sites by new invasive species

    (b) a drug used by cattle owners for treating their diseased cattle

    (c) scarcity of food available to them

    (d) a widespread, persistent and fatal disease among them.