Distinguish between planned translocation and natural range expansion as conservation strategies, with reference to Kuno and Barda in the Asiatic lion context.

Q. Distinguish between planned translocation and natural range expansion as conservation strategies, with reference to Kuno and Barda in the Asiatic lion context. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The Asiatic lion (Panthera leo persica) survives as a single wild population in Gujarat's Greater Gir landscape, now estimated at 891 individuals, a 32% rise over 2020 [2]. Securing it against catastrophic loss demands a second home — but the two routes available, deliberate translocation to Kuno and natural dispersal into Barda, differ fundamentally in intent, speed and risk-reduction value.

Planned translocation — the Kuno model - Human-directed: founder animals are captured and released at a scientifically selected site; Kuno-Palpur (Madhya Pradesh) was prepared through village relocation and habitat work [1]. - Delivers true geographic separation, insulating the species from a single epidemic, fire or disaster — the core rationale of the Supreme Court's judgment of 15 April 2013 directing lion translocation to Kuno [1]. - Costly and politically contested: requires inter-State consent; the 2013 order remains unimplemented, and Kuno instead hosts Project Cheetah. - Risks include founder-population stress, dispersal back toward release corridors, and conflict with unprepared local communities.

Natural range expansion — the Barda model - Self-initiated dispersal by lions into adjoining habitat; Barda Wildlife Sanctuary (192.31 sq km) recorded natural migration from 2023, with numbers reaching 17 (6 adults, 11 cubs) [2]. - Ecologically self-selecting and low-cost — animals choose viable prey and cover, avoiding capture trauma; the State's role is protective, through habitat and prey augmentation under Project Lion and the Asiatic Lion Conservation Project (₹97.85 crore) [3][4]. - Limitation: Barda lies within the same Saurashtra landscape and is contiguous with Gir, so it does not achieve the disaster-risk insurance that a distant, independent population provides.

The two are therefore complementary, not substitutable: natural expansion consolidates the metapopulation, while planned translocation alone hedges against catastrophic extinction. A phased approach — sustaining Barda's growth while honouring the 2013 directive through cooperative federalism between Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and MoEFCC — would align India's flagship conservation success with SDG 15's commitment to halting biodiversity loss.

(~325 words)

Sources: 1. Centre for Environment Law, WWF-I v. Union of India, Supreme Court, 15 April 2013 — SC directive on lion translocation to Kuno; Kuno site preparation and village relocation 2. PIB — Gujarat Celebrates World Lion Day 2025 — population 891 (32% rise over 2020); Barda's 192.31 sq km, natural migration from 2023, 17 lions 3. PIB — Asiatic Lion Conservation Project, ₹97.85 crore Central contribution — dedicated funding for lion conservation 4. PIB — Parliament Question: Project Asiatic Lion — Project Lion's landscape-based approach and development of Barda for natural dispersal