Save the Species or Save the Landscape? The Choice Behind India's Conservation Model

Rescue Species When They Are Collapsing; Protect Landscapes So They Do Not

India's conservation policy faces a choice between two approaches. One rescues species one at a time through translocation and captive breeding. The other manages whole landscapes, including the people who live in them. Both have strong arguments.

The case for species intervention When a species is close to extinction, waiting for habitat-level change is not an option.

The Mauritius kestrel shows what intervention can achieve: from just four known wild birds in 1974, intensive captive breeding and release restored the population to over 800. In India, Panna Tiger Reserve lost its tigers entirely; after reintroduction began in 2009, the population rebounded to over 50.

Species programmes also draw money and public attention. Qamar Qureshi, a retired professor of the Wildlife Institute of India, notes that the tiger is a symbol that attracts funding in a way a rare frog threatened by a mine does not.

India's tiger surveys now cover nearly 4 lakh sq km, generating data that guide decisions far beyond tiger habitat. Uma Ramakrishnan of NCBS describes captive breeding of the Great Indian Bustard as a necessary experiment, comparable to vulture programmes that taught scientists about behavioural problems in captive-bred birds.

The case for landscape conservation The landscape argument starts with scale.

India's protected areas cover only about 5 percent of its land and Qureshi says they average about 200 sq km, as reported. Many species, including tigers, elephants and wolves, move through farmland and villages. Protection inside small reserves cannot sustain them on its own.

Species-focused models have also failed in practice. Qureshi says fenced bustard sanctuaries in Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh failed because they ignored grazing and local needs and restrictions that raised blackbuck numbers damaged crops and alienated communities.

Ramakrishnan adds that protecting tigers does not automatically protect other ecosystems; grasslands and human-dominated areas may be better represented by wolves. Funding reflects the imbalance. Qureshi says, as reported, that India spends about Rs 3,500 crore a year on conservation against a need of Rs 9,500-10,000 crore, with tiger reserves relatively well funded and other areas neglected.

TAN's position TAN's position is that species intervention should be India's emergency tool and landscape conservation its standing policy.

Intervention is justified when a population is close to collapse, as with the Great Indian Bustard. But it cannot be the main strategy for a country whose protected areas cover about 5 percent of its land. Lasting conservation depends on managing the wider landscape with the communities who live there.

That requires two changes. Funding should extend beyond tiger reserves to grasslands, wetlands and other neglected ecosystems. And the Wildlife (Protection) Act should be reformed so that research is not treated like hunting; Ramakrishnan says promised changes have not happened in two decades.

Without basic data, such as insect abundance, India cannot plan landscape conservation well. What would change this view: evidence that species flagships consistently raise funding that then reaches whole landscapes would strengthen the case for keeping flagships at the centre of policy.