Endangered wildlife

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. Tiger Reserves are notified by the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) under Section 38V of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, a provision inserted by the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act, 2006. This is a distinct statutory mechanism from the creation of National Parks (Section 35) or Wildlife Sanctuaries (Section 26A). Statement 2 is incorrect. While National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries are indeed WPA-1972 categories, Biosphere Reserves are NOT created under the Wildlife (Protection) Act. They are designated under UNESCO's Man and Biosphere (MAB) Programme — an international designation — and notified administratively by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change without a specific enabling provision in WPA. Statement 3 is incorrect. The tiger conservation framework does NOT treat physical translocation as the preferred strategy for expanding tiger range. The established approach is to recover potential tiger habitat through protection and build up prey densities, allowing tigers to spread naturally. Physical translocation is considered warranted only in rare circumstances — specifically when a suitable area with a recovered prey base lacks connectivity to existing tiger populations. Translocating tigers without ensuring adequate prey leads to human-wildlife conflict and local hostility.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct: Schedule I species under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 enjoy the strictest legal protection available under Indian wildlife law. Any project that destroys their habitat within a reserve forest must navigate clearances under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (for diversion of forest land) and the Environment Impact Assessment process under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Statement 2 is correct: Under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, a reserve forest is the most legally secure forest category — all activities within it are banned unless specifically permitted by the State government through a formal notification; this makes it more restrictive than a 'protected forest,' where activities are presumptively allowed unless specifically prohibited. Statement 3 is false: The Eastern Ghats is indeed recognised as a globally significant biodiversity zone — it overlaps with the Indo-Burma and Himalayan biodiversity hotspots in broader classifications, and more specifically, several of its landscapes fall under Environmental Sensitive Areas (ESAs) and are subject to wildlife and forest protection frameworks; the claim that it has 'no formal regulatory framework for species-level habitat protection' is incorrect. India's Schedule I protections, WLPA, and EIA norms apply nationally, including in the Eastern Ghats.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct: the 30x30 pledge — conserving 30% of both land and oceans by 2030 — was adopted at COP15 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), held in Montreal in December 2022, producing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Over 190 countries endorsed it. Statement 2 is correct: the GBF explicitly stresses that protected areas must be ecologically representative, well-connected across landscapes and seascapes, and equitably managed — the framework's quality criteria go well beyond merely counting hectares. This is why experts warn that increasing the area under conservation is insufficient without effective and fair management. Statement 3 is incorrect: the Kunming-Montreal GBF, like other CBD decisions, is a voluntary, politically agreed framework — it is not a legally binding treaty with enforcement mechanisms. The CBD itself is a framework convention; decisions of its COP set goals and targets but do not create justiciable obligations enforceable in national courts. Countries are expected to translate the GBF into their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), but compliance is peer-driven, not court-driven.

Explanation

Pair 1 is correctly matched: the leopard is classified as 'Endangered' under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and is listed under CITES Appendix I, which flags the species as at risk of extinction and prohibits commercial international trade. Pair 2 is incorrectly matched: CITES Appendix I does NOT merely regulate trade through permits — it prohibits commercial international trade in those species. It is CITES Appendix II that works through a permit/regulation system to prevent over-exploitation while still allowing trade under controls. Pair 3 is correctly matched: the tiger (Panthera tigris) is a well-established CITES Appendix I species, meaning commercial trade in tigers or their parts is prohibited internationally. The critical distinction is between Appendix I (prohibition on commercial trade) and Appendix II (regulated trade via permits) — a common source of confusion in UPSC-level questions on international wildlife trade.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. The near-collapse of India's vulture populations — a decline exceeding 90% — is well-established to have been caused by the widespread use of diclofenac as a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug in livestock. When treated animals died and vultures scavenged their carcasses, the drug caused fatal visceral gout in the birds. This causal chain is the central fact of Indian vulture conservation policy, and led to a government ban on veterinary diclofenac in 2006. Statement 2 is incorrect. In India, livestock carcass dumpsites — including the famous Jorbeer dumpsite in Bikaner — were never purpose-built for vultures. They are traditional livestock disposal sites that vultures began using as de facto feeding grounds because of the large, predictable supply of carrion. This is structurally different from the 'vulture restaurants' of Europe and Africa, which are explicitly managed, drug-free feeding stations designed with vulture conservation as the primary goal. Conflating the two misrepresents the origin and intent of these Indian sites. Statement 3 is correct. Research has drawn a correlation between India's vulture collapse and increased human deaths: as vultures disappeared, feral dog populations expanded (because dogs faced less competition for carcasses), which in turn amplified the spread of rabies to humans. This 'cascading ecosystem service loss' argument — that vultures, as keystone scavengers, suppressed both feral dog numbers and disease transmission — is a core ecological justification for vulture conservation programmes in India.

Explanation

Both statements are correct. The elephant (Elephas maximus) is listed under Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Schedule I species receive the highest level of legal protection — their hunting, poaching, or trade is strictly prohibited, and violations attract the most severe penalties under the Act; limited exceptions exist only for specific situations such as self-defence or a government order to deal with a dangerous animal. Regarding Statement 2, wildlife ecologists and forest managers consistently identify corridor fragmentation — caused by encroachment, solar fencing, agricultural expansion, or human settlements — as the central structural cause of human-elephant conflict. When natural movement corridors are blocked, elephant herds are forced into farmlands and human habitation to reach water and food, dramatically increasing the frequency of fatal encounters. The situation in Chinnakkanal — where solar fences and illegal structures across a known elephant corridor have been directly linked by tribal residents and forest officials to rising human-elephant conflict — is a textbook illustration of this mechanism.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. The Indian cheetah (Asiatic subspecies, Acinonyx jubatus venaticus) was declared extinct in India in 1952. Because no viable Asiatic cheetah population exists in the wild outside Iran, Project Cheetah sources African cheetahs (A. j. jubatus) from Namibia and South Africa — a fact confirmed by the presence of South African cheetahs at Kuno under the reintroduction programme. Statement 2 is correct. Kuno was upgraded from a Wildlife Sanctuary to a National Park in 2018 and is governed under Section 35 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. National Parks represent the strictest protected-area category under Indian law — no grazing, no human habitation, and no resource extraction is ordinarily permissible inside a National Park, making it suitable as an apex carnivore habitat. Statement 3 is incorrect. The IUCN (2013) Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations define a 'reintroduction' strictly as the intentional movement and release of an organism within its indigenous range from which it has disappeared, using individuals of the same (sub)species. Because the Indian cheetah was the Asiatic subspecies and the animals being brought in are the African subspecies, the Kuno project does not satisfy this strict definition. Under IUCN terminology, it would more accurately be classified as a 'conservation introduction' or 'assisted colonisation' — moving a taxon outside its indigenous range to achieve a conservation benefit. This distinction matters for evaluating whether the project meets international best-practice norms for wildlife reintroduction.

Explanation

Pair 1 is incorrectly matched. 'Arribada' (from the Spanish for 'arrival') refers to the mass or synchronised nesting event in which hundreds of thousands of Olive Ridley turtles come ashore together at the same beach — it is a group phenomenon, not solitary nesting. Solitary nesting is a separate behaviour. The characteristic of returning to natal beaches (philopatry) is a distinct biological trait of the species and is not what defines an arribada. Pair 2 is correctly matched. A Turtle Excluder Device is precisely an angled grid fitted into a trawl net: smaller animals like shrimp pass through to the cod-end, while larger animals such as sea turtles are deflected towards an escape opening, allowing them to exit the net alive. Pair 3 is correctly matched. Gahirmatha was declared a marine sanctuary in 1997 under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 — the statute under which Indian wildlife sanctuaries and national parks are notified — and is globally recognised as the largest natural mass nesting ground for Olive Ridley sea turtles. Schedule I of the same Act affords the Olive Ridley the highest level of legal protection in India.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct: India's Crocodile Conservation Project was indeed launched in 1975 as a collaborative effort between the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests and the UNDP, and it is credited with the dramatic recovery of estuarine crocodile populations in places like Bhitarkanika. Statement 2 is correct: The saltwater (estuarine) crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) is placed under Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Schedule I species receive the highest degree of protection under Indian law — hunting, pouring, trapping or any form of harm is a cognizable, non-bailable offence attracting the most severe penalties provided in the Act. Statement 3 is incorrect: Biosphere Reserves are NOT a category created under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. They are designated under UNESCO's Man and Biosphere (MAB) Programme. Bhitarkanika is a National Park (notified under Section 35 of WPA, 1972) and a Ramsar Wetland of International Importance — neither of these is the same as a Biosphere Reserve. Confusing Biosphere Reserve with WPA-defined protected-area categories is a classic error: the WPA recognises National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, Conservation Reserves, and Community Reserves; Biosphere Reserves sit entirely outside that statutory framework.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. CITES operates through three appendices with distinct regulatory regimes: Appendix I covers species threatened with extinction, and commercial international trade in these species is effectively prohibited — only exceptional, non-commercial trade is permitted with both export and import permits. Appendix II covers species not necessarily threatened with extinction but whose trade must be controlled to avoid unsustainable use; trade is allowed but requires an export permit issued by the exporting country's Management Authority. Statement 2 is incorrect because Appendix III does not allow a single country to ban trade for all other parties. Rather, Appendix III is a mechanism by which one CITES Party unilaterally lists a species it wishes to protect within its own territory and requests cooperation from other Parties in controlling trade — it is a cooperative monitoring tool, not a trade ban enforceable on others, and does not require a Conference of the Parties decision. Statement 3 is correct. The Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) is indeed listed on CITES Appendix I, meaning commercial international trade in specimens of this species — including live animals, ivory, skin, and other parts — is prohibited. India, home to a significant population of Asian elephants, is directly affected by this listing as it governs cross-border movements of elephant specimens.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 accords the highest degree of legal protection — species listed here cannot be hunted, and violations attract the severest penalties prescribed under the Act. Statement 2 is correct. Schedule V lists species classified as 'vermin' — animals considered harmful to crops, human life, or property. Such species could be hunted or killed without a hunting licence. The Bengal fox (Vulpes bengalensis) and the golden jackal (Canis aureus) were originally placed in this Schedule V vermin category when the Act was enacted in 1972, reflecting the perception at that time that they were pests. Their subsequent shift to Schedule I marks a complete reversal of their legal status. Statement 3 is incorrect and reflects a common misconception. The Wildlife (Protection) Act does not prescribe any mandatory sequential progression through intermediate schedules (II, III, IV) before a species can be uplisted to Schedule I. Parliament (or the Central Government exercising delegated powers under the Act) can directly transfer a species from Schedule V to Schedule I if conservation imperatives demand it. There is no step-by-step reclassification ladder mandated by the statute.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. The Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) is listed under Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Schedule I confers the highest protection — hunting is absolutely prohibited except in narrowly defined circumstances such as unavoidable self-defence or defence of others. This is a foundational fact of Indian wildlife law. Statement 2 is incorrect. Elephant Reserves are not declared through the same statutory mechanism as Tiger Reserves. Tiger Reserves have an explicit statutory basis under Section 38V of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (inserted by the 2006 amendment), and their notification requires the approval of the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) as well as the National Board for Wildlife. Elephant Reserves, by contrast, were created under Project Elephant (launched 1992) primarily through administrative/executive orders by state governments in consultation with the Centre — they do not have a dedicated standalone provision in the WPA parallel to the Tiger Reserve framework. The procedures are conceptually distinct. Statement 3 is correct. 'Elephant corridor' is not a statutory category defined in the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Corridors are identified through ecological surveys and protected via a combination of administrative measures (such as the District Collector's orders directing removal of fences and encroachments, as seen in Kerala), Revenue/Forest Department land-use controls, and Supreme Court and High Court directions. There is no specific Section in the WPA that legally notifies or defines an elephant corridor the way Section 26A defines a National Park or Section 38V defines a Tiger Reserve.

Explanation

Red Sanders (Pterocarpus santalinus), endemic to the Eastern Ghats, is listed under CITES Appendix II — which regulates (not prohibits) international trade through a permit system to prevent unsustainable exploitation — and under Schedule IV of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 in India. Its export from India is additionally prohibited under the Foreign Trade Policy. This makes Pair 1 correctly matched. The tiger (Panthera tigris) is listed under CITES Appendix I, which bans commercial international trade entirely — only the most endangered species with a threat from trade are placed here. Pair 2 is therefore also correctly matched. Pair 3, however, is incorrect: CITES Appendix III does NOT regulate trade globally to prevent over-exploitation; that is the function of Appendix II. Appendix III lists species that one member country has unilaterally flagged, requesting cooperation from other Parties to control trade in that species — it is a country-specific, cooperative mechanism, not a universal trade-regulation tool. The description in Pair 3 conflates Appendix II's purpose with Appendix III.