resume

literature review of private sector bank

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

• Open access
• Published: 03 September 2022

A literature review of risk, regulation, and profitability of banks using a scientometric study

• Shailesh Rastogi 1 ,
• Arpita Sharma 1 ,
• Geetanjali Pinto 2 &
• Venkata Mrudula Bhimavarapu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9757-1904 1 , 3  

Future Business Journal volume  8 , Article number:  28 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

13k Accesses

2 Citations

Metrics details

This study presents a systematic literature review of regulation, profitability, and risk in the banking industry and explores the relationship between them. It proposes a policy initiative using a model that offers guidelines to establish the right mix among these variables. This is a systematic literature review study. Firstly, the necessary data are extracted using the relevant keywords from the Scopus database. The initial search results are then narrowed down, and the refined results are stored in a file. This file is finally used for data analysis. Data analysis is done using scientometrics tools, such as Table2net and Sciences cape software, and Gephi to conduct network, citation analysis, and page rank analysis. Additionally, content analysis of the relevant literature is done to construct a theoretical framework. The study identifies the prominent authors, keywords, and journals that researchers can use to understand the publication pattern in banking and the link between bank regulation, performance, and risk. It also finds that concentration banking, market power, large banks, and less competition significantly affect banks’ financial stability, profitability, and risk. Ownership structure and its impact on the performance of banks need to be investigated but have been inadequately explored in this study. This is an organized literature review exploring the relationship between regulation and bank performance. The limitations of the regulations and the importance of concentration banking are part of the findings.

Introduction

Globally, banks are under extreme pressure to enhance their performance and risk management. The financial industry still recalls the ignoble 2008 World Financial Crisis (WFC) as the worst economic disaster after the Great Depression of 1929. The regulatory mechanism before 2008 (mainly Basel II) was strongly criticized for its failure to address banks’ risks [ 47 , 87 ]. Thus, it is essential to investigate the regulation of banks [ 75 ]. This study systematically reviews the relevant literature on banks’ performance and risk management and proposes a probable solution.

Issues of performance and risk management of banks

Banks have always been hailed as engines of economic growth and have been the axis of the development of financial systems [ 70 , 85 ]. A vital parameter of a bank’s financial health is the volume of its non-performing assets (NPAs) on its balance sheet. NPAs are advances that delay in payment of interest or principal beyond a few quarters [ 108 , 118 ]. According to Ghosh [ 51 ], NPAs negatively affect the liquidity and profitability of banks, thus affecting credit growth and leading to financial instability in the economy. Hence, healthy banks translate into a healthy economy.

Despite regulations, such as high capital buffers and liquidity ratio requirements, during the second decade of the twenty-first century, the Indian banking sector still witnessed a substantial increase in NPAs. A recent report by the Indian central bank indicates that the gross NPA ratio reached an all-time peak of 11% in March 2018 and 12.2% in March 2019 [ 49 ]. Basel II has been criticized for several reasons [ 98 ]. Schwerter [ 116 ] and Pakravan [ 98 ] highlighted the systemic risk and gaps in Basel II, which could not address the systemic risk of WFC 2008. Basel III was designed to close the gaps in Basel II. However, Schwerter [ 116 ] criticized Basel III and suggested that more focus should have been on active risk management practices to avoid any impending financial crisis. Basel III was proposed to solve these issues, but it could not [ 3 , 116 ]. Samitas and Polyzos [ 113 ] found that Basel III had made banking challenging since it had reduced liquidity and failed to shield the contagion effect. Therefore, exploring some solutions to establish the right balance between regulation, performance, and risk management of banks is vital.

Keeley [ 67 ] introduced the idea of a balance among banks’ profitability, regulation, and NPA (risk-taking). This study presents the balancing act of profitability, regulation, and NPA (risk-taking) of banks as a probable solution to the issues of bank performance and risk management and calls it a triad . Figure  1 illustrates the concept of a triad. Several authors have discussed the triad in parts [ 32 , 96 , 110 , 112 ]. Triad was empirically tested in different countries by Agoraki et al. [ 1 ]. Though the idea of a triad is quite old, it is relevant in the current scenario. The spirit of the triad strongly and collectively admonishes the Basel Accord and exhibits new and exhaustive measures to take up and solve the issue of performance and risk management in banks [ 16 , 98 ]. The 2008 WFC may have caused an imbalance among profitability, regulation, and risk-taking of banks [ 57 ]. Less regulation , more competition (less profitability ), and incentive to take the risk were the cornerstones of the 2008 WFC [ 56 ]. Achieving a balance among the three elements of a triad is a real challenge for banks’ performance and risk management, which this study addresses.

Triad of Profitability, regulation, and NPA (risk-taking). Note The triad [ 131 ] of profitability, regulation, and NPA (risk-taking) is shown in Fig.  1

Triki et al. [ 130 ] revealed that a bank’s performance is a trade-off between the elements of the triad. Reduction in competition increases the profitability of banks. However, in the long run, reduction in competition leads to either the success or failure of banks. Flexible but well-expressed regulation and less competition add value to a bank’s performance. The current review paper is an attempt to explore the literature on this triad of bank performance, regulation, and risk management. This paper has the following objectives:

To systematically explore the existing literature on the triad: performance, regulation, and risk management of banks; and

To propose a model for effective bank performance and risk management of banks.

Literature is replete with discussion across the world on the triad. However, there is a lack of acceptance of the triad as a solution to the woes of bank performance and risk management. Therefore, the findings of the current papers significantly contribute to this regard. This paper collates all the previous studies on the triad systematically and presents a curated view to facilitate the policy makers and stakeholders to make more informed decisions on the issue of bank performance and risk management. This paper also contributes significantly by proposing a DBS (differential banking system) model to solve the problem of banks (Fig.  7 ). This paper examines studies worldwide and therefore ensures the wider applicability of its findings. Applicability of the DBS model is not only limited to one nation but can also be implemented worldwide. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to systematically evaluate the publication pattern in banking using a blend of scientometrics analysis tools, network analysis tools, and content analysis to understand the link between bank regulation, performance, and risk.

This paper is divided into five sections. “ Data and research methods ” section discusses the research methodology used for the study. The data analysis for this study is presented in two parts. “ Bibliometric and network analysis ” section presents the results obtained using bibliometric and network analysis tools, followed by “ Content Analysis ” section, which presents the content analysis of the selected literature. “ Discussion of the findings ” section discusses the results and explains the study’s conclusion, followed by limitations and scope for further research.

Data and research methods

A literature review is a systematic, reproducible, and explicit way of identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing relevant research produced and published by researchers [ 50 , 100 ]. Analyzing existing literature helps researchers generate new themes and ideas to justify the contribution made to literature. The knowledge obtained through evidence-based research also improves decision-making leading to better practical implementation in the real corporate world [ 100 , 129 ].

As Kumar et al. [ 77 , 78 ] and Rowley and Slack [ 111 ] recommended conducting an SLR, this study also employs a three-step approach to understand the publication pattern in the banking area and establish a link between bank performance, regulation, and risk.

Determining the appropriate keywords for exploring the data

Many databases such as Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus are available to extract the relevant data. The quality of a publication is associated with listing a journal in a database. Scopus is a quality database as it has a wider coverage of data [ 100 , 137 ]. Hence, this study uses the Scopus database to extract the relevant data.

For conducting an SLR, there is a need to determine the most appropriate keywords to be used in the database search engine [ 26 ]. Since this study seeks to explore a link between regulation, performance, and risk management of banks, the keywords used were “risk,” “regulation,” “profitability,” “bank,” and “banking.”

Initial search results and limiting criteria

Using the keywords identified in step 1, the search for relevant literature was conducted in December 2020 in the Scopus database. This resulted in the search of 4525 documents from inception till December 2020. Further, we limited our search to include “article” publications only and included subject areas: “Economics, Econometrics and Finance,” “Business, Management and Accounting,” and “Social sciences” only. This resulted in a final search result of 3457 articles. These results were stored in a.csv file which is then used as an input to conduct the SLR.

Data analysis tools and techniques

This study uses bibliometric and network analysis tools to understand the publication pattern in the area of research [ 13 , 48 , 100 , 122 , 129 , 134 ]. Some sub-analyses of network analysis are keyword word, author, citation, and page rank analysis. Author analysis explains the author’s contribution to literature or research collaboration, national and international [ 59 , 99 ]. Citation analysis focuses on many researchers’ most cited research articles [ 100 , 102 , 131 ].

The.csv file consists of all bibliometric data for 3457 articles. Gephi and other scientometrics tools, such as Table2net and ScienceScape software, were used for the network analysis. This.csv file is directly used as an input for this software to obtain network diagrams for better data visualization [ 77 ]. To ensure the study’s quality, the articles with 50 or more citations (216 in number) are selected for content analysis [ 53 , 102 ]. The contents of these 216 articles are analyzed to develop a conceptual model of banks’ triad of risk, regulation, and profitability. Figure  2 explains the data retrieval process for SLR.

Data retrieval process for SLR. Note Stepwise SLR process and corresponding results obtained

Bibliometric and network analysis

Figure  3 [ 58 ] depicts the total number of studies that have been published on “risk,” “regulation,” “profitability,” “bank,” and “banking.” Figure  3 also depicts the pattern of the quality of the publications from the beginning till 2020. It undoubtedly shows an increasing trend in the number of articles published in the area of the triad: “risk” regulation” and “profitability.” Moreover, out of the 3457 articles published in the said area, 2098 were published recently in the last five years and contribute to 61% of total publications in this area.

Articles published from 1976 till 2020 . Note The graph shows the number of documents published from 1976 till 2020 obtained from the Scopus database

Source of publications

A total of 160 journals have contributed to the publication of 3457 articles extracted from Scopus on the triad of risk, regulation, and profitability. Table 1 shows the top 10 sources of the publications based on the citation measure. Table 1 considers two sets of data. One data set is the universe of 3457 articles, and another is the set of 216 articles used for content analysis along with their corresponding citations. The global citations are considered for the study from the Scopus dataset, and the local citations are considered for the articles in the nodes [ 53 , 135 ]. The top 10 journals with 50 or more citations resulted in 96 articles. This is almost 45% of the literature used for content analysis ( n  = 216). Table 1 also shows that the Journal of Banking and Finance is the most prominent in terms of the number of publications and citations. It has 46 articles published, which is about 21% of the literature used for content analysis. Table 1 also shows these core journals’ SCImago Journal Rank indicator and H index. SCImago Journal Rank indicator reflects the impact and prestige of the Journal. This indicator is calculated as the previous three years’ weighted average of the number of citations in the Journal since the year that the article was published. The h index is the number of articles (h) published in a journal and received at least h. The number explains the scientific impact and the scientific productivity of the Journal. Table 1 also explains the time span of the journals covering articles in the area of the triad of risk, regulation, and profitability [ 7 ].

Figure  4 depicts the network analysis, where the connections between the authors and source title (journals) are made. The network has 674 nodes and 911 edges. The network between the author and Journal is classified into 36 modularities. Sections of the graph with dense connections indicate high modularity. A modularity algorithm is a design that measures how strong the divided networks are grouped into modules; this means how well the nodes are connected through a denser route relative to other networks.

Network analysis between authors and journals. Note A node size explains the more linked authors to a journal

The size of the nodes is based on the rank of the degree. The degree explains the number of connections or edges linked to a node. In the current graph, a node represents the name of the Journal and authors; they are connected through the edges. Therefore, the more the authors are associated with the Journal, the higher the degree. The algorithm used for the layout is Yifan Hu’s.

Many authors are associated with the Journal of Banking and Finance, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Journal of Financial Economics, Journal of Financial Services Research, and Journal of Business Ethics. Therefore, they are the most relevant journals on banks’ risk, regulation, and profitability.

Location and affiliation analysis

Affiliation analysis helps to identify the top contributing countries and universities. Figure  5 shows the countries across the globe where articles have been published in the triad. The size of the circle in the map indicates the number of articles published in that country. Table 2 provides the details of the top contributing organizations.

Location of articles published on Triad of profitability, regulation, and risk

Figure  5 shows that the most significant number of articles is published in the USA, followed by the UK. Malaysia and China have also contributed many articles in this area. Table 2 shows that the top contributing universities are also from Malaysia, the UK, and the USA.

Key author analysis

Table 3 shows the number of articles written by the authors out of the 3457 articles. The table also shows the top 10 authors of bank risk, regulation, and profitability.

Fadzlan Sufian, affiliated with the Universiti Islam Malaysia, has the maximum number, with 33 articles. Philip Molyneux and M. Kabir Hassan are from the University of Sharjah and the University of New Orleans, respectively; they contributed significantly, with 20 and 18 articles, respectively.

However, when the quality of the article is selected based on 50 or more citations, Fadzlan Sufian has only 3 articles with more than 50 citations. At the same time, Philip Molyneux and Allen Berger contributed more quality articles, with 8 and 11 articles, respectively.

Keyword analysis

Table 4 shows the keyword analysis (times they appeared in the articles). The top 10 keywords are listed in Table 4 . Banking and banks appeared 324 and 194 times, respectively, which forms the scope of this study, covering articles from the beginning till 2020. The keyword analysis helps to determine the factors affecting banks, such as profitability (244), efficiency (129), performance (107, corporate governance (153), risk (90), and regulation (89).

The keywords also show that efficiency through data envelopment analysis is a determinant of the performance of banks. The other significant determinants that appeared as keywords are credit risk (73), competition (70), financial stability (69), ownership structure (57), capital (56), corporate social responsibility (56), liquidity (46), diversification (45), sustainability (44), credit provision (41), economic growth (41), capital structure (39), microfinance (39), Basel III (37), non-performing assets (37), cost efficiency (30), lending behavior (30), interest rate (29), mergers and acquisition (28), capital adequacy (26), developing countries (23), net interest margin (23), board of directors (21), disclosure (21), leverage (21), productivity (20), innovation (18), firm size (16), and firm value (16).

Keyword analysis also shows the theories of banking and their determinants. Some of the theories are agency theory (23), information asymmetry (21), moral hazard (17), and market efficiency (16), which can be used by researchers when building a theory. The analysis also helps to determine the methodology that was used in the published articles; some of them are data envelopment analysis (89), which measures technical efficiency, panel data analysis (61), DEA (32), Z scores (27), regression analysis (23), stochastic frontier analysis (20), event study (15), and literature review (15). The count for literature review is only 15, which confirms that very few studies have conducted an SLR on bank risk, regulation, and profitability.

Citation analysis

One of the parameters used in judging the quality of the article is its “citation.” Table 5 shows the top 10 published articles with the highest number of citations. Ding and Cronin [ 44 ] indicated that the popularity of an article depends on the number of times it has been cited.

Tahamtan et al. [ 126 ] explained that the journal’s quality also affects its published articles’ citations. A quality journal will have a high impact factor and, therefore, more citations. The citation analysis helps researchers to identify seminal articles. The title of an article with 5900 citations is “A survey of corporate governance.”

Page Rank analysis

Goyal and Kumar [ 53 ] explain that the citation analysis indicates the ‘popularity’ and ‘prestige’ of the published research article. Apart from the citation analysis, one more analysis is essential: Page rank analysis. PageRank is given by Page et al. [ 97 ]. The impact of an article can be measured with one indicator called PageRank [ 135 ]. Page rank analysis indicates how many times an article is cited by other highly cited articles. The method helps analyze the web pages, which get the priority during any search done on google. The analysis helps in understanding the citation networks. Equation  1 explains the page rank (PR) of a published paper, N refers to the number of articles.

T 1,… T n indicates the paper, which refers paper P . C ( Ti ) indicates the number of citations. The damping factor is denoted by a “ d ” which varies in the range of 0 and 1. The page rank of all the papers is equal to 1. Table 6 shows the top papers based on page rank. Tables 5 and 6 together show a contrast in the top ranked articles based on citations and page rank, respectively. Only one article “A survey of corporate governance” falls under the prestigious articles based on the page rank.

Content analysis

Content Analysis is a research technique for conducting qualitative and quantitative analyses [ 124 ]. The content analysis is a helpful technique that provides the required information in classifying the articles depending on their nature (empirical or conceptual) [ 76 ]. By adopting the content analysis method [ 53 , 102 ], the selected articles are examined to determine their content. The classification of available content from the selected set of sample articles that are categorized under different subheads. The themes identified in the relationship between banking regulation, risk, and profitability are as follows.

Regulation and profitability of banks

The performance indicators of the banking industry have always been a topic of interest to researchers and practitioners. This area of research has assumed a special interest after the 2008 WFC [ 25 , 51 , 86 , 114 , 127 , 132 ]. According to research, the causes of poor performance and risk management are lousy banking practices, ineffective monitoring, inadequate supervision, and weak regulatory mechanisms [ 94 ]. Increased competition, deregulation, and complex financial instruments have made banks, including Indian banks, more vulnerable to risks [ 18 , 93 , 119 , 123 ]. Hence, it is essential to investigate the present regulatory machinery for the performance of banks.

There are two schools of thought on regulation and its possible impact on profitability. The first asserts that regulation does not affect profitability. The second asserts that regulation adds significant value to banks’ profitability and other performance indicators. This supports the concept that Delis et al. [ 41 ] advocated that the capital adequacy requirement and supervisory power do not affect productivity or profitability unless there is a financial crisis. Laeven and Majnoni [ 81 ] insisted that provision for loan loss should be part of capital requirements. This will significantly improve active risk management practices and ensure banks’ profitability.

Lee and Hsieh [ 83 ] proposed ambiguous findings that do not support either school of thought. According to Nguyen and Nghiem [ 95 ], while regulation is beneficial, it has a negative impact on bank profitability. As a result, when proposing regulations, it is critical to consider bank performance and risk management. According to Erfani and Vasigh [ 46 ], Islamic banks maintained their efficiency between 2006 and 2013, while most commercial banks lost, furthermore claimed that the financial crisis had no significant impact on Islamic bank profitability.

Regulation and NPA (risk-taking of banks)

The regulatory mechanism of banks in any country must address the following issues: capital adequacy ratio, prudent provisioning, concentration banking, the ownership structure of banks, market discipline, regulatory devices, presence of foreign capital, bank competition, official supervisory power, independence of supervisory bodies, private monitoring, and NPAs [ 25 ].

Kanoujiya et al. [ 64 ] revealed through empirical evidence that Indian bank regulations lack a proper understanding of what banks require and propose reforming and transforming regulation in Indian banks so that responsive governance and regulation can occur to make banks safer, supported by Rastogi et al. [ 105 ]. The positive impact of regulation on NPAs is widely discussed in the literature. [ 94 ] argue that regulation has multiple effects on banks, including reducing NPAs. The influence is more powerful if the country’s banking system is fragile. Regulation, particularly capital regulation, is extremely effective in reducing risk-taking in banks [ 103 ].

Rastogi and Kanoujiya [ 106 ] discovered evidence that disclosure regulations do not affect the profitability of Indian banks, supported by Karyani et al. [ 65 ] for the banks located in Asia. Furthermore, Rastogi and Kanoujiya [ 106 ] explain that disclosure is a difficult task as a regulatory requirement. It is less sustainable due to the nature of the imposed regulations in banks and may thus be perceived as a burden and may be overcome by realizing the benefits associated with disclosure regulation [ 31 , 54 , 101 ]. Zheng et al. [ 138 ] empirically discovered that regulation has no impact on the banks’ profitability in Bangladesh.

Governments enforce banking regulations to achieve a stable and efficient financial system [ 20 , 94 ]. The existing literature is inconclusive on the effects of regulatory compliance on banks’ risks or the reduction of NPAs [ 10 , 11 ]. Boudriga et al. [ 25 ] concluded that the regulatory mechanism plays an insignificant role in reducing NPAs. This is especially true in weak institutions, which are susceptible to corruption. Gonzalez [ 52 ] reported that firm regulations have a positive relationship with banks’ risk-taking, increasing the probability of NPAs. However, Boudriga et al. [ 25 ], Samitas and Polyzos [ 113 ], and Allen et al. [ 3 ] strongly oppose the use of regulation as a tool to reduce banks’ risk-taking.

Kwan and Laderman [ 79 ] proposed three levels in regulating banks, which are lax, liberal, and strict. The liberal regulatory framework leads to more diversification in banks. By contrast, the strict regulatory framework forces the banks to take inappropriate risks to compensate for the loss of business; this is a global problem [ 73 ].

Capital regulation reduces banks’ risk-taking [ 103 , 110 ]. Capital regulation leads to cost escalation, but the benefits outweigh the cost [ 103 ]. The trade-off is worth striking. Altman Z score is used to predict banks’ bankruptcy, and it found that the regulation increased the Altman’s Z-score [ 4 , 46 , 63 , 68 , 72 , 120 ]. Jin et al. [ 62 ] report a negative relationship between regulation and banks’ risk-taking. Capital requirements empowered regulators, and competition significantly reduced banks’ risk-taking [ 1 , 122 ]. Capital regulation has a limited impact on banks’ risk-taking [ 90 , 103 ].

Maji and De [ 90 ] suggested that human capital is more effective in managing banks’ credit risks. Besanko and Kanatas [ 21 ] highlighted that regulation on capital requirements might not mitigate risks in all scenarios, especially when recapitalization has been enforced. Klomp and De Haan [ 72 ] proposed that capital requirements and supervision substantially reduce banks’ risks.

A third-party audit may impart more legitimacy to the banking system [ 23 ]. The absence of third-party intervention is conspicuous, and this may raise a doubt about the reliability and effectiveness of the impact of regulation on bank’s risk-taking.

NPA (risk-taking) in banks and profitability

Profitability affects NPAs, and NPAs, in turn, affect profitability. According to the bad management hypothesis [ 17 ], higher profits would negatively affect NPAs. By contrast, higher profits may lead management to resort to a liberal credit policy (high earnings), which may eventually lead to higher NPAs [ 104 ].

Balasubramaniam [ 8 ] demonstrated that NPA has double negative effects on banks. NPAs increase stressed assets, reducing banks’ productive assets [ 92 , 117 , 136 ]. This phenomenon is relatively underexplored and therefore renders itself for future research.

Triad and the performance of banks

Regulation and triad.

Regulations and their impact on banks have been a matter of debate for a long time. Barth et al. [ 12 ] demonstrated that countries with a central bank as the sole regulatory body are prone to high NPAs. Although countries with multiple regulatory bodies have high liquidity risks, they have low capital requirements [ 40 ]. Barth et al. [ 12 ] supported the following steps to rationalize the existing regulatory mechanism on banks: (1) mandatory information [ 22 ], (2) empowered management of banks, and (3) increased incentive for private agents to exert corporate control. They show that profitability has an inverse relationship with banks’ risk-taking [ 114 ]. Therefore, standard regulatory practices, such as capital requirements, are not beneficial. However, small domestic banks benefit from capital restrictions.

DeYoung and Jang [ 43 ] showed that Basel III-based policies of liquidity convergence ratio (LCR) and net stable funding ratio (NSFR) are not fully executed across the globe, including the US. Dahir et al. [ 39 ] found that a decrease in liquidity and funding increases banks’ risk-taking, making banks vulnerable and reducing stability. Therefore, any regulation on liquidity risk is more likely to create problems for banks.

Concentration banking and triad

Kiran and Jones [ 71 ] asserted that large banks are marginally affected by NPAs, whereas small banks are significantly affected by high NPAs. They added a new dimension to NPAs and their impact on profitability: concentration banking or banks’ market power. Market power leads to less cost and more profitability, which can easily counter the adverse impact of NPAs on profitability [ 6 , 15 ].

The connection between the huge volume of research on the performance of banks and competition is the underlying concept of market power. Competition reduces market power, whereas concentration banking increases market power [ 25 ]. Concentration banking reduces competition, increases market power, rationalizes the banks’ risk-taking, and ensures profitability.

Tabak et al. [ 125 ] advocated that market power incentivizes banks to become risk-averse, leading to lower costs and high profits. They explained that an increase in market power reduces the risk-taking requirement of banks. Reducing banks’ risks due to market power significantly increases when capital regulation is executed objectively. Ariss [ 6 ] suggested that increased market power decreases competition, and thus, NPAs reduce, leading to increased banks’ stability.

Competition, the performance of banks, and triad

Boyd and De Nicolo [ 27 ] supported that competition and concentration banking are inversely related, whereas competition increases risk, and concentration banking decreases risk. A mere shift toward concentration banking can lead to risk rationalization. This finding has significant policy implications. Risk reduction can also be achieved through stringent regulations. Bolt and Tieman [ 24 ] explained that stringent regulation coupled with intense competition does more harm than good, especially concerning banks’ risk-taking.

Market deregulation, as well as intensifying competition, would reduce the market power of large banks. Thus, the entire banking system might take inappropriate and irrational risks [ 112 ]. Maji and Hazarika [ 91 ] added more confusion to the existing policy by proposing that, often, there is no relationship between capital regulation and banks’ risk-taking. However, some cases have reported a positive relationship. This implies that banks’ risk-taking is neutral to regulation or leads to increased risk. Furthermore, Maji and Hazarika [ 91 ] revealed that competition reduces banks’ risk-taking, contrary to popular belief.

Claessens and Laeven [ 36 ] posited that concentration banking influences competition. However, this competition exists only within the restricted circle of banks, which are part of concentration banking. Kasman and Kasman [ 66 ] found that low concentration banking increases banks’ stability. However, they were silent on the impact of low concentration banking on banks’ risk-taking. Baselga-Pascual et al. [ 14 ] endorsed the earlier findings that concentration banking reduces banks’ risk-taking.

Concentration banking and competition are inversely related because of the inherent design of concentration banking. Market power increases when only a few large banks are operating; thus, reduced competition is an obvious outcome. Barra and Zotti [ 9 ] supported the idea that market power, coupled with competition between the given players, injects financial stability into banks. Market power and concentration banking affect each other. Therefore, concentration banking with a moderate level of regulation, instead of indiscriminate regulation, would serve the purpose better. Baselga-Pascual et al. [ 14 ] also showed that concentration banking addresses banks’ risk-taking.

Schaeck et al. [ 115 ], in a landmark study, presented that concentration banking and competition reduce banks’ risk-taking. However, they did not address the relationship between concentration banking and competition, which are usually inversely related. This could be a subject for future research. Research on the relationship between concentration banking and competition is scant, identified as a research gap (“ Research Implications of the study ” section).

Transparency, corporate governance, and triad

One of the big problems with NPAs is the lack of transparency in both the regulatory bodies and banks [ 25 ]. Boudriga et al. [ 25 ] preferred to view NPAs as a governance issue and thus, recommended viewing it from a governance perspective. Ahmad and Ariff [ 2 ] concluded that regulatory capital and top-management quality determine banks’ credit risk. Furthermore, they asserted that credit risk in emerging economies is higher than that of developed economies.

Bad management practices and moral vulnerabilities are the key determinants of insolvency risks of Indian banks [ 95 ]. Banks are an integral part of the economy and engines of social growth. Therefore, banks enjoy liberal insolvency protection in India, especially public sector banks, which is a critical issue. Such a benevolent insolvency cover encourages a bank to be indifferent to its capital requirements. This indifference takes its toll on insolvency risk and profit efficiency. Insolvency protection makes the bank operationally inefficient and complacent.

Foreign equity and corporate governance practices help manage the adverse impact of banks’ risk-taking to ensure the profitability and stability of banks [ 33 , 34 ]. Eastburn and Sharland [ 45 ] advocated that sound management and a risk management system that can anticipate any impending risk are essential. A pragmatic risk mechanism should replace the existing conceptual risk management system.

Lo [ 87 ] found and advocated that the existing legislation and regulations are outdated. He insisted on a new perspective and asserted that giving equal importance to behavioral aspects and the rational expectations of customers of banks is vital. Buston [ 29 ] critiqued the balance sheet risk management practices prevailing globally. He proposed active risk management practices that provided risk protection measures to contain banks’ liquidity and solvency risks.

Klomp and De Haan [ 72 ] championed the cause of giving more autonomy to central banks of countries to provide stability in the banking system. Louzis et al. [ 88 ] showed that macroeconomic variables and the quality of bank management determine banks’ level of NPAs. Regulatory authorities are striving hard to make regulatory frameworks more structured and stringent. However, the recent increase in loan defaults (NPAs), scams, frauds, and cyber-attacks raise concerns about the effectiveness [ 19 ] of the existing banking regulations in India as well as globally.

Discussion of the findings

The findings of this study are based on the bibliometric and content analysis of the sample published articles.

The bibliometric study concludes that there is a growing demand for researchers and good quality research

The keyword analysis suggests that risk regulation, competition, profitability, and performance are key elements in understanding the banking system. The main authors, keywords, and journals are grouped in a Sankey diagram in Fig.  6 . Researchers can use the following information to understand the publication pattern on banking and its determinants.

Sankey Diagram of main authors, keywords, and journals. Note Authors contribution using scientometrics tools

Research Implications of the study

The study also concludes that a balance among the three components of triad is the solution to the challenges of banks worldwide, including India. We propose the following recommendations and implications for banks:

This study found that “the lesser the better,” that is, less regulation enhances the performance and risk management of banks. However, less regulation does not imply the absence of regulation. Less regulation means the following:

Flexible but full enforcement of the regulations

Customization, instead of a one-size-fits-all regulatory system rooted in a nation’s indigenous requirements, is needed. Basel or generic regulation can never achieve what a customized compliance system can.

A third-party audit, which is above the country's central bank, should be mandatory, and this would ensure that all three aspects of audit (policy formulation, execution, and audit) are handled by different entities.

Competition

This study asserts that the existing literature is replete with poor performance and risk management due to excessive competition. Banking is an industry of a different genre, and it would be unfair to compare it with the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) or telecommunication industry, where competition injects efficiency into the system, leading to customer empowerment and satisfaction. By contrast, competition is a deterrent to the basic tenets of safe banking. Concentration banking is more effective in handling the multi-pronged balance between the elements of the triad. Concentration banking reduces competition to lower and manageable levels, reduces banks’ risk-taking, and enhances profitability.

No incentive to take risks

It is found that unless banks’ risk-taking is discouraged, the problem of high NPA (risk-taking) cannot be addressed. Concentration banking is a disincentive to risk-taking and can be a game-changer in handling banks’ performance and risk management.

Research on the risk and performance of banks reveals that the existing regulatory and policy arrangement is not a sustainable proposition, especially for a country where half of the people are unbanked [ 37 ]. Further, the triad presented by Keeley [ 67 ] is a formidable real challenge to bankers. The balance among profitability, risk-taking, and regulation is very subtle and becomes harder to strike, just as the banks globally have tried hard to achieve it. A pragmatic intervention is needed; hence, this study proposes a change in the banking structure by having two types of banks functioning simultaneously to solve the problems of risk and performance of banks. The proposed two-tier banking system explained in Fig.  7 can be a great solution. This arrangement will help achieve the much-needed balance among the elements of triad as presented by Keeley [ 67 ].

Conceptual Framework. Note Fig.  7 describes the conceptual framework of the study

The first set of banks could be conventional in terms of their structure and should primarily be large-sized. The number of such banks should be moderate. There is a logic in having only a few such banks to restrict competition; thus, reasonable market power could be assigned to them [ 55 ]. However, a reduction in competition cannot be over-assumed, and banks cannot become complacent. As customary, lending would be the main source of revenue and income for these banks (fund based activities) [ 82 ]. The proposed two-tier system can be successful only when regulation especially for risk is objectively executed [ 29 ]. The second set of banks could be smaller in size and more in number. Since they are more in number, they would encounter intense competition for survival and for generating more business. Small is beautiful, and thus, this set of banks would be more agile and adaptable and consequently more efficient and profitable. The main source of revenue for this set of banks would not be loans and advances. However, non-funding and non-interest-bearing activities would be the major revenue source. Unlike their traditional and large-sized counterparts, since these banks are smaller in size, they are less likely to face risk-taking and NPAs [ 74 ].

Sarmiento and Galán [ 114 ] presented the concerns of large and small banks and their relative ability and appetite for risk-taking. High risk could threaten the existence of small-sized banks; thus, they need robust risk shielding. Small size makes them prone to failure, and they cannot convert their risk into profitability. However, large banks benefit from their size and are thus less vulnerable and can convert risk into profitable opportunities.

India has experimented with this Differential Banking System (DBS) (two-tier system) only at the policy planning level. The execution is impending, and it highly depends on the political will, which does not appear to be strong now. The current agenda behind the DBS model is not to ensure the long-term sustainability of banks. However, it is currently being directed to support the agenda of financial inclusion by extending the formal credit system to the unbanked masses [ 107 ]. A shift in goal is needed to employ the DBS as a strategic decision, but not merely a tool for financial inclusion. Thus, the proposed two-tier banking system (DBS) can solve the issue of profitability through proper regulation and less risk-taking.

The findings of Triki et al. [ 130 ] support the proposed DBS model, in this study. Triki et al. [ 130 ] advocated that different component of regulations affect banks based on their size, risk-taking, and concentration banking (or market power). Large size, more concentration banking with high market power, and high risk-taking coupled with stringent regulation make the most efficient banks in African countries. Sharifi et al. [ 119 ] confirmed that size advantage offers better risk management to large banks than small banks. The banks should modify and work according to the economic environment in the country [ 69 ], and therefore, the proposed model could help in solving the current economic problems.

This is a fact that DBS is running across the world, including in India [ 60 ] and other countries [ 133 ]. India experimented with DBS in the form of not only regional rural banks (RRBs) but payments banks [ 109 ] and small finance banks as well [ 61 ]. However, the purpose of all the existing DBS models, whether RRBs [ 60 ], payment banks, or small finance banks, is financial inclusion, not bank performance and risk management. Hence, they are unable to sustain and are failing because their model is only social instead of a much-needed dual business-cum-social model. The two-tier model of DBS proposed in the current paper can help serve the dual purpose. It may not only be able to ensure bank performance and risk management but also serve the purpose of inclusive growth of the economy.

Conclusion of the study

The study’s conclusions have some significant ramifications. This study can assist researchers in determining their study plan on the current topic by using a scientific approach. Citation analysis has aided in the objective identification of essential papers and scholars. More collaboration between authors from various countries/universities may help countries/universities better understand risk regulation, competition, profitability, and performance, which are critical elements in understanding the banking system. The regulatory mechanism in place prior to 2008 failed to address the risk associated with banks [ 47 , 87 ]. There arises a necessity and motivates authors to investigate the current topic. The present study systematically explores the existing literature on banks’ triad: performance, regulation, and risk management and proposes a probable solution.

To conclude the bibliometric results obtained from the current study, from the number of articles published from 1976 to 2020, it is evident that most of the articles were published from the year 2010, and the highest number of articles were published in the last five years, i.e., is from 2015. The authors discovered that researchers evaluate articles based on the scope of critical journals within the subject area based on the detailed review. Most risk, regulation, and profitability articles are published in peer-reviewed journals like; “Journal of Banking and Finance,” “Journal of Accounting and Economics,” and “Journal of Financial Economics.” The rest of the journals are presented in Table 1 . From the affiliation statistics, it is clear that most of the research conducted was affiliated with developed countries such as Malaysia, the USA, and the UK. The researchers perform content analysis and Citation analysis to access the type of content where the research on the current field of knowledge is focused, and citation analysis helps the academicians understand the highest cited articles that have more impact in the current research area.

Practical implications of the study

The current study is unique in that it is the first to systematically evaluate the publication pattern in banking using a combination of scientometrics analysis tools, network analysis tools, and content analysis to understand the relationship between bank regulation, performance, and risk. The study’s practical implications are that analyzing existing literature helps researchers generate new themes and ideas to justify their contribution to literature. Evidence-based research knowledge also improves decision-making, resulting in better practical implementation in the real corporate world [ 100 , 129 ].

Limitations and scope for future research

The current study only considers a single database Scopus to conduct the study, and this is one of the limitations of the study spanning around the multiple databases can provide diverse results. The proposed DBS model is a conceptual framework that requires empirical testing, which is a limitation of this study. As a result, empirical testing of the proposed DBS model could be a future research topic.

Availability of data and materials

SCOPUS database.

Abbreviations

Systematic literature review

World Financial Crisis

Non-performing assets

Differential banking system

SCImago Journal Rank Indicator

Liquidity convergence ratio

Net stable funding ratio

Fast moving consumer goods

Regional rural banks

Agoraki M-EK, Delis MD, Pasiouras F (2011) Regulations, competition and bank risk-taking in transition countries. J Financ Stab 7(1):38–48

Google Scholar  

Ahmad NH, Ariff M (2007) Multi-country study of bank credit risk determinants. Int J Bank Financ 5(1):35–62

Allen B, Chan KK, Milne A, Thomas S (2012) Basel III: Is the cure worse than the disease? Int Rev Financ Anal 25:159–166

Altman EI (2018) A fifty-year retrospective on credit risk models, the Altman Z-score family of models, and their applications to financial markets and managerial strategies. J Credit Risk 14(4):1–34

Alvarez F, Jermann UJ (2000) Efficiency, equilibrium, and asset pricing with risk of default. Econometrica 68(4):775–797

Ariss RT (2010) On the implications of market power in banking: evidence from developing countries. J Bank Financ 34(4):765–775

Aznar-Sánchez JA, Piquer-Rodríguez M, Velasco-Muñoz JF, Manzano-Agugliaro F (2019) Worldwide research trends on sustainable land use in agriculture. Land Use Policy 87:104069

Balasubramaniam C (2012) Non-performing assets and profitability of commercial banks in India: assessment and emerging issues. Nat Mon Refereed J Res Commer Manag 1(1):41–52

Barra C, Zotti R (2017) On the relationship between bank market concentration and stability of financial institutions: evidence from the Italian banking sector, MPRA working Paper No 79900. Last Accessed on Jan 2021 https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/79900/1/MPRA_paper_79900.pdf

Barth JR, Caprio G, Levine R (2004) Bank regulation and supervision: what works best? J Financ Intermed 2(13):205–248

Barth JR, Caprio G, Levine R (2008) Bank regulations are changing: For better or worse? Comp Econ Stud 50(4):537–563

Barth JR, Dopico LG, Nolle DE, Wilcox JA (2002) Bank safety and soundness and the structure of bank supervision: a cross-country analysis. Int Rev Financ 3(3–4):163–188

Bartolini M, Bottani E, Grosse EH (2019) Green warehousing: systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. J Clean Prod 226:242–258

Baselga-Pascual L, Trujillo-Ponce A, Cardone-Riportella C (2015) Factors influencing bank risk in Europe: evidence from the financial crisis. N Am J Econ Financ 34(1):138–166

Beck T, Demirgüç-Kunt A, Levine R (2006) Bank concentration, competition, and crises: first results. J Bank Financ 30(5):1581–1603

Berger AN, Demsetz RS, Strahan PE (1999) The consolidation of the financial services industry: causes, consequences, and implications for the future. J Bank Financ 23(2–4):135–194

Berger AN, Deyoung R (1997) Problem loans and cost efficiency in commercial banks. J Bank Financ 21(6):849–870

Berger AN, Udell GF (1998) The economics of small business finance: the roles of private equity and debt markets in the financial growth cycle. J Bank Financ 22(6–8):613–673

Berger AN, Udell GF (2002) Small business credit availability and relationship lending: the importance of bank organisational structure. Econ J 112(477):F32–F53

Berger AN, Udell GF (2006) A more complete conceptual framework for SME finance. J Bank Financ 30(11):2945–2966

Besanko D, Kanatas G (1996) The regulation of bank capital: Do capital standards promote bank safety? J Financ Intermed 5(2):160–183

Beyer A, Cohen DA, Lys TZ, Walther BR (2010) The financial reporting environment: review of the recent literature. J Acc Econ 50(2–3):296–343

Bikker JA (2010) Measuring performance of banks: an assessment. J Appl Bus Econ 11(4):141–159

Bolt W, Tieman AF (2004) Banking competition, risk and regulation. Scand J Econ 106(4):783–804

Boudriga A, BoulilaTaktak N, Jellouli S (2009) Banking supervision and non-performing loans: a cross-country analysis. J Financ Econ Policy 1(4):286–318

Bouzon M, Miguel PAC, Rodriguez CMT (2014) Managing end of life products: a review of the literature on reverse logistics in Brazil. Manag Environ Qual Int J 25(5):564–584. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-04-2013-0027

Article   Google Scholar  

Boyd JH, De Nicolo G (2005) The theory of bank risk taking and competition revisited. J Financ 60(3):1329–1343

Brealey RA, Myers SC, Allen F, Mohanty P (2012) Principles of corporate finance. Tata McGraw-Hill Education

Buston CS (2016) Active risk management and banking stability. J Bank Financ 72:S203–S215

Casu B, Girardone C (2006) Bank competition, concentration and efficiency in the single European market. Manch Sch 74(4):441–468

Charumathi B, Ramesh L (2020) Impact of voluntary disclosure on valuation of firms: evidence from Indian companies. Vision 24(2):194–203

Chen X (2007) Banking deregulation and credit risk: evidence from the EU. J Financ Stab 2(4):356–390

Chen H-J, Lin K-T (2016) How do banks make the trade-offs among risks? The role of corporate governance. J Bank Financ 72(1):S39–S69

Chen M, Wu J, Jeon BN, Wang R (2017) Do foreign banks take more risk? Evidence from emerging economies. J Bank Financ 82(1):20–39

Claessens S, Laeven L (2003) Financial development, property rights, and growth. J Financ 58(6):2401–2436. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1540-6261.2003.00610.x

Claessens S, Laeven L (2004) What drives bank competition? Some international evidence. J Money Credit Bank 36(3):563–583

Cnaan RA, Moodithaya M, Handy F (2012) Financial inclusion: lessons from rural South India. J Soc Policy 41(1):183–205

Core JE, Holthausen RW, Larcker DF (1999) Corporate governance, chief executive officer compensation, and firm performance. J Financ Econ 51(3):371–406

Dahir AM, Mahat FB, Ali NAB (2018) Funding liquidity risk and bank risk-taking in BRICS countries: an application of system GMM approach. Int J Emerg Mark 13(1):231–248

Dechow P, Ge W, Schrand C (2010) Understanding earnings quality: a review of the proxies, their determinants, and their consequences. J Acc Econ 50(2–3):344–401

Delis MD, Molyneux P, Pasiouras F (2011) Regulations and productivity growth in banking: evidence from transition economies. J Money Credit Bank 43(4):735–764

Demirguc-Kunt A, Laeven L, Levine R (2003) Regulations, market structure, institutions, and the cost of financial intermediation (No. w9890). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Deyoung R, Jang KY (2016) Do banks actively manage their liquidity? J Bank Financ 66:143–161

Ding Y, Cronin B (2011) Popularand/orprestigious? Measures of scholarly esteem. Inf Process Manag 47(1):80–96

Eastburn RW, Sharland A (2017) Risk management and managerial mindset. J Risk Financ 18(1):21–47

Erfani GR, Vasigh B (2018) The impact of the global financial crisis on profitability of the banking industry: a comparative analysis. Economies 6(4):66

Erkens DH, Hung M, Matos P (2012) Corporate governance in the 2007–2008 financial crisis: evidence from financial institutions worldwide. J Corp Finan 18(2):389–411

Fahimnia B, Sarkis J, Davarzani H (2015) Green supply chain management: a review and bibliometric analysis. Int J Prod Econ 162:101–114

Financial Stability Report (2019) Financial stability report (20), December 2019. https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/PublicationReportDetails.aspx?UrlPage=&ID=946 Accesses on March 2020

Fink A (2005) Conducting Research Literature Reviews:From the Internet to Paper, 2nd edn. SAGE Publications

Ghosh A (2015) Banking-industry specific and regional economic determinants of non-performing loans: evidence from US states. J Financ Stab 20:93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2015.08.004

Gonzalez F (2005) Bank regulation and risk-taking incentives: an international comparison of bank risk. J Bank Financ 29(5):1153–1184

Goyal K, Kumar S (2021) Financial literacy: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis. Int J Consum Stud 45(1):80–105

Grassa R, Moumen N, Hussainey K (2020) Do ownership structures affect risk disclosure in Islamic banks? International evidence. J Financ Rep Acc 19(3):369–391

Haque F, Shahid R (2016) Ownership, risk-taking and performance of banks in emerging economies: evidence from India. J Financ Econ Policy 8(3):282–297

Hellmann TF, Murdock KC, Stiglitz JE (2000) Liberalization, moral hazard in banking, and prudential regulation: Are capital requirements enough? Am Econ Rev 90(1):147–165

Hirshleifer D (2001) Investor psychology and asset pricing. J Financ 56(4):1533–1597

Huang J, You JX, Liu HC, Song MS (2020) Failure mode and effect analysis improvement: a systematic literature review and future research agenda. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 199:106885

Ibáñez Zapata A (2017) Bibliometric analysis of the regulatory compliance function within the banking sector (Doctoral dissertation). Last Accessed on Jan 2021 https://riunet.upv.es/bitstream/handle/10251/85952/Bibliometric%20analysis_AIZ_v4.pdf?sequence=1

Ibrahim MS (2010) Performance evaluation of regional rural banks in India. Int Bus Res 3(4):203–211

Jayadev M, Singh H, Kumar P (2017) Small finance banks: challenges. IIMB Manag Rev 29(4):311–325

Jin JY, Kanagaretnam K, Lobo GJ, Mathieu R (2013) Impact of FDICIA internal controls on bank risk taking. J Bank Financ 37(2):614–624

Joshi MK (2020) Financial performance analysis of select Indian Public Sector Banks using Altman’s Z-Score model. SMART J Bus Manag Stud 16(2):74–87

Kanoujiya J, Bhimavarapu VM, Rastogi S (2021) Banks in India: a balancing act between profitability, regulation and NPA. Vision, 09722629211034417

Karyani E, Dewo SA, Santoso W, Frensidy B (2020) Risk governance and bank profitability in ASEAN-5: a comparative and empirical study. Int J Emerg Mark 15(5):949–969

Kasman S, Kasman A (2015) Bank competition, concentration and financial stability in the Turkish banking industry. Econ Syst 39(3):502–517

Keeley MC (1990) Deposit insurance, risk, and market power in banking. Am Econ Rev 1:1183–1200

Khaddafi M, Heikal M, Nandari A (2017) Analysis Z-score to predict bankruptcy in banks listed in indonesia stock exchange. Int J Econ Financ Issues 7(3):326–330

Khanna T, Yafeh Y (2007) Business groups in emerging markets: Paragons or parasites? J Econ Lit 45(2):331–372

King RG, Levine R (1993) Finance and growth: schumpeter might be right. Q J Econ 108(3):717–737

Kiran KP, Jones TM (2016) Effect of non performing assets on the profitability of banks–a selective study. Int J Bus Gen Manag 5(2):53–60

Klomp J, De Haan J (2015) Banking risk and regulation: Does one size fit all? J Bank Financ 36(12):3197–3212

Koehn M, Santomero AM (1980) Regulation of bank capital and portfolio risk. J Financ 35(5):1235–1244

Köhler M (2015) Which banks are more risky? The impact of business models on bank stability. J Financ Stab 16(1):195–212

Kothari SP (2001) Capital markets research in accounting. J Account Econ 31(1–3):105–231

Kumar S, Goyal N (2015) Behavioural biases in investment decision making – a systematic literature review. Qual Res Financ Mark 7(1):88–108

Kumar S, Kamble S, Roy MH (2020) Twenty-five years of Benchmarking: an International Journal (BIJ): a bibliometric overview. Benchmarking Int J 27(2):760–780. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-07-2019-0314

Kumar S, Sureka R, Colombage S (2020) Capital structure of SMEs: a systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. Manag Rev Q 70(4):535–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-019-00175-4

Kwan SH, Laderman ES (1999) On the portfolio effects of financial convergence-a review of the literature. Econ Rev 2:18–31

Lado AA, Boyd NG, Hanlon SC (1997) Competition, cooperation, and the search for economic rents: a syncretic model. Acad Manag Rev 22(1):110–141

Laeven L, Majnoni G (2003) Loan loss provisioning and economic slowdowns: Too much, too late? J Financ Intermed 12(2):178–197

Laeven L, Ratnovski L, Tong H (2016) Bank size, capital, and systemic risk: Some international evidence. J Bank Finance 69(1):S25–S34

Lee C-C, Hsieh M-F (2013) The impact of bank capital on profitability and risk in Asian banking. J Int Money Financ 32(1):251–281

Leech D, Leahy J (1991) Ownership structure, control type classifications and the performance of large British companies. Econ J 101(409):1418–1437

Levine R (1997) Financial development and economic growth: views and agenda. J Econ Lit 35(2):688–726

Lim CY, Woods M, Humphrey C, Seow JL (2017) The paradoxes of risk management in the banking sector. Br Acc Rev 49(1):75–90

Lo AW (2009) Regulatory reform in the wake of the financial crisis of 2007–2008. J Financ Econ Policy 1(1):4–43

Louzis DP, Vouldis AT, Metaxas VL (2012) Macroeconomic and bank-specific determinants of non-performing loans in Greece: a comparative study of mortgage, business and consumer loan portfolios. J Bank Financ 36(4):1012–1027

Maddaloni A, Peydró J-L (2011) Bank risk-taking, securitization, supervision, and low interest rates: evidence from the Euro-area and the U.S. lending standards. Rev Financ Stud 24(6):2121–2165. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhr015

Maji SG, De UK (2015) Regulatory capital and risk of Indian banks: a simultaneous equation approach. J Financ Econ Policy 7(2):140–156

Maji SG, Hazarika P (2018) Capital regulation, competition and risk-taking behavior of Indian banks in a simultaneous approach. Manag Financ 44(4):459–477

Messai AS, Jouini F (2013) Micro and macro determinants of non-performing loans. Int J Econ Financ Issues 3(4):852–860

Mitra S, Karathanasopoulos A, Sermpinis G, Dunis C, Hood J (2015) Operational risk: emerging markets, sectors and measurement. Eur J Oper Res 241(1):122–132

Mohsni S, Otchere I (2018) Does regulatory regime matter for bank risk-taking? A comparative analysis of US and Canada, d/Seas Working Papers-ISSN 2611-0172 1(1):28–28

Nguyen TPT, Nghiem SH (2015) The interrelationships among default risk, capital ratio and efficiency: evidence from Indian banks. Manag Financ 41(5):507–525

Niinimäki J-P (2004) The effects of competition on banks’ risk taking. J Econ 81(3):199–222

Page L, Brin S, Motwani R, Winograd T (1999) The PageRank citation ranking: bringing order to the web. Stanford InfoLab

Pakravan K (2014) Bank capital: the case against Basel. J Financ Regul Compl 22(3):208–218

Palacios-Callender M, Roberts SA, Roth-Berghofer T (2016) Evaluating patterns of national and international collaboration in Cuban science using bibliometric tools. J Doc 72(2):362–390. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-11-2014-0164

Pinto G, Rastogi S, Kadam S, Sharma A (2019) Bibliometric study on dividend policy. Qual Res Financ Mark 12(1):72–95

Polizzi S, Scannella E (2020) An empirical investigation into market risk disclosure: Is there room to improve for Italian banks? J Financ Regul Compl 28(3):465–483

Prasad P, Narayanasamy S, Paul S, Chattopadhyay S, Saravanan P (2019) Review of literature on working capital management and future research agenda. J Econ Surv 33(3):827–861

Rahman MM, Zheng C, Ashraf BN, Rahman MM (2018) Capital requirements, the cost of financial intermediation and bank risk-taking: empirical evidence from Bangladesh. Res Int Bus Financ 44(1):488–503

Rajan RG (1994) Why bank credit policies fluctuate: a theory and some evidence. Q J Econ 109(2):399–441

Rastogi S, Gupte R, Meenakshi R (2021) A holistic perspective on bank performance using regulation, profitability, and risk-taking with a view on ownership concentration. J Risk Financ Manag 14(3):111

Rastogi S, Kanoujiya J (2022) Does transparency and disclosure (T&D) improve the performance of banks in India? Int J Product Perform Manag. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-10-2021-0613

Rastogi S, Ragabiruntha E (2018) Financial inclusion and socioeconomic development: gaps and solution. Int J Soc Econ 45(7):1122–1140

RBI (2001) Prudential Norms on income recognition, asset classification, and provisioning -pertaining to advances. Accessed on Apr 2020. https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/notification/PDFs/23068.pdf

Reddy S (2018) Announcement of payment banks and stock performance of commercial banks in India. J Internet Bank Commer 23(1):1–12

Repullo R (2004) Capital requirements, market power, and risk-taking in banking. J Financ Intermed 13(2):156–182

Rowley J, Slack F (2004) Conducting a literature review. Manag Res News 27(6):31–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170410784185

Salas V, Saurina J (2003) Deregulation, market power and risk behaviour in Spanish banks. Eur Econ Rev 47(6):1061–1075

Samitas A, Polyzos S (2015) To Basel or not to Basel? Banking crises and contagion. Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance 23(3):298–318

Sarmiento M, Galán JE (2017) The influence of risk-taking on bank efficiency: evidence from Colombia. Emerg Mark Rev 32:52–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar.2017.05.007

Schaeck K, Cihak M, Wolfe S (2009) Are competitive banking systems more stable? J Money Credit Bank 41(4):711–734

Schwerter S (2011) Basel III’s ability to mitigate systemic risk. J Financ Regul Compl 19(4):337–354

Sen S, Sen RL (2014) Impact of NPAs on bank profitability: an empirical study. In: Ray N, Chakraborty K (eds) Handbook of research on strategic business infrastructure development and contemporary issues in finance. IGI Global, pp 124–134. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-5154-8.ch010

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Shajahan K (1998) Non-performing assets of banks: Have they really declined? And on whose account? Econ Pol Wkly 33(12):671–674

Sharifi S, Haldar A, Rao SN (2016) Relationship between operational risk management, size, and ownership of Indian banks. Manag Financ 42(10):930–942

Sharma A, Theresa L, Mhatre J, Sajid M (2019) Application of altman Z-Score to RBI defaulters: Indian case. Asian J Res Bus Econ Manag 9(4):1–11

Shehzad CT, De Haan J (2015) Supervisory powers and bank risk taking. J Int Finan Markets Inst Money 39(1):15–24

Shen L, Xiong B, Hu J (2017) Research status, hotspotsandtrends forinformation behavior in China using bibliometric and co-word analysis. J Doc 73(4):618–633

Shleifer A, Vishny RW (1997) A survey of corporate governance. J Financ 52(2):737–783

Singh HP, Kumar S (2014) Working capital management: a literature review and research agenda. Qual Res Financ Mark 6(2):173–197

Tabak BM, Fazio DM, Cajueiro DO (2013) Systemically important banks and financial stability: the case of Latin America. J Bank Financ 37(10):3855–3866

Tahamtan I, SafipourAfshar A, Ahamdzadeh K (2016) Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics 107(3):1195–1225

Thakor AV (2018) Post-crisis regulatory reform in banking: Address insolvency risk, not illiquidity! J Financ Stab 37(1):107–111

Thomsen S, Pedersen T (2000) Ownership structure and economic performance in the largest European companies. Strategic Manag J 21(6):689–705

Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14(3):207–222

Triki T, Kouki I, Dhaou MB, Calice P (2017) Bank regulation and efficiency: What works for Africa? Res Int Bus Financ 39(1):183–205

Tsay M, Shu Z (2011) Journal bibliometric analysis: a case study on the journal of documentation. J Doc 67(5):806–822

Vento GA, La Ganga P (2009) Bank liquidity risk management and supervision: which lessons from recent market turmoil. J Money Invest Bank 10(10):78–125

Wahid ANM (1994) The grameen bank and poverty alleviation in Bangladesh: theory, evidence and limitations. Am J Econ Sociol 53(1):1–15

Xiao Y, Watson M (2019) Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. J Plan Educ Res 39(1):93–112

Xu X, Chen X, Jia F, Brown S, Gong Y, Xu Y (2018) Supply chain finance: a systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. Int J Prod Econ 204:160–173

Yadav M (2011) Impact of non performing assets on profitability and productivity of public sector banks in India. AFBE J 4(1):232–239

Yong-Hak J (2013), Web of Science, Thomson Reuters

Zheng C, Rahman MM, Begum M, Ashraf BN (2017) Capital regulation, the cost of financial intermediation and bank profitability: evidence from Bangladesh. J Risk Financ Manag 10(2):9

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not Applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Symbiosis Institute of Business Management, Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune, India

Shailesh Rastogi, Arpita Sharma & Venkata Mrudula Bhimavarapu

SIES School of Business Studies, Navi Mumbai, India

Geetanjali Pinto

School of Commerce and Management, D Y Patil International University, Akurdi, Pune, India

Venkata Mrudula Bhimavarapu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

‘SR’ performed Abstract, Introduction, and Data methodology sections and was the major contributor; ‘AS’ performed Bibliometric and Network analysis and conceptual framework; ‘GP’ performed citation analysis and discussion section; ‘VMB’ collated data from the database and concluded the article. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Venkata Mrudula Bhimavarapu .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Rastogi, S., Sharma, A., Pinto, G. et al. A literature review of risk, regulation, and profitability of banks using a scientometric study. Futur Bus J 8 , 28 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-022-00146-4

Download citation

Received : 11 March 2022

Accepted : 16 August 2022

Published : 03 September 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-022-00146-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Bank performance
• Profitability
• Bibliometric analysis
• Scientometric analysis

Review of Literature

• First Online: 22 April 2020

Cite this chapter

• Atanu Sengupta 3 &
• Sanjoy De 4  

Part of the book series: India Studies in Business and Economics ((ISBE))

224 Accesses

The literature on bank performance is indeed voluminous. Here we try to give some studies on performance of banks in India which employ both traditional and DEA methods. Again for the studies pertaining to the window DEA-based banking efficiency analysis, we review only the major studies outside the country as window-DEA-based banking efficiency studies are relatively less in India. Analyzing the literature, we find that the bank efficiency in the Indian context generally neglects the structure of the market conditions. This is a serious lacuna since efficiency analysis cannot be performed in void.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Angadi, V. B. (1983). Measurement of efficiency in banking industry. Reserve Bank of India Occasional Papers, 4 (1), 110–117.

Google Scholar  

Angadi, V. B. (1987). Integrated approach to study banks’ profitability. Prajnan, 16 (4), 523–538.

Avkiran, N. K. (2004). Decomposing technical efficiency and window analysis. Studies in Economics and Finance, 22 (1), 61–91.

Article   Google Scholar  

Baidya, M. K., & Mitra, D. (2012). An analysis of the technical efficiency of Indian public sector banks through DEA approach. International Journal of Business Performance Management, 13 (3/4), 341–365.

Berger, A. N., & Humphrey, D. B. (1997). Efficiency of financial institutions: International survey and directions for future research. European Journal of Operational Research, 98, 175–212.

Bhattacharya, A., Lovell, C. A. K., & Sahay, P. (1997). The impact of liberalization on the productive efficiency of Indian commercial banks. European Journal of Operational Research, 98, 332–345.

Bhaumik, S. K., & Dimova, R. (2004). How important is ownership in a market with level-playing field? The Indian banking sector revisited. Journal of Comparative Economics, 32, 165–180.

Bhide, M. G., Ghosh, S., & Prasad, A. (2002, February). Banking sector reforms: A critical overview. Economic and Political Weekly , XXXVII (5), 2155–6.

Chakrabarti, R., & Chawla, G. (2005). Banking efficiency in India since the reforms: An assessment. Money and Finance, 9 (2), 31–47.

Das, A. (1997). Technical, allocative and scale efficiency of public sector banks in India. Reserve Bank of India Occasional Papers , 18 (2, 3), 279–301.

Das, A., Nag, A., & Ray, S. C. (2005). Liberalization, ownership and efficiency in Indian banking a nonparametric analysis. Economic and Political Weekly , 1190–1197.

Das, A., & Ghosh, S. (2006). Financial deregulation and efficiency: An empirical analysis of Indian banks during the post reform period. Review of Financial Economics , 15 (3), 193–221.

Das, A., & Ghosh, S. (2009). Financial deregulation and profit efficiency: A non-parametric analysis of Indian banks. Munich Personal RePEc Archive .

Dwivedi, A., & Charyulu, D. K. (2011). Efficiency of Indian banking industry in the post-reform Era. Working paper No 2011-03-01, research and publications . Ahmedabad, India: Indian Institute of Management.

Galagadera, D. U. A., & Edirisuriya, P. (2005). Performance of Indian commercial banks (1995–2002): An application of data envelopment analysis and Malmquist productivity index. Working paper . Monash University.

Gu, H., & Yue, J. (2011). The relationship between bank efficiency and stock returns: Evidence from Chinese listed banks. World Journal of Social Sciences, 1 (4), 95–106.

Chinubhai, A., Doshit, Y., & Gupta, O. K. (2008). Dynamics of productive efficiency of Indian banks. International Journal of Operations Research, 5 (2), 78–90.

Joshi, P. N. (1987). Norms and techniques of bank performance. In V. S. Mahajan (ed.), Studies in Indian banking and finance (pp. 329–38). New Delhi: Deep and Deep Publications.

Joshi, V., & Little, I. M. D. (1996). India’s economic reforms: 1991–2001 . Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Kaur, P., & Kaur, G. (2010). Impact of mergers on the cost efficiency of Indian commercial banks. Eurasian Journal of Business and Economics, 3 (5), 27–50.

Kaur, S., & Gupta, P. K. (2015). Productive efficiency mapping of the Indian banking system using data envelopment analysis. Procedia Economics and Finance, 25, 227–238.

Ketkar, K. W., & Ketkar, S. L. (2008, May 13–17). Performance and profitability of Indian banks in the post liberalization period. A paper presented at The 2008 World Conference on National Accounts and Economic Performance Measures for Nations . Washington DC.

Kumar, M., & Charles, V. (2011). Evaluating the performance of Indian banking sector using data envelopment analysis during post-reform and global financial crisis. CENTRUM Catolica’s Working Paper Series , No. 2012-09-0007.

Kumar, S., & Sreeramulu, M. (2007). Employees’ productivity and cost—A comparative study of banks in India during 1997–2008. Reserve Bank of India Occasional Papers , 28 (3).

Kumar, S., & Gulati, R. (2008). An examination of technical, pure technical and scale efficiency in Indian public sector banks using data envelopment analysis. Eurasian Journal of Business and Economics , 1 (2), 33–69.

Malhotra, P., & Singh, B. (2009). The impact of internet banking on performance and risk: The Indian experience. Eurasian Journal Business and Economics , 2 (4), 43–62.

Mukherjee, A., Nath, P., & Pal, M. N. (2002). Performance benchmarking and strategic homogeneity of Indian banks. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 20 (3), 122–139.

Nagarkar, J. V. (2015). Analysis of financial performance of banks in India. Annual Research Journal of Symbiosis Centre for Management Studies, Pune, 3, 26–37.

Narwal, K., & Pathneja, S. (2015). Determinants of productivity and profitability of indian banking sector: A comparative study. Eurasian Journal of Business and Economics, 8 (16), 35–58.

Asmild, M., Aggarwall, V., Paradi, J. C., & Schaffnit, C. (2001). Performance evaluation in an oligopoly environment: Combining DEA window analysis with the malmquist index approach—A study of the Canadian banking industry. Centre for Management of Technology and Entrepreneurship (pp. 31–47). Toronto: University of Toronto.

Rammohan, T. T., & Ray, S. C. (2004). Productivity growth and efficiency in Indian banking: A comparison of public, private, and foreign banks. Economics Working Papers, Paper 27.

Rangrajan, C., & Mempilly, P. (1972). Economies of scale in Indian banking in technical studies for banking commission report (pp. 244–268). Mumbai: Reserve bank of India.

Ray, S. (2007). Are some Indian banks too large? An examination of size efficiency in Indian banking. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 27 (1), 41–56.

Ray, S. (2012), Impact of liberalization and globalization on productivity in Indian banking: A comparative analysis of public sector, private, and foreign banks. Working Paper 2012-02. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.

Reddy, A. (2005). Technical efficiency and its decomposition in Indian banks in post liberalization. In 8th Capital Markets Conference , Indian Institute of Capital Markets Paper.

Reisman, A., Daouas, M., Oral, M., Rebai, S., & Gatoufi, S. (2003). Impact of deregulation on technical and scale efficiencies of Tunisian commercial banks: Window extended data envelopment analysis. Working Paper , Faculte des Sciences Economiques et de Gestion de Tunis, Universite El Manar, Tunisie.

Repkova, I. (2014). Efficiency of Czech banking sector employing the DEA window analysis approach. Procedia Economics and Finance, 12, 587–596.

Report of the Chakravarty Committee to Review the Working of the Monetary System. (1985). Mumbai: RBI Publication.

Reserve Bank of India. (2000). Report on currency and finance 1999–2000 . RBI: Mumbai.

Roy, D. (2014). Analysis of technical efficiency of Indian banking sector: An application of data envelopment analysis. International Journal of Finance & Banking Studies , 3 (1).

Saha, A., & Ravisankar, T. S. (2000). Rating of Indian commercial banks:A DEA approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 124 (1), 187–203.

Sahoo, B. K., Sengupta, J. K., & Mandal, A. (2007). Productive performance evaluation of the banking sector in India using data envelopment analysis. International Journal of Operations Research, 4 (2), 63–79.

Sandhu, H. S., & Soch, K. (2003). Impact of information technology on the Indian banking sector. In P. P. Arya & B. B. Tandon (ed.), Economic reforms in India—From first to second generation and beyond (pp. 413–422). New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications.

Bhaumik, S. K., Sarkar, J., & Sarkar, S. (1998). Does ownership always matter? Evidence from the Indian banking industry. Journal of Comparative Economics, 26, 262–281.

Sathye, M. (2003). Efficiency of banks in a developing economy: The case of India. European Journal of Operational Research, 148 (3), 662–671.

Sathye, M. (2005). Privatization, performance and efficiency: A study of Indian banks. Vikalpa, 30 (1), 7–16.

Shirai, S. (2001, November). Assessment of India’s banking sector reforms from the perspective of the governance of the banking system. Presented at the ESCAP-ADB Joint Workshop on—Mobilizing Domestic Finance for Development: Reassessment of Bank Finance and Debt Markets (pp. 22–23). Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.

Sufian, F., & Majid, M. Z. (2007). X-efficiency and share prices in the Singaporean banking sector: A DEA window analysis approach. Investment Management and Financial Innovation , 4 (1), 73–90.

Swami, S. B., & Subrahmanyam, G. (1994). Comparative performance of public sector banks in India . Prajnan, 22 (2), 185–195.

Tyagrajan, M. (1975). Expansion of commercial banking, an assessment. Economic and Political Weekly, 10, 1819–1824.

Uppal, R. K. (2011, April). E-age technology—New face of Indian banking industry: Emerging challenges and new potentials. Journal of Social and Development Sciences , 1 (3), 115–129.

Webb, R. W. (2003). Levels of efficiency in UK retail banks: A DEA window analysis. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 10 (3), 305–322.

Yue, P. (1992). Data envelopment analysis and commercial bank performance: A primer with applications to Missouri banks. Review—Federal Reserve of St. Louis, 74 (1), 31–47.

Zhao, T., Casu, B., & Ferrari, A. (2008). Deregulation and productivity growth: A study of the Indian commercial banking industry. International Journal of Business Performance Management, 10 (4), 318–343.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Economics Department, Burdwan University, Burdwan, West Bengal, India

Atanu Sengupta

Economics Department, Shyampur Siddheswari Mahavidyalaya, University of Calcutta, Howrah, West Bengal, India

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Atanu Sengupta .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Sengupta, A., De, S. (2020). Review of Literature. In: Assessing Performance of Banks in India Fifty Years After Nationalization. India Studies in Business and Economics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4435-4_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4435-4_3

Published : 22 April 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-15-4434-7

Online ISBN : 978-981-15-4435-4

eBook Packages : Economics and Finance Economics and Finance (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

FUNDAMENTAL ANALYSIS OF SELECTED PRIVATE AND PUBLIC BANK SECTORS IN INDIA

2020, IAEME PUBLICATON

In this study, we have examined the performance of selected public private sector banks in India, namely, HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank, Axis Bank in the private sector while State Bank of India (SBI), Bank of Baroda (BOB) and Punjab National Bank (PNB) in the pubic sector. Primarily, the study conducted was fundamental analysis. The results state that HDFC Bank has topped in performance across various sectors while Punjab National Bank was facing issues in Net Profit Margin.

Related Papers

IAEME PUBLICATION

IAEME Publication

Resources are scarcity and desires are unlimited. Banks established for the welfare of people and country along with the principals making money with money business. So many banks are compete with each other to create a competition but digitalization, Permanent Account number restrict the unfair usage of banking activities by the business and people, so the customer base of banking industry are reduced, and due to the payment Banks and E-wallet they further struggling to manage the business. Innovation and automation of established bank forced the small banks to merger with those banks. In this study examine the Pre and Post financial performances of 9 leading banks Merger deal from the 2004 to 2010. The key financial Ratios such as profitability, Liquidity and Capital adequacy Ratio were employed to examine the impact of merger on their financial performance. The study reveals overall merger performance denote that the key Profitability Ratios, Liquidity Ratio and Capital adequacy Ratio are improved on post-merger period compare with the Pre-Merger Period. Banks are deals cash or easy encashment of cash so the quick ratio is increased and it statistically significant, as well as the Return on Capital employed may impact due to Non-performing assets and Government schemes. So the merger is the wise tactical decision to the Banking industry.

This paper is written for the purpose of comparing the difference between private and public banks by taking top Indian Public and private banks and using certain parameters which are very valuable for a bank. We know the banking sector is any country is the backbone of the economy. But in the case of country like India it's the soul. Just because the nature of Indian population and the economic condition they heavily depend on banks to boast the economic activities. In this study top 3 banks from both public and private sectors where taken as they are leaders in the banking industry in terms of reach and data was extracted from the annual report from 2016 to 2020. Statistical techniques where used to interpret the data. This study revealed even with the vast difference in resources how private banks are performing way better then public banks. The study has done proper literature gap review and explored the area which was not done before. This will very helpful for managers and researchers to take a look at the whole sector as one and see and find out what fundamentally can be done further in this area.

The Indian banking system plays an important role in promoting economic growth, not only by channelling savings towards investment, but also by improving the efficiency of resource allocation. An efficient banking system is considered a necessary prerequisite for growth today. The Companies Act 2013 made it compulsory for the board of a company to have at least one woman director. A modest attempt has been made to investigate the impact of women directors on the Indian bank’s performance using Return on Assets and Return on Equity as performance measures. BSE listed 6 Public sector banks and 6 Private sector banks operating in India are analysed using Panel data. Even though the preliminary results (2019 ) & (2020) conveyed a negative statistical association between female directors and ROA & ROE. The study contributed by pointing out the limitations in the Indian banking sector

In today's scenario, the banking sector is one of the fastest growing sectors and many funds are invested in Banks. Also today's banking system is becoming more complex. So, we thought of evaluating the performance of the banks. There are so many models of evaluating the performance of the banks, CAMEL Rating has been considered as one of the widely used tools for judging capital adequacy, asset quality, management capacity, earnings ability, and liquidity of the financial institutions including commercial banks by the principal regulators all around the world. This paper examines the comparative performance of leading public sector, private sector and foreign banks. Data have been collected though annual reports of the consecutive nine years i.e. 2008-09 to 2016-17 of all the banks. The calculated ratios for all the banks interpreted by CAMEL Model parameters. The study concluded that Foreign Banks perform well as compare to Public sector and Private sector banks in terms of Capital Adequacy, Management Efficiency and in Liquidity Management. In term of Assets Quality Private sector banks preform well as compare to Public sector banks and Foreign Banks with lowest average of 1.0973. In terms of Earning Quality Public sector banks perform well as compare to Private sector banks and Foreign banks with higher average of 19.2344. The Overall all financial performance based on CAMEL parameters Foreign banks topped and obtained overall first rank by having average of 14.0047 followed by Public sector banks (11.756) and Private sector Banks (11.2778). On the whole, it is observed that Foreign Banks outperformed public sector and private sector banks with regard to CAMEL framework as a method of measuring and managing performance of the bank under financial measure.

Theoretical-Development of a nation generally relies on the budgetary structure gave by the business banks. The obligation of banks in the agricultural nation like our own is critical and huge. The monetary situation of the banks is pretty much simultaneous with their working capital and fixed resources. Where the coefficient connection between the working capital and fixed resources are in a positive side the position is viewed as acceptable. For our examination we have contemplated two nationalized private banks, as after advancement, the private business banks have developed and are working at standard with the administration banks under the direction of Reserve Bank of India. The specialists have picked these two banks as they are recorded in both NSE and BSE Index. The motivation behind this examination is to discover, how far private banks are keeping up the proportion of their resources just as their working capital when contrasted with the administration banks. On the side of this aim a general report is directed by picking five years' information from 2014 to 2019 of HDFC, and ICICI banks.

The recession period has made the retail investor to think about his investment plans. To aid the retail investor this study has been undertaken by the researcher. To invest in a fortune company the fundamental analysis is a good start. The retail investor cannot afford the ill decision made without any analysis about the company. The fundamental analysis is totally based on the financial performance of the company. The financial performance analysis could help the initial investors get impressed by the company and may influence them to make investments in the company. The researcher has taken three sectors for the study, which tops even in the recession period. The researcher has collected secondary data – Balance sheet and Income statement – of the companies for the period of last 3 years (2016-2017 to 2018-2019)

Publishing India Group

Profi t is the key indicator for any business organization. The survival growth and development of business depends on profi t. The profi tability is the ratio which helps to measure the actual performance of the business and indicates how far it has been successful. The present study attempts to analyze the profi tability of the fi ve major banks in India–SBI, PNB, Canara Bank, ICICI and HDFC. The variables taken for the study are Operating Profi t Margin (OPM), Gross Profi t Margin (GPM), Net Profi t Margin (NPM), Earning Per Share (EPS), Dividend per share, Return on Equity (ROE), Return on Assets (ROA), Price Earnings Ratio (PER), Dividend Payout Ratio (DPR).The study brings out the comparative effi ciency of SBI, PNB, canara bank, ICICI and HDFC.

Euro Asia International Journals

Keywords: SBI, PNB, BOB, earning quality, interest income, etc.

It reveals that the community policing activities of private commercial banks include loans customer appraisal, collateralized lending, giving creditors reminder notes, credit tracking, developing practical lending and credit protection. This study further shows that the major factors of credit crime are the incorrect choosing of a loan customer, the lack of follow-up, unhealthy banking competitiveness, the lack of a thorough examination of project feasibility, higher interest costs, funding/over funding, inadequate financial circumstances, and insightful asymmetry. This study also showed that the key tactics for enhancing loans can be strict adherence to loan regulation, visitor visits after loan disbursement, sufficient security assessment, regular/temporary distributors, training and advice given to loan customers, loans provided for companies not against conspiracy facilities, post-loan services, lower rate setting and appropriate paperwork before the disbursement. Data are collected through questionnaires in this study. In addition, data has been evaluated for short SPSS using the tools known as Predictive Kit for Social Science. This questionnaire is circulated to 79 bank borrower loans. This study finds that the existence of businesses owned by investor is a factor affecting the refund of loans.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Journal ijmr.net.in(UGC Approved)

REVISTA ESPACIOS

Subhankar Das

IIS University

Prabhat Singh

International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology IJRASET

IJRASET Publication

International Journal of Financial Management

Bharati IMSR Journal

Iftikhar Ali

International Journal of Management

gunju shrestha

Research Analysis And Evaluation--www.ugcjournal.com/IRAE--International Peer Reviewed,Refereed,Indexed,Multilingual,Multidisciplinary,Monthly Research Journal

Professor.Krishan Bir Singh

RSIS International

Bhasutkar Mahesh

KISHORE MEGHANI

IOSR Journals publish within 3 days

Asian Journal of Research in Finance and Banking

Esmatullah Mohammady

vishal pathar

isara solutions

Interal Res journa Managt Sci Tech , Amalendu Jyotishi

IOSR Journals

Publisher ijmra.us UGC Approved

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

A critical review of non-performing assets in the Indian banking industry

Rajagiri Management Journal

ISSN : 0972-9968

Article publication date: 28 November 2019

Issue publication date: 13 December 2019

The level of non-performing assets (NPAs) best indicates the soundness of the banking sector of a country. The purpose of this study is an effort to look into the contribution of the different banks individually to the NPA in the industry by looking into its growth pattern during the period 2010-2017. Further, the study is made to look into the effect of different groups of banks, namely, State Bank of India (SBI) and its associates, nationalised banks and private sector banks on the banking industry in this regard.

Design/methodology/approach

The individual private sector banks, nationalised banks and SBI and its associates have been considered for the purpose of the study. The analysis is based on secondary data collected from the Reserve Bank of India website for the period 2010-2017. The geometric mean has been used as a statistical tool for arriving at the mean growth rate of gross NPAs. Further, refinement of the result is done by comparing the growth of gross NPAs of individual banks with that of the average growth rate.

The assessment of private sector banks reveals that the growth rate of NPAs is low as compared to the nationalised banks, as well as the SBI and its associates. The nationalised banks and the associate banks of SBI failed to handle the issue of poor loans effectively due to which the growth in such loans has been phenomenally high.

Originality/value

The research is interesting as the study period follows the financial crisis. There is no such previous study that has looked at the perspective of banking from this angle. The research is valuable from two angles. Firstly, it brings to light the situation of the different categories of banks with regard to NPAs. Secondly, the information can be useful for investors as the issue of poor loans is a relevant one for them because it has an impact on the profitability of banks and thereby the future prospects.

• Nationalized banks
• Non-performing assets
• Private sector banks
• SBI and its associates

Agarwala, V. and Agarwala, N. (2019), "A critical review of non-performing assets in the Indian banking industry", Rajagiri Management Journal , Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 12-23. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAMJ-08-2019-0010

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2019, Varuna Agarwala and Nidhi Agarwala.

Published in Rajagiri Management Journal . Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

1. Introduction

The banking sector is a keystone of any financial system. The smooth functioning of the banking sector ensures the healthy condition of an entire economy. In the process of accepting deposits and lending, loans banks create credit. The funds received from the borrowers by way of interest on loan and repayments of principal are recycled for raising resources. However, building up of non-performing assets (NPAs) disrupts this flow of credit. It hampers credit growth and affects the profitability of the banks as well. NPAs are the leading indicators to judge the performance of the banking sector. As per Reserve Bank of India (RBI) reports on November 2018, the gross amount of poor quality loans is in excess of Rs 9 lakh crores, which shows the severe impact it has on lending practices of banks and their liquidity positions. This growth is a result of quadrupling during the past five years, which shows the poor practice of banks with regard to lending.

sub-standard asset : If an asset has been non-performing for less than 12 months;

doubtful asset : If an asset has been non-performing for more than 12 months; and

loss assets : Assets where losses have been identified by the bank, auditor or inspector and have not been fully written off.

The generation of poor loans in the books of banks is not a favourable event for the banking industry as it affects the size and soundness of the balance sheet. There is an unfavourable impact on the level of return on assets as well. Large amount of profits have to be provisioned against the doubtful and bad loans, which reduces profitability. Banks are even burdened with the increasing level of carrying costs of NPA accounts, which could have been used for any other profitable purpose. The financial institutions are also desired to maintain a certain capital adequacy level to strengthen their net worth. Though this issue is bad news for the banking industry, in recent times from the newspaper reports, it is evident that this problem has taken a serious toll on the banking space. The RBI has been taking measures to control the NPA menace. Some legal measures such as debt recovery tribunals (DRTs), Lok Adalats, the SARFAESI (Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest) Act and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 have been introduced for the resolution of NPAs. Recapitalisation of public sector banks, setting up of stressed asset management verticals are some other steps taken by the RBI. In recent years, a few concepts like special mention accounts (SMA) and creating categories such as SMA 0, SMA 1 and SMA 2 have been added. Moreover, the regulator has also imposed restriction on eleven public sector banks by imposing the prompt corrective action (PCA) on them. Because of these developments, the present paper aims to find out which banks have contributed to the growing menace and what has been the trend in the banking industry with regard to these poor quality loans.

2. Literature review

The issue of NPAs has been a major area of concern for the lenders and the policymakers. Various research studies have been made to understand the causes contributing to the rise in NPAs, measures that should be taken to resolve the issue in its nascent stage and reforms that have come into effect to reduce the piling up of NPAs. Some of the relevant studies are arranged in a chronological sequence. Karunakar et al. (2008) discuss the various factors that boost NPAs, their size, their effect on Indian banking operations and suggest measures to control the curse on the banking industry. Use of suitable credit assessment and risk management methods is the key to solve the problem of NPA accumulation. Rajeev and Mahesh (2010) , in their article deal with the issue of NPAs after the global financial crisis. They suggest that mere recognition of the problem and self-monitoring can help to manage the NPA problem to a great extent. Self-help groups can also play an important role in the recovery of the loans. Barge (2012) examines that early monitoring and management of lent funds is the necessity of the hour. The study suggests several measures like better supervision of end use of funds, information about the credit history of the borrower and assisting the borrowers to develop entrepreneurial skills to ensure that the asset does not convert into a non-performing asset. Gupta (2012) makes a comparative study of the position of NPAs of State Bank of India (SBI) and associates and other public sector banks. The researcher concludes that for evaluation of the solvency of borrowers each bank should set up a separate credit rating agency. It also suggests the need for a committee comprising of financial experts to supervise and monitor the issue of NPAs. Shalini (2013) has analysed the causes and suggested remedies for reducing NPAs in Indian public sector banks with special reference to the agricultural sector. The analysis of the different problems faced by the Indian farmers deduces the conclusion that banks should follow some measures before lending the loan. Prior collection of reports regarding the goodwill of the farmers, post sanction inspection, educating the farmers regarding the effects and consequences of defaulting are some of the suggested measures. Singh (2013) in the investigation on the position of Indian commercial banks with regard to NPAs finds that these poor quality loans are a major problem for the public sector banks, which show a consistent rise over the years. The main contribution comes from the loans directed at the micro sector and for poverty alleviation programmes. Bhaskaran et al. (2016) in their paper have compared the NPAs of public sector banks and private sector banks over a period of ten years (2004-2013). From their study, it is evident that private sector banks are performing better than public sector banks in reducing the level of NPAs. The authors propose that banks should be proactive in adopting structured NPAs management policy where prevention of NPAs receive priority. Thomas and Vyas (2016) in a recent study on loan recovery strategy of Indian banks suggests two measures, preventive and corrective. The paper also discusses several corrective measures – legal, regulatory and non-legal that are to be taken to recover the non-performing loans. Singh (2016) in another recent study on NPAs and recovery status find that the problem is more severe for the public sector banks compared to the private sector banks. The academic review points to the need to have strict lending policies for speedy recovery of loans. Meher (2017) in the post-demonetisation period looks into the impact of the government’s notebandi decision on the NPA of Indian Banks. The researcher finds both positives and negatives of the event on the banking industry. Sengupta and Vardhan (2017) have compared the two banking crisis episodes post-liberalisation- one that took place in the late 1990s and the other that commenced after the 2008 global financial crisis that raised the issue of NPAs. The authors are of the view that strong governance, proactive banking regulations and a strong legal framework for resolution of NPAs would assist in solving the problem of NPAs. On the other hand, regulatory forbearance would adversely affect the banking crisis. Mittal and Suneja (2017) have analysed the level of NPAs in the banking sector in India and the causes that have led to the rise in NPAs. They have proposed that though the government has taken a number of steps to reduce the problem of NPAs, bankers should also be proactive in adopting well-structured policies to manage NPAs. The loan should be sanctioned after considering the return on investment of a proposed project and the credit-worthiness of the customers. Sahni and Seth (2017) study the different causes responsible for rising NPAs and the impact it has on the operation of banks. The authors have mentioned several preventive and curative measures to control the NPAs. They have suggested that proper assessment regarding the credit-worthiness of the borrower should be done to ensure the speedy recovery of loans. Mishra and Pawaskar (2017) have recommended that banks should have a good credit appraisal system so as to avoid NPAs. They point out that the problem of NPAs can be solved if there is a proper legal structure to support the banks in recovery of debt. Banerjee et al. (2018) have examined the status of gross NPAs and net NPAs in private sector banks and public sector banks to study their effect on the asset quality of the banks. Deliberate loan defaults, poor credit management policies, sanctioning of loans without analysing the risk-bearing capacity of the borrowers are the main reasons for piling up of NPAs. The banks should stress on better strategy formulation and its proper execution as well. Stringent provisions by the government could help in reducing the level of NPAs. Mukhopadhyay (2018) , in his paper, has discussed about finding solutions to India’s NPA woes. He has suggested that to resolve the problems of NPAs the RBI should not abide by a single model, instead, an innovative and flexible approach is needed for each affected bank, which should differ on case-by-case basis. Kumar (2018) , in her study has found that NPAs have a serious negative impact on the profitability and liquidity of the banking sector. According to her if the issue of NPAs is managed efficiently, then many microeconomic issues such as poverty, unemployment, imbalances of balance of payments can be reduced, the money market can be strengthened, and thus, the image of Indian banking system can be improved in the international market. Sharma (2018) emphasises the role of the banking sector as an instrument of economic growth and development. The paper discusses how banks are burdened due to growing NPAs especially in case of public sector banks. The author states a number of preventive measures that would curtail the level of NPAs. Viable regulatory standards and timely implementation of them could pave the way for a strong financial sector in India. Dey (2018) in a very recent research paper looks at the recovery aspect of recovery of poor loans of the Indian commercial banks. The author finds the role of DRTs to be much better compared to the recovery through Lok Adalats and SARFASEI Act. Kumar et al. (2018) make an interesting study to find out the main reasons behind accumulating NPAs. They find the main reasons to be industrial sickness, change in government policies, poor credit appraisal system, wilful defaults and defect in the lending process.

2.1 Research gap

Thus, an overview of the above literature shows that there are quite a few studies in the field of non-performing assets in the banking industry. However, there are no studies that look at the data till 2017, which is important and pertinent because the major piling up has been taking place after 2011 in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008. Moreover, the major focus of the paper is not only on groups of banks but also individual banks. This is done to identify those banks, which have been contributing more to the NPA menace in the banking space. Hence, the article is not only relevant but also addresses a contemporary issue like NPAs. The research adds new knowledge to the banking literature, which will help readers to comprehend the position of banks in a better way.

3. Objectives of the study

to determine the mean growth rate for different groups of banks and individual banks; and

to make comments relating to the growth pattern of Gross NPAs.

4. Research design

Sample : the individual private sector banks, the nationalised banks and SBI and its associates have been considered.

Data period : the analysis is based on data for the period 2010-2017.

Nature of the data and source : The investigation is based on secondary data, which is collected from the RBI website.

Variable of interest : gross NPAs.

Research methods : in this article, the statistical tool that the researchers have used is the geometric mean for arriving at the mean growth rate and then the growth of individual banks has been compared with the average growth rate.

5. Analysis and findings

The details of the analysis are presented in the sub-section below.

5.1 Assessment of private sector banks

The position of the private sector banks with regard to the movement of gross NPAs during the study period is discussed below.

5.1.1 Assessment at the individual level.

An examination of the gross NPA position of the banks in the private sector shows that the growth rate (calculated using Geometric Mean) is quite low in the initial years of the study period (the lowest being 3 per cent in the year 2011-2012), but it goes on increasing thereafter. The overall position of NPAs of the private sector goes up to a maximum of 72 per cent in the year 2016-2017. Majority of the private sector banks show a sharp rise in the NPA growth rates after the year 2015-2016. This sudden rise may have been the result of “asset quality review” conducted by the RBI in the year 2015. The inspection carried out by the RBI highlighted the under-reporting of NPAs in the private sector banks. Big lenders like Axis Bank, Yes Bank and ICICI Bank reveal high growth rate of NPAs during the latter years of the study period. Axis Bank experienced a significant rise in the gross NPAs of close to 250 per cent in 2016-2017 followed by Karur Vysya Bank (190 per cent) and Yes Bank (170 per cent) ( Table I ).

5.1.2 Comparing performance against the mean.

If we consider the growth rates of NPAs of each private sector bank with respect to the average growth rate of the banks in the private sector as a whole, we find that most of the banks have a growth rate less than the average growth rate (27 per cent). The performance of DCB is a commendable one as it shows an overall decline in the level of poor loans, which is an exception in the banking landscape. It points to a sound NPA management process in the bank. On the other hand, Yes Bank, which is among the big brands in the industry recorded the highest growth rate of 65 per cent followed by Axis Bank (49 per cent) ( Table II ).

5.2 Performance assessment of SBI and its associates

5.2.1 assessment at the individual level..

Next, we analyse the position of SBI and the SBI Group as a whole (note that the SBI Associates do not separately exist now as they have been merged with SBI in 2017). An analysis of the gross NPA position shows that the initial spurt in NPA growth took place in 2011-2012 followed by 2015-2016. This observation is the same as what is seen in the case of the nationalised banks. Of the entire SBI Group the State Bank shows the minimum average growth of 28 per cent. The associate banks show a poor performance in terms of the overall rise in NPAs during the period. Calculations show that State Bank of Hyderabad shows a growth of 61 per cent, which is closely followed by State Bank of Patiala (51 per cent), State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (50 per cent), State Bank of Mysore (49 per cent) and State Bank of Travancore (45 per cent). It is evident from the computations that with the SBI giving more focus towards NPA management rather than business expansion, fruitful results are reflected in 2016-2017 with respect to the previous year, a rise of only 14 per cent. For the remaining associate banks, it seems that the top management has not taken the issue of NPAs very seriously, due to which in 2016-2017 the year on year growth rate exceeds 160 per cent for all the banks. This might be the possible reason apart from generating economies of scale behind mergers of the associate banks with the parent bank ( Table III ).

5.2.2 Comparing performance against the mean.

The table below gives an idea about the growth position in NPAs of the individual banks against the average performance of the group ( Table IV ).

5.3 Performance assessment of nationalised banks

5.3.1 assessment at the individual level..

As per the computation, the position of Gross NPAs with respect to the growth rate during the period 2010-2011 and 2016-2017 is extremely bad, which is the reason behind the growing worry of the apex bank. If we look into specific banks and look at the growth rate during the study period we find the banks, which show the maximum rate are Andhra Bank, Punjab and Sindh Bank and IDBI Bank, which show the mean growth rate (in terms of geometric mean) to be 67, 63 and 55 per cent, respectively. In fact, the overall position of the nationalised banks taken together shows that the growth rate has risen at a high pace after the financial crisis started showing its effect in 2010. Of the 20 nationalised banks, 40 per cent show a mean growth rate of atleast 50 per cent. If we compare the growth rate of banks with respect to the average growth rate of the nationalised banking group taken together, it is evident that 50 per cent of the banks grow at a rate, which is more than the mean rate of 46 per cent. Some of the prominent names include Punjab National Bank, Andhra Bank, IDBI Bank (in which LIC has recently taken a stake of 51 per cent). For those banks in which the NPA rose by less than the average, the geometric mean lies in the range of 30 per cent (for Vijaya Bank) and 46 per cent (for Bank of Maharashtra).

If we analyse the pattern of growth (year-on-year), we find that there has been a spurt in the NPA growth of nationalised banks during 2011-2012 and 2013-2014. The second shock in terms of poor quality norms took place in 2015-2016 when the overall nationalised banks grew 104 per cent over the previous year. After the RBI came up with the concept of prompt corrective action, and looked at the problem with more diligence, some positive results (though not satisfactory) is seen in 2016-2017. It is evident from the calculations that the growth of NPAs in 2016-2017 is 21 per cent, which is the least during the study period ( Table V ).

5.3.2 Performance of banks against average.

The table below shows the categorisation of the banks into two categories, which are “more than average” and “less than average” ( Table VI ).

6. Conclusion

The overall findings point to a worrisome situation for the banking sector as a whole. An analysis of the growth rate in the NPA level shows that the problem is evident not only with small-sized banks but also with big names in the banking space. Hence, the entire sector is gripped in the crisis. The poor asset for the banks is a problem because as per the guidelines, given by the RBI, banks are required to keep some amount as provision depending on their asset quality thereby leading to declining profitability of the banks. Hence, it impacts not only the profitability level of these banks but also affects the shareholders’ wealth. Thus, the time is apt that the RBI has been coming up with very stringent norms so that the growth in these assets can be put under control. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of 2016 is playing an important role with regard to recovery of assets of those creditors whose case has been filed with the National Company Law Tribunal. In fact, figures are given by the RBI point to a declining phase in the NPA growth rate, which is a positive development. But, there is still a lot to be done. Only time will say how successful has the RBI been in controlling the NPA growth in the sector. It is necessary to pull the trigger hard as these poor loans are having a severe impact on the liquidity position of banks and even the banks have been asked to go slow with regard to lending, which is ultimately having an impact on the economic growth, which has been slow during the past few quarters.

Year on year growth rate in gross NPAs in private sector banks

Year	2010-2011 (%)	2011-2012 (%)	2012-2013 (%)	2013-2014 (%)	2014-2015 (%)	2015-2016 (%)	2016-2017 (%)	GM (%)
Axis Bank	21	13	33	31	31	48	250	49
Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd	29	−5	15	58	42	−6	34	22
City Union Bank Limited	20	10	40	69	15	52	33	33
DCB Limited	−17	−8	−11	−36	34	6	29	−3
Dhanlaxmi Bank	−13	55	265	28	15	−18	−31	22
Federal Bank	40	13	19	−30	−3	58	4	11
HDFC Bank	−7	18	17	28	15	28	34	18
ICICI Bank	6	−6	1	9	44	74	61	24
Indusind Bank	4	31	32	36	−9	38	36	22
Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd	12	0	25	22	253	58	37	44
Karnataka Bank Ltd	28	−2	−7	31	13	25	34	16
Karur Vysya Bank	−3	41	−11	−2	143	−25	190	30
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd	−21	2	23	40	17	129	26	25
Lakshmi Vilas Bank	−51	95	49	19	−17	−14	64	10
Nainital Bank	−8	45	117	−9	27	54	38	32
RBL	−22	54	−22	200	43	87	72	44
South Indian Bank	9	16	62	0	49	143	−26	27
Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd	23	26	21	100	−26	31	55	28
Yes Bank Ltd	34	4	12	85	79	139	170	65

Computed by the researchers

Growth more than average (27%)	(%)	Growth less than average (27%)	(%)
Yes Bank Ltd	65	South Indian Bank	27
Axis Bank	49	Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd	25
Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd	44	ICICI Bank	24
RBL	44	Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd	22
City Union Bank Limited	33	Dhanlaxmi Bank	22
Nainital Bank	32	Indusind Bank	22
Karur Vysya Bank	30	HDFC Bank	18
Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd	28	Karnataka Bank Ltd	16
		Federal Bank	11
		Lakshmi Vilas Bank	10
		DCB Limited	−3

Computed by the researchers

Year	2010-2011 (%)	2011-2012 (%)	2012-2013 (%)	2013-2014 (%)	2014-2015 (%)	2015-2016 (%)	2016-2017 (%)	GM (%)
State Bank of Bikaner And Jaipur	37	98	28	29	8	22	196	50
State Bank of Hyderabad	77	74	59	83	−14	32	176	61
State Bank of India	30	57	29	20	−8	73	14	28
State Bank of Mysore	45	74	38	35	−24	70	173	49
State Bank of Patiala	37	37	30	53	16	55	164	51
State Bank of Travancore	30	78	18	76	−23	36	176	45

Computed by the researchers

Growth more than average (34%)	(%)	Growth less than average (34%)	(%)
State Bank of Hyderabad	61	State Bank of India	28
State Bank of Patiala	51
State Bank of Bikaner And Jaipur	50
State Bank of Mysore	49
State Bank of Travancore	45

Computed by the researchers

Year	2010-2011 (%)	2011-2012 (%)	2012-2013 (%)	2013-2014 (%)	2014-2015 (%)	2015-2016 (%)	2016-2017 (%)	GM (%)
Allahabad Bank	35	25	149	57	4	84	34	50
Andhra Bank	104	81	107	58	17	66	54	67
Bank of Baroda	31	42	79	49	37	149	5	51
Bank of India	−1	34	44	38	72	125	4	40
Bank of Maharashtra	−3	11	−12	151	124	62	66	46
Canara Bank	21	29	55	21	72	143	8	45
Central Bank of India	−3	204	16	36	3	91	20	41
Corporation Bank	21	61	61	131	50	105	17	59
Dena Bank	31	14	52	80	68	95	47	53
IDBI Bank Ltd	31	63	42	54	27	96	80	55
Indian Bank	45	150	93	28	24	56	12	53
Indian Overseas Bank	−14	27	69	37	65	101	17	38
Oriental Bank of Commerce	31	86	17	34	36	92	55	48
Punjab and Sind Bank	106	80	101	66	21	37	49	63
Punjab National Bank	36	99	54	40	36	117	−1	50
Syndicate Bank	30	22	−6	55	40	115	27	36
UCO Bank	89	30	74	−7	55	104	8	45
Union Bank of India	36	50	16	51	36	85	39	44
United Bank of India	−1	61	36	140	−8	45	16	35
Vijaya Bank	27	36	−11	30	23	147	6	30

Computed by the researchers

Source: Computed by the researchers

Banerjee , R. , Verma , D. and Jaiswal , B. ( 2018 ), “ Non-performing assets: a comparative study of the Indian commercial banks ”, International Journal of Social Relevance and Concern , Vol. 6 No. 2 , pp. 5 - 21 .

Barge , A. ( 2012 ), “ NPA management in banks: an Indian perspective ”, IBMRD's Journal of Management and Research , Vol. 1 , pp. 89 - 91 .

Bhaskaran , R. , Bhalla , L. , Sarin , V. , Kaur , S. , Rahman , A. , Singh , G. , Bhattacharya , A.M. , Jha , A.K. and Verma , P. ( 2016 ), “ Non-performing assets of public and private sector banks in India – a comparative study ”, International Journal of Services and Operations Management , Vol. 25 No. 2 , pp. 155 - 172 .

Dey , S. ( 2018 ), “ Recovery mechanisms of non-performing assets in Indian commercial banks: an empirical study ”, NSOU Open Journal , Vol. 1 No. 2 .

Gupta , B. ( 2012 ), “ A comparative study of non-performing assets of SBI & associates and other public sector banks ”, SIT Journal of Management , Vol. 2 No. 3 , pp. 175 - 189 .

Karunakar , M. , Vasuki , K. and Saravanan , S. ( 2008 ), “ Are non-performing assets gloomy or greedy from Indian perspective? ”, Research Journal of Social Science , Vol. 3 , pp. 4 - 12 .

Kumar , S. ( 2018 ), “ A study on Non-Performing assets of Indian banks: Trend and recovery ”, International Journal of Electronics, Electrical and Computational System , Vol. 7 No. 3 , pp. 457 - 462 .

Kumar , R.B. , Subba Rao , B.V.S.S. and Kusuma , G.D.V. ( 2018 ), “ Genesis for increase of NPAs in Indian banks – an empirical analysis ”, Journal of Banking and Finance Management , Vol. 1 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 8 .

Meher , B.K. ( 2017 ), “ Impact of demonetisation on NPA position of Indian banks ”, International Journal of Advance Scientific Research and Engineering Trends , Vol. 2 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 8 .

Mishra , M.K. and Pawaskar , J.R. ( 2017 ), “ A study of non-performing assets and its impact on banking sector ”, Journal for Research , Vol. 3 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 5 .

Mittal , R.K. and Suneja , D. ( 2017 ), “ The problem of rising non-performing assets in banking sector in India: comparative analysis of public and private sector banks ”, International Journal of Management, IT and Engineering , Vol. 7 No. 7 , pp. 384 - 398 .

Mukhopadhyay , A. ( 2018 ), “ Finding innovative solutions to India’s NPA woes ”, available at: www.orfonline.org/research/finding-innovative-solutions-to-indias-npa-woes/

Rajeev , M. and Mahesh , H.P. ( 2010 ), “ Banking sector reforms and NPA: a study of Indian commercial banks ”, Working Paper 252 , Institute for social and economic change , 1 - 19 .

Sahni , D. and Seth , D.C. ( 2017 ), “ Non-performing assets (NPAs) in Indian commercial banks ”, International Journal of Engineering Science and Computing , Vol. 7 No. 4 , pp. 6243 - 6247 .

Sengupta , R. and Vardhan , H. ( 2017 ), “ Non-performing assets in Indian banks: this time it is different ”, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development and Research Economic and Political Weekly , Vol. 52 No. 12 , pp. 85 - 95 .

Shalini , H.S. ( 2013 ), “ A study on causes and remedies for non-performing assets in Indian public sector banks with special reference to agricultural development branch, state bank of Mysore ”, International Journal of Business and Management Invention , Vol. 2 No. 1 , pp. 26 - 38 .

Sharma , G. ( 2018 ), “ Unmasking the ordeal of growing NPAs in Indian banking sector ”, International Journal of Business and Management Invention , Vol. 7 No. 7 , pp. 43 - 50 .

Singh , A. ( 2013 ), “ Performance of non-performing assets (NPAs) in Indian commercial banks ”, International Journal of Marketing, Financial Services and Management Research , Vol. 2 No. 9 , pp. 86 - 94 .

Singh , V.R. ( 2016 ), “ A study of non-performing assets of commercial banks and its recovery in India ”, Annual Research Journal of SCMS , Vol. 4 , pp. 110 - 125 .

Thomas , R. and Vyas , R.K. ( 2016 ), “ Loan recovery strategy in Indian banks ”, International Journal of Commerce and Management Research , Vol. 2 No. 12 , pp. 158 - 164 .

Further reading

Bhardwaj , P. and Chawdhary , I. ( 2018 ), “ A study of non-performing assets of commercial banks and its recovery in India ”, International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews , Vol. 5 , No. 2 , pp. 176 - 189 .

Vikram , S.K. and Gayathari , G. ( 2018 ), “ A study on non-performing assets in Indian banking sector ”, International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics , Vol. 118 , pp. 4537 - 4541 .

www.orfonline.org/research/finding-innovative-solutions-to-indias-npa-woes/

www.google.com/amp/s/m.hindustantimes.com/india-news/rbi-note-shows-worst-of-npa-and-credit-growth-problem-may-be-over/story-oYkiUuayCn3nPBBVHusqOL_amp.html

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their deep gratitude to Dr Abhijit Sinha for mentoring and guiding us in the research work and all the other teachers of the Department of Commerce, Vidyasagar University for their support and encouragement.

Corresponding author

Related articles, all feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal (Print ISSN: 1096-3685; Online ISSN: 1528-2635)

Research Article: 2021 Vol: 25 Issue: 5

A Study on Performance Evaluation of Private Sector-Banks: Pre-Covid Crisis

Dr. Anju Bala, Mangalmay Institute of Management and Technology

Dr. Pooja Goel, Mangalmay Institute of Management and Technology

Mr. Rajnish Kumar Mishra Rohit, Mangalmay Institute of Management and Technology

The banking sector plays an efficient role in economic development of a country. Banks are considered as back bone of any economy for financial growth and stability. Private sector banks in India play an important role along with public sector for overall financial sector reforms. The introduction of multinational private sector banks in India increased the competition in Indian Banking Industry. The objective of this study is to evaluate and analysis the performance of private banks before Covid Pandemic. Required secondary data has been collected from annual reports of the respective banks and Reserve Bank of India website. Current study covered a period of 10 years from financial year 2010- 2011 to financial year 2019-2020. Current study is based on the performance of five selected private sector banks, namely-HDFC, ICICI, Axis bank, KOTAK Mahindra bank, and IDFC bank. CAMEL method is used for measuring the financial performance of these banks. To evaluate the performance of private sectors banks, five critical elements are used i.e., Capital adequacy ratio, asset quality, management, earning and liquidity.

Asset Quality, CAMEL, Capital Adequacy, Covid Pandemic, Earning, Liquidity, Management.

Introduction

Banking in India frames the base for the monetary development of the nation. Significant changes in the banking framework and the executives have been seen throughout the years with the advancement in innovation, considering the necessities of individuals. The History of Banking in India started before India got independence in 1947. The “ Bank of Hindustan ” was the first Indian Bank which was established in 1770 in the Calcutta. During the Pre Independence period over 600 banks had been registered in the country, but only a few managed to survive. In the British rule era, they established three banks namely the Bank of Bengal, Bombay and Bank of Madras and called them the Presidential Banks. These three banks were later merged into one single bank in 1921, which was called the “ Imperial Bank of India .” The Government chose to nationalize the Banks during post-independence period. Reserve Bank of India was nationalized in 1949 while Imperial bank was nationalised as State Bank of India during 1955. 14 banks were nationalized in 1969 and 6 banks were nationalised in 1980. After 1991 (Liberalization Period), the Government chose to encourage private banks in Indian banking industry (Gupta, 2014).

Private sector banks are banking organizations with higher stakes or value being held by private investors and not the Government of India. In 1991, the Narasimhan Committee laid attention on the significance of sound competition in the financial sector, which had been missing in the post nationalization period and thus, unambiguously upheld for the passage of private and unfamiliar financial organizations in the Indian market. With RBI's advancement strategy in the 1990s, the private sector banks rise once more. In India, they have been sorted into two kinds by the monetary controllers; Old Private Sector Banks (arose before 1968) and New Private Sector Banks (arose after 1968). The Old private sector banks had been excessively little in 1969 to be remembered for the nationalization and thus protected their autonomy. As of now, there are 22 private sector banks in India. The old private banks are more modest in size and more territorial in nature contrasted with the new ones. Private Banks are substantially more careful about opening new branches. Name of Private Banks in India.

1. Axis Bank, 2. Bandhan Bank, 3. HDFC Banks, 4. Dhanlaxmi Bank, 5. Federal Bank, 6. ICICI Banks, 7. Kotak Mahindra Bank, 8. IDFC FIRST Bank, 9. Jammu & Kashmir Bank, 10. IndusInd Bank, 11. Karnataka Bank, 12. Karur Vysya Bank, 13. Lakshmi Vilas Bank, 14. Nainital bank, 15. RBL Bank, 16. South Indian Bank, 17. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank, 18. YES Bank, 19. IDBI Bank, 20. DCB Bank, 21. City Union Bank and 22. CSB Bank.

Literature Review

Mohi-ud-Din; Nazir, (2010) stated that sound financial health of a bank is the guarantee not only to its depositors but is equally significant for the shareholders, employees and whole economy as well. In this paper, an effort has been made to evaluate the financial performance of the two major banks operating in northern India. This evaluation has been done by using CAMEL Parameters, the latest model of financial analysis. Through this model, it is highlighted that the position of the banks under study is sound and satisfactory so far as their capital adequacy, asset quality, Management capability and liquidity is concerned.

Anurag & Priyanka (2012) conducted a comparative study of financial performance between SBI and ICICI bank. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the financial performance of SBI (Public sector bank) and ICICI Bank (private sector bank. This study was descriptive and analytical in nature. Researcher conducted this study to compare the financial performance of SBI and ICICI Bank on the basis of various ratios such as credit deposit, net profit margin etc for the period of five years (2007-08 to 2011-12). This study expressed that loan assets from deposits are higher in case of ICICI than SBI. The researcher found that SBI is performing well and financially sound than ICICI Bank other than deposits and expenditure (Debnath & Shankar, 2008).

Ruchi (2014) has evaluated the performance of public sector banks in India using CAMEL model. Like other sectors, banking sector plays a very important role for development of economy. Banking sector helps in capital formation, innovation and monetization in addition to facilitation of monetary policy. It is essential to evaluate and analyse the performance of banks to ensure a healthy financial system and an efficient economy. This study evaluated the performance of public sector banks in India using CAMEL approach for a five year period (2009-2013). Researcher found that the overall performance of public sector banks is different from year to year (Shah, 2015).

Srivatstava, et al. (2015) conducted a study to Analysis the performance of Indian Banks – A Comparative Study. Authors evaluated the comparative study on some selected banks with reference to some selected parameters. The descriptive and conclusive research designs were used by the researcher during this analyzation of the banks. Data of five years (from 2008-09 to 2012-13) has been used by researcher. Srivastava et al. (2015) found that all the bank groups showed increase in deposits, profitability, assets, interest and non-interest income, investments, and advances, during the period of five years from 2008-09 to 2012-13.

Mahesh et al. (2019) conducted a comparative study between private and public banks in India through the camel rating system. Axis Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank from Private Sector and Bank of Baroda and State Bank of India from the public sector are taken for this study. Required Data of all respective banks have been collected for five years i.e. 2013-14 to 2017-18. To analysis the dada CAMEL rating system has been applied. The study concluded that Public and Private Banks are performing well in maintaining the Capital adequacy. Due to Non Performing Assets, Public Banks are facing major problems in Asset management. There is no major difference between public and private banks on the basis of liquidity parameters (Aggarwal & Mittal, 2012; Singh & Tandon, 2012).

Objectives of the Study

Objective of a study provides the directions to researcher. Objective should be specific exactly what you will do in each phase of your study. The current study is based on following objectives:-

1. To analyse the performance of Private sector banks.

2. To evaluate the capital adequacy of private sector banks

3. To analyse the assets management of selected private banks.

4. To evaluate the earning capacity and Liquidity of private banks.

5. To compare the performance of private sector banks, namely-HDFC, ICICI, Axis bank, and KOTAK Mahindra bank.

Research Empirical Results

This study is based on the analysis of private sector banks. Currently 22 banks are working under private sector banks in India. Out of 22 banks, following four banks are selected on the basis of market position, profitability and capitalization.

1. HDFC Bank (Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited)- 1994

2. ICICI Bank (Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India)- 1994

3. Kotak Mahindra Bank - 2003

4. AXIS Bank -1993

This present study is based on secondary data. For evaluating the performance of these selected banks required data is collected from annual reports of respective banks and RBI’s website. Time period of ten years from financial year 2010-11 to financial year 2019-20 is considered for the current study. After collecting required data, CAMEL model is applied for analyse of data collected from these banks. Under CAMEL model rating of bank is done along five key boundaries – Capital Adequacy, Asset Quality, Management Capability, Earning Capacity, and Liquidity.

Analysis and Interpretation

Table 1 is indicating about the capital adequacy of HDFC, ICICI, AXIS and Kotak Mahindra Bank. In this study capital adequacy of bank is measured by capital adequacy ratio and debt- equity ratio. Figure 1 is showing the capital adequacy ratio of all four banks. The capital adequacy ratio of ICICI Bank is comparatively higher than other three banks which is a positive point. This Ratio in the case of HDFC and AXIS bank is fluctuating till 2019 but increases in 2020. Capital adequacy ratio of the Kotak Mahindra Bank is fluctuating from 2011 to 2020. All four banks have enough capital available to them to deal with operational risks (Aspal, 2013; Saluja & Kaur, 2010).

Figure 1 Assets to Total Assets of Private Banks

Figure 2 is representing the debt-equity ratio of all four banks. The debt-equity ratio tells us about the capital structure of an organization. ICICI bank is using more debt in its capital structure than other banks as the debt-equity ratio of ICICI is highest among 4 banks. Debt-equity ratio of Kotak Mahindra bank is decreasing that reflects the reducing debt of the bank. This ratio is fluctuating in the case of HDFC bank. AXIS bank is more depend on equity than debt as its debt-equity ratio is lowest in comparison to other banks.

Figure 2 Debt- Equity Ratio of Private Banks

Table 2 is representing the data related to “ Assets Quality ” of four banks from 2011 to 2020. Figure 3 represents Net NPA Ratio of HDFC, ICICI, AXIS and Kotak Mahindra Bank. Higher Net NPA denotes poor asset quality whereas Lower Net NPA denotes better asset quality of the business. The Net NPA ratio of HDFC Bank shows fluctuations during the period which shows that the bank is sufficient enough to hold the credit risks of the business. The ratio of the ICICI bank and AXIS bank are increasing every year. These banks are facing troubles to maintain the assets quality. In the case of KOTAK Mahindra Bank, the ratio is fluctuating in a downward state which is good for the business.

Figure 3 Net NPA Ratio of Private Banks

Figure 4 indicates the Gross NPA ratio of all four banks. The Gross NPA ratio of HDFC Bank is low till 2016 which is good for the business and then it rises back again after 2016 which is not good. In the case of ICICI Bank, the ratio is seen as somewhere declining which is favourable. The ratio of the AXIS bank is increasing during 2011 to 2020 which is negative for business of this bank. In the case of Kotak Mahindra bank, the ratio seems constant and higher from the other three which is indicating better asset quality for the business concern (Hui, 2012; Kaur & Saddy , 2011).

Figure 4 Gross NPA Ratio of Private Banks

Management efficiency based on profit per employee and business per employee is shown by Table 3 . Figure 5 represents the profit per employee of all four banks. The ratio of HDFC bank is indicating the good management efficiency of this bank as it is increasing from 2011 to 2020. The ratio of ICICI Bank is fluctuating first positively and then negatively. In the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank, the ratio shows negative fluctuations till the year 2018 and then rises in 2019 and 2020 which is positive for the business. In the case of AXIS bank, profit per employee rises till 2016 which is favourable for the bank, and then from 2017-2020 the ratio declines which is unfavourable for the business.

Figure 5 Profit Per Employee of Private Banks

Figure 6 is representing the business per employee of all four banks. In the case of ICICI Bank and AXIS bank, the ratio is increasing with a constant rate; it is a sign of good position in the market. Business per employee is increasing constantly with a higher rate from 2011 to 2020 in the case of HDFC Bank which is showing good earning capacity of this bank. The business per employee of Kotak Mahindra Bank increases till the year 2019 and then decrease in the year 2020 which is unfavourable for the bank.

Figure 6 Business Per Employee of Private Banks

Table 4 gives a clear picture of earning capacity of four selected banks. Here earning capacity of banks is measured by Return on Assets and Interest Income to Total Assets. Higher the ratio means better business position and vice versa. Figure 7 indicates the Return on Assets Ratio of four banks from 2011 to 2020. This ratio of HDFC bank is constantly increasing which depicts a good position whereas, in the case of ICICI Bank, the ratio is increasing till 2015 and then declines from 2016, which is unfavourable for the ICICI Bank. The ratio of AXIS Bank is also increasing till 2015 then declining after 2015 with a higher rate which is not good for business. In the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank, the ratio is continuously increasing which is showing good profitability of bank except for the 2016 year.

Figure 7 Return on Assets of Private Banks

Figure 8 shows interest income to total asset ratio of four banks. The higher ratio indicates the better earning position of the bank and the lower ratio indicates the low lending capacity of banks. Interest Income to Total Assets ratio of HDFC bank is increasing till 2016 and then falling down from 2017 to 2020. The ratio in the case of KOTAK Mahindra bank increase positively till 2016 and then declines in later years. This ratio in cases of ICICI Bank and AXIS bank is similar as that of HDFC Bank (Kadam & Sapkal, 2019).

Figure 8 Interest Income to Total Assets of Private Banks

Table 5 is representing the liquidity position of all four banks based on quick assets to total assets ration and cash to deposit ratio. These ratios help in checking out banks’ capability to use their cash and liquid assets to wipe off the current liabilities if any. Figure 9 represents the quick assets to total assets ratios of four banks. This ratio in case of HDFC Bank is majorly fluctuating till 2018 and then falls down in the years 2019 and 2020. The ratio in the case of AXIS Bank is positively fluctuating but declines in 2017, 2019, and 2020. This ratio of ICICI Bank is fluctuating till 2018 and then declines in the last two years. The ratio in the case of KOTAK Mahindra bank is increasing during the last ten years.

Figure 9 Quick Assets to Total Assets of Private Banks

Figure 10 represents the cash - deposit ratio of all four banks. In the case of ICICI Bank, the ratio is decreasing, which is unfavourable for the liquidity position of the bank. If we talk about the HDFC Bank, the ratio is seen as highest in 2011 and 2018 and then the performance decrease. The ratios in the case of AXIS Bank fluctuate positively and seen as the maximum in 2020. Lastly, in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank, the ratio is constantly declining which is negative from the bank’s perspective. It is advisable for the banks to maintain liquidity to operate in business and the cash to deposit ratio depicts such liquidity position of the banks.

Figure 10 Cash to Deposit Ratio of Private Banks

Suggestions and Findings

From the above analysis the following outcomes are found about the financial performance of these 4 five banks named HDFC bank, ICICI bank, Axis Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank on the basis of CAMEL tool.

1. C- ICICI Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank maintained good capital adequacy ratio. ICICI Bank has highest debt equity ratio from other banks. ICICI Bank is trying to take advantage of financial leverage and is also exposed to greater financial risk. Axis Bank is depending more on equity than debt. The debt-equity combination is better in the case of HDFC and Kotak Mahindra Banks. All four banks have sufficient capital to bear risk.

2. A-In case of assets quality, the Kotak Mahindra Bank and the HDFC Bank are performing well on the basis of Net NPA and Gross NPA Ratio in comparison to other banks. These banks are sufficient enough to hold the credit risks of the business whereas the ICICI Bank and AXIS Bank are facing troubles to maintain the assets quality as their Net NPA and Gross NPA ratios are increasing.

3. M-When we are talking about the management efficiency of private banks, the position hold by HDFC is first whereas Kotak Mahindra bank stands at second position. HDFC Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank are managing their business activities efficiently. But ICICI and AXIS Banks are not showing great management efficiency during the last 10 years.

4. E-On the basis of earning capacity of private banks, HDFC Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank are showing increasing trend in profitability. But in case of ICICI and AXIS Banks, return on assets and interest income to total assets are declining after 2015. These two banks need to improve their earning capacity.

5. L-In the case of Liquidity of the bank, it can be concluded that AXIS Bank performs better this time to maintain the highest liquidity position amongst the other 3 banks. AXIS Bank has sufficient cash and liquid assets to wipe off the current liabilities. HDFC, ICICI and Kotak Mahindra Bank need to improve their cash and quick assets.

The overall performance of HDFC Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank is better as per capital adequacy, assets quality, management efficiency, earnings, and liquidity. But the performance of ICICI and AXIS bank is declining especially from the last five years. ICICI and AXIS Banks should improve their earnings performance, assets quality, and management efficiency to remain in top list of private banks. Otherwise, it will be difficult for these banks to face the competition between private banks in India. During 2019-2020, Covid pandemic creates a threat for almost all industries. The banking industry also affected by the covid pandemic.

On the one hand, Covid Pandemic Create threat, on the other hand it is providing great opportunities to banks to overcome their downfalls with the adoption of new policies regularly framed by RBI. We suggest that all four banks should look forward towards upcoming changes in the economic system and policies more closely to reduce future uncertainty and risk. This will increase the possibilities for these banks to remain in the top list of private banks. Due to major changes in economy as an effect of Covid Pandemic, All four banks have to look forward to the new ways of banking as compared to the previous years.

• Aggarwal, S., & Mittal, P. (2012). Non-performing assets: Comparative position of public and private sector banks in India. International Journal of Business and Management Tomorrow , 2 (1), 1-7.
• Aspal, P.K. (2013). A Camel Model Analysis of State Bank Group. World journal of Social Sciences, 1 (3), 4
• Debnath, R.M., & Shankar, R. (2008). Measuring performance of Indian banks: an application data envelopment analysis. International Journal of Business Performance Management , 10 (1), 57-85.
• Gupta, R. (2014). An analysis of Indian public sector banks using CAMEL approach. IOSR Journal of Business and Management , 16 (1), 94-102.
• Hui, X. (2012). A comparison of financial performance of commercial banks: A case study of Nepal. African Journal of Business Management , 6 (25).
• Kadam, M.M., & Sapkal, D. (2019). A Comparative Analysis of Performance of Public & Private Sector Banks in India Through Camel Rating System. International Educational Applied Research Journal (IEARJ), 3 (1), 1-6,
• Kaur, H., & Saddy N.K. (2011). A comparative Study of Non-Performing Assets of Public and Private Sector Banks. International Journal of Research in Commerce and Management , 82-89.
• Saluja, J., & Kaur, R. (2010). Profitability performance of public Sector Bank in India. Indian Journal of Finance, 4 (4), 17-25.
• Shah, V. (2015). An Analysis on the performance of private and public sector banks in India. International Journal ofr Technology Research in Engineering, 3 (4).
• Singh, A.B., & Tandon, P. (2012). A study of financial performance: A comparative analysis of SBI and ICICI Bank. International Journal of Marketing, Financial Services & Management Research , 1 (11), 56-71.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Building urban community resilience against hazards through public-private partnerships: a review of critical resilience strategies.

1. Introduction

2. research methodology, 2.1. stage 1—literature selection, 2.2. stage 2—analyzing target papers, 3. results and discussion, 3.1. critical resilience strategies for using ppps as a mechanism to build urban community resilience, 3.1.1. vulnerability and risks assessment, 3.1.2. information gathering, 3.1.3. database, 3.1.4. legal, 3.1.5. monitoring and evaluation, 3.1.6. resilience capacity, 3.1.7. communication and coordination, 3.1.8. financial incentives, 3.1.9. functional performance, 4. theoretical framework for critical resilience strategies for building urban community resilience through ppps.

• Relative advantage: The use of PPPs to build the resilience of urban communities must provide the potential of public and private institutions or agencies in partnership with the understanding that PPPs will yield fruitful results in urban community resilience rather than siloed efforts.
• Compatibility: The use of PPPs in urban community resilience must be demonstrated to potential public and private institutions or agencies, showing that adopting the PPP strategy will yield the desired outcomes. It must be demonstrated to them how collaborating with each other will be consistent with the resilience gaps in their urban communities.
• Complexity: The collaboration between the public and private institutions or agencies must not be complex. To increase the likelihood of collaboration between more public institutions and private agencies, the rules or responsibilities of each party need to be easily understood. In addition, the critical resilience strategies needed for using PPPs to build urban community resilience must be understood and easily implemented.
• Trialability: Companies are more likely to invest in strategies that have been tested on a trial basis. An urban community can be selected for collaboration between public and private institutions or agencies on a trial basis. Under this collaborative PPP, the identified critical resilience strategies in this study can be replicated with constant monitoring and evaluation of the results. Positive outcome may increase the likelihood of other urban communities adopting PPPs to build the resilience of their urban communities.
• Observability: Using PPPs as a medium to build urban community resilience needs to be presented in a way that the results will be recognizable to stakeholders. This implies that the public and other external stakeholders should be able to understand the benefits and relative advantages of adopting PPPs in building urban community resilience. Certainly, if the general community and external stakeholders can realize the benefits of PPPs in building urban community resilience, they will be willing to contribute and support the adoption of the PPP concept in building resilience.

5. Implications for Practice and Research

6. conclusions, conflicts of interest, appendix a. list of selected publications.

• Stewart, G.T.; Kolluru, R.; Smith, M. Leveraging public-private partnerships to improve community resilience in times of disaster. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2009 , 39 , 343–364. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Akamani, K.; Wilson, P.I.; Hall, T.E. Barriers to collaborative forest management and implications for building the resilience of forest-dependent communities in the Ashanti region of Ghana. J. Environ. Manag. 2015 , 151 , 11–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chen, J.; Chen, T.H.Y.; Vertinsky, I.; Yumagulova, L.; Park, C. Public-private partnerships for the development of disaster resilient communities. J. Contingencies Crisis Manag. 2013 , 21 , 130–143. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Busch, N.E.; Givens, A.D. Achieving resilience in disaster management: The role of public-private partnerships. J. Strateg. Secur. 2013 , 6 , 1–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Buse, K.; Walt, G. Global public-private partnerships: Part I—A new development in health? Bull. World Health Organ. 2000 , 78 , 549–561. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Ampratwum, G.; Osei-Kyei, R.; Tam, V.W. Exploring the concept of public-private partnership in building critical infrastructure resilience against unexpected events: A systematic review. Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct. Prot. 2022 , 39 , 100556. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lindberg, H.; Sundelius, B. Whole-of-Society Disaster Resilience: The Swedish Way ; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Agrawal, A.; Perrin, N. Climate Change, Local Institutions, and Rural Livelihoods ; International Forestry Resources and Institutions Programme: Washington, DC, USA, 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chandra, A.; Acosta, J.; Howard, S.; Uscher-Pines, L.; Williams, M.; Yeung, D.; Garnett, J.; Meredith, L.S. Building community resilience to disasters: A way forward to enhance national health security. Rand Health Q. 2011 , 1 , 6. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Norris, F.H.; Stevens, S.P.; Pfefferbaum, B.; Wyche, K.F.; Pfefferbaum, R.L. Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2008 , 41 , 127–150. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Osei-Kyei, R.; Tam, V.; Komac, U.; Ampratwum, G. Critical review of urban community resilience indicators. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2023; ahead-of-print . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chi, G.C.; Williams, M.; Chandra, A.; Plough, A.; Eisenman, D. Partnerships for community resilience: Perspectives from the Los Angeles County Community Disaster Resilience project. Public Health 2015 , 129 , 1297. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hahn, D. How to create a public-private partnership: A replicable project associated with business continuity. J. Bus. Contin. Emerg. Plan. 2010 , 4 , 274–285. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marana, P.; Labaka, L.; Sarriegi, J.M. A framework for public-private-people partnerships in the city resilience-building process. Saf. Sci. 2018 , 110 , 39–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cui, P.; Li, D. A SNA-based methodology for measuring the community resilience from the perspective of social capitals: Take Nanjing, China as an example. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020 , 53 , 101880. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Y.-c.; Shen, J.-k.; Xiang, W.-n.; Wang, J.-Q. Identifying characteristics of resilient urban communities through a case study method. J. Urban Manag. 2018 , 7 , 141–151. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Onyeagoziri, O.J.; Shaw, C.; Ryan, T. A system dynamics approach for understanding community resilience to disaster risk. Jàmbá J. Disaster Risk Stud. 2021 , 13 , 11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chen, Y.; Liu, T.; Chen, R.; Zhao, M. Influence of the built environment on community flood resilience: Evidence from Nanjing City, China. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 2401. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rapaport, C.; Hornik-Lurie, T.; Cohen, O.; Lahad, M.; Leykin, D.; Aharonson-Daniel, L. The relationship between community type and community resilience. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018 , 31 , 470–477. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Eadie, P.; Su, Y. Post-disaster social capital: Trust, equity, bayanihan and Typhoon Yolanda. Disaster Prev. Manag. 2018 , 27 , 334–345. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nop, S.; Thornton, A. Urban resilience building in modern development. Ecol. Soc. 2019 , 24 , 1–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kammouh, O.; Zamani Noori, A.; Cimellaro, G.P.; Mahin, S.A. Resilience Assessment of Urban Communities. ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertain. Eng. Syst. Part A Civ. Eng. 2019 , 5 , 04019002. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mohamad, N.; Jusoh, H.; Kassim, Z. Localizing of community resilience indicators for assessing the urban community resilience in Putrajaya, Malaysia. Int. J. Eng. Adv. Technol. 2019 , 8 , 359–365. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Argyroudis, S.A.; Mitoulis, S.A. Vulnerability of bridges to individual and multiple hazards-floods and earthquakes. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2021 , 210 , 107564. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Forcellini, D. Seismic resilience of bridges isolated with traditional and geotechnical seismic isolation (GSI). Bull. Earthq. Engin. 2023 , 21 , 3521–3535. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Osei-Kyei, R.; Chan, A.P. Review of studies on the Critical Success Factors for Public-Private Partnership (PPP) projects from 1990 to 2013. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015 , 33 , 1335–1346. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Akomea-Frimpong, I.; Jin, X.; Osei-Kyei, R. Mapping Studies on Sustainability in the Performance Measurement of Public-Private Partnership Projects: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 7174. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tijani, B.; Xiaohua, J.; Osei-Kyei, R. Critical analysis of mental health research among construction project professionals. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2021 , 19 , 467–496. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Craft, L.L. Examining Community Resilience in the Disaster-Prone City of Conway, SC. J. Soc. Chang. 2020 , 12 , 12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cui, K.; Han, Z.; Wang, D. Resilience of an earthquake-stricken rural community in southwest China: Correlation with disaster risk reduction efforts. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018 , 15 , 407. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Falagas, M.E.; Pitsouni, E.I.; Malietzis, G.A.; Pappas, G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008 , 22 , 338–342. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ofori-Kuragu, J.K.; Osei-Kyei, R. Mainstreaming pre-manufactured offsite processes in construction–are we nearly there? Constr. Innov. 2021 , 21 , 743–760. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bajracharya, B.; Hastings, P.; Childs, I.; McNamee, P. Public-private partnership in disaster management: A case study of the gold coast. Aust. J. Emerg. Manag. 2012 , 27 , 27–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zio, E. Challenges in the vulnerability and risk analysis of critical infrastructures. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2016 , 152 , 137–150. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peek, L.; Tobin, J.; Adams, R.M.; Wu, H.; Mathews, M.C. A framework for convergence research in the hazards and disaster field: The natural hazards engineering research infrastructure CONVERGE facility. Front. Built Environ. 2020 , 6 , 110. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Auguste, L. A comprehensive strategy of resilience: Veolia and Swiss Re partnership in New Orleans. Field Actions Sci. Rep. J. Field Actions 2018 , 34–37. Available online: http://journals.openedition.org/factsreports/4769 (accessed on 16 June 2024).
• Bixler, R.P.; Yang, E.; Richter, S.M.; Coudert, M. Boundary crossing for urban community resilience: A social vulnerability and multi-hazard approach in Austin, Texas, USA. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021 , 66 , 102613. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kwok, A.H.; Doyle, E.E.; Becker, J.; Johnston, D.; Paton, D. What is ‘social resilience’? Perspectives of disaster researchers, emergency management practitioners, and policymakers in New Zealand. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2016 , 19 , 197–211. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Falasca, M.; Zobel, C.W.; Cook, D. A decision support framework to assess supply chain resilience. In Proceedings of the 5th International ISCRAM Conference, Washington, DC, USA, 4–7 May 2008; pp. 596–605. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hosseini, S.; Barker, K. Modeling infrastructure resilience using Bayesian networks: A case study of inland waterway ports. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2016 , 93 , 252–266. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chandra, A.; Williams, M.; Plough, A.; Stayton, A.; Wells, K.B.; Horta, M.; Tang, J. Getting actionable about community resilience: The Los Angeles county community disaster resilience project. Am. J. Public Health 2013 , 103 , 1181–1189. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bava, S.; Coffey, E.P.; Weingarten, K.; Becker, C. Lessons in collaboration, four Years post-Katrina. Fam. Process 2010 , 49 , 543–558. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Adams, L.M. Promoting disaster resilience through use of interdisciplinary teams: A program evaluation of the integrated care team approach. World Med. Health Policy 2016 , 8 , 8–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brogt, E.; Grimshaw, M.; Baird, N. Clergy views on their role in city resilience: Lessons from the Canterbury earthquakes. Kōtuitui New Zealand J. Soc. Sci. Online 2015 , 10 , 83–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kousky, C.; Kunreuther, H. Risk management roles of the public and private sector. Risk Manag. Insur. Rev. 2018 , 21 , 181–204. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ouyang, M.; Dueñas-Osorio, L. Multi-dimensional hurricane resilience assessment of electric power systems. Struct. Saf. 2014 , 48 , 15–24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lu, Z.; Peña-Mora, F.; Wang, S.; Liu, T.; Wu, D. Assessment framework for financing public-private partnership infrastructure projects through asset-backed securitization. J. Manag. Eng. 2019 , 35 , 04019027. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wibowo, A.; Alfen, H.W. Government-led critical success factors in PPP infrastructure development. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2015 , 5 , 121–134. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection. Resilience of Critical Infrastructure Protection ; Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection: Brussel, Belgium, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Doyle, E.E.; Becker, J.S.; Neely, D.P.; Johnston, D.M.; Pepperell, B. Knowledge transfer between communities, practitioners, and researchers: A case study for community resilience in Wellington, New Zealand. Australas. J. Disaster Trauma Stud. 2015 , 19 , 55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Labaka, L.; Hernantes, J.; Sarriegi, J.M. A holistic framework for building critical infrastructure resilience. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2016 , 103 , 21–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• World Bank Group. Lifelines: The Resilient Infrastructure Opportunity ; World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rehak, D.; Senovsky, P.; Slivkova, S. Resilience of critical infrastructure elements and its main factors. Systems 2018 , 6 , 21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Department of Internal Affairs. National Civil Defence Emergency Management Strategy ; Department of Internal Affairs: New York, NY, USA, 2008.
• Sheffi, Y.; Blanco, E. Balancing Green: When to Embrace Sustainability in a Business (and When Not to) ; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cutts, M.; Wang, Y.; Yu, Q. New Perspectives on Building Resilience into Infrastructure Systems. Nat. Hazards Rev. 2017 , 18 , B4015004. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carrel, L.F. Training civil servants for crisis management. J. Contingencies Crisis Manag. 2000 , 8 , 192–196. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brown, C.; Seville, E.; Vargo, J. Measuring the organizational resilience of critical infrastructure providers: A New Zealand case study. Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct. Prot. 2017 , 18 , 37–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. OECD Reviews of Risk Management Policies: Good Governance for Critical Infrastructure Resilience ; Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development: Paris, France, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations , 5th ed.; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gledson, B.J.; Greenwood, D. The adoption of 4D BIM in the UK construction industry: An innovation diffusion approach. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2017 , 24 , 950–967. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ampratwum, G.; Agyekum, K.; Adinyira, E.; Duah, D. A framework for the implementation of green certification of buildings in Ghana. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2021 , 21 , 1263–1277. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shibeika, A.; Harty, C. Diffusion of digital innovation in construction: A case study of a UK engineering firm. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2015 , 33 , 453–466. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Osei-Kyei, R.; Ampratwum, G.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Komac, U.; Narbaev, T. Building Urban Community Resilience against Hazards through Public-Private Partnerships: A Review of Critical Resilience Strategies. Buildings 2024 , 14 , 1947. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14071947

Osei-Kyei R, Ampratwum G, Tam VWY, Komac U, Narbaev T. Building Urban Community Resilience against Hazards through Public-Private Partnerships: A Review of Critical Resilience Strategies. Buildings . 2024; 14(7):1947. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14071947

Osei-Kyei, Robert, Godslove Ampratwum, Vivian W. Y. Tam, Ursa Komac, and Timur Narbaev. 2024. "Building Urban Community Resilience against Hazards through Public-Private Partnerships: A Review of Critical Resilience Strategies" Buildings 14, no. 7: 1947. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14071947

Article Metrics

Further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• DOI: 10.24857/rgsa.v18n9-129
• Corpus ID: 270664951

Comparative Study of Stress Levels and Coping Mechanisms among Women Bank Employees in Kanpur City: Public vs. Private Sector Banks

• Sneha Gupta , Asma Farooque , Mohd Shuaib Siddiqui
• Published in Revista de Gestão Social e… 19 June 2024
• Business, Sociology

Tables from this paper

27 References

Perceived social support (pss) and work-life balance (wlb) in a developing country: the moderating impact of work-life policy, impact of perceived family support, workplace support, and work-life balance policies on work-life balance among female bankers in bangladesh, organizational ambidexterity and human resource practices, bankers work-­life balance and organizational commitment: exploring the dominant factors to move on job-­family life balance, work life balance and job satisfaction among the working women of banking and education sector - a comparative study, work-life balance: is it still a new concept in private commercial banking sector of bangladesh, rethinking the work–life interface: it's not about balance, it's about resource allocation, further examination of the link between work-family conflict and physical health, employee assistance programs., sociopathy: an experiment in internal environmental control., related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

• Environment
• Science & Technology
• Business & Industry
• Health & Public Welfare
• Topics (CFR Indexing Terms)
• Public Inspection
• Presidential Documents
• Document Search
• Advanced Document Search
• Public Inspection Search
• Reader Aids Home
• Office of the Federal Register Announcements
• Using FederalRegister.Gov
• Understanding the Federal Register
• Recent Site Updates
• Federal Register & CFR Statistics
• Videos & Tutorials
• Developer Resources
• Government Policy and OFR Procedures
• Congressional Review
• My Clipboard
• My Comments
• My Subscriptions
• Sign In / Sign Up
• Site Feedback
• Search the Federal Register

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government.

• Legal Status

This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.

The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our official publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov.

The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an official edition of the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for the Suwannee Alligator Snapping Turtle with a Section 4(d) Rule

A Rule by the Fish and Wildlife Service on 06/27/2024

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register .

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register . Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Enhanced Content - Table of Contents

This table of contents is a navigational tool, processed from the headings within the legal text of Federal Register documents. This repetition of headings to form internal navigation links has no substantive legal effect.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Supplementary information:, executive summary, previous federal actions, peer review, summary of changes from the proposed rule, summary of comments and recommendations, public comments, comments from states, public comments categorized by topic, species' status, critical habitat, i. final listing determination, regulatory and analytical framework, regulatory framework, analytical framework, summary of biological status and threats, harvest (commercial and poaching), impacts of harvest, habitat alteration and degradation, nest predation, climate change, other stressors, conservation efforts and regulatory mechanisms, clean water act, convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (cites), national wildlife refuges, department of defense—moody air force base, state protections, state and federal stream protections (deadhead logging), state and federal stream protections (buffers and permits), suwannee river water management district (srwmd), current condition, future condition, determination of suwannee alligator snapping turtle status, status throughout all of its range, status throughout a significant portion of its range, determination of status, available conservation measures, ii. protective regulations under section 4(d) of the act, provisions of the 4(d) rule, iii. critical habitat, prudency determination, required determinations, national environmental policy act ( 42 u.s.c. 4321 et seq.), government-to-government relationship with tribes, references cited, list of subjects in 50 cfr part 17, regulation promulgation, part 17—endangered and threatened wildlife and plants, enhanced content - submit public comment.

• This feature is not available for this document.

Enhanced Content - Read Public Comments

Enhanced content - sharing.

• Email this document to a friend

Enhanced Content - Document Print View

• Print this document

Enhanced Content - Document Tools

These tools are designed to help you understand the official document better and aid in comparing the online edition to the print edition.

These markup elements allow the user to see how the document follows the Document Drafting Handbook that agencies use to create their documents. These can be useful for better understanding how a document is structured but are not part of the published document itself.

Enhanced Content - Developer Tools

This document is available in the following developer friendly formats:.

• JSON: Normalized attributes and metadata
• XML: Original full text XML
• MODS: Government Publishing Office metadata

More information and documentation can be found in our developer tools pages .

Official Content

• View printed version (PDF)

This PDF is the current document as it appeared on Public Inspection on 06/26/2024 at 8:45 am. It was viewed 29 times while on Public Inspection.

If you are using public inspection listings for legal research, you should verify the contents of the documents against a final, official edition of the Federal Register. Only official editions of the Federal Register provide legal notice of publication to the public and judicial notice to the courts under 44 U.S.C. 1503 & 1507 . Learn more here .

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

Final rule.

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine threatened species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended, for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle ( Macrochelids suwanniensis ), a large, freshwater turtle species from the Suwannee River basin in Florida and Georgia. This rule adds the species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. We also finalize a rule issued under the authority of section 4(d) of the Act that provides measures that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of this species. We have determined that designating critical habitat for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is not prudent.

This rule is effective July 29, 2024.

This final rule is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0007 and on the Service's Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) species page at https://ecos.fws.gov/​ecp/​species/​10891 . Comments and materials we received, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this rule, are available for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0007.

Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials we used in preparing this rule, such as the species status assessment report, are available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0007.

Lourdes Mena, Classification and Recovery Division Manager, Florida Ecological Services Field Office, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200, Jacksonville, FL 32256-7517; email: [email protected] ; telephone: 352-749-2462.

Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or Tele Braille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.

Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants listing if it meets the definition of an endangered species (in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or a threatened species (likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range). If we determine that a species warrants listing, we must list the species promptly and designate the species' critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent and determinable.We have determined that the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle meets the Act's definition of a threatened species; therefore, we are listing it as such. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species can be completed only by issuing a rule through the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process ( 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ).

What this document does. This rule lists the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle ( Macrochelys suwanniensis ) as a threatened species and finalizes the rule issued under the authority of section 4(d) of the Act (the “4(d) rule”) that provides measures that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of this species.

The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We have determined that the primary threats acting on the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle include illegal harvest and collection (Factor B), nest predation (Factor C), and hook ingestion and entanglement due to bycatch associated with freshwater fishing (Factor E).

Please refer to the April 7, 2021, proposed rule ( 86 FR 18014 ) for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle.

A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report, version 1.0, for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle (Service 2020, entire). The SSA team was composed of Service biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA report represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of the species, including the impacts of past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting the species.

In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 ( 59 FR 34270 ), and our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of listing actions under the Act, we sought peer review of the SSA report version 1.0 (Service 2020, entire). As discussed in the proposed rule, we sent the SSA report to four independent peer reviewers and received responses from one reviewer. The peer review can be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov and at our Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). In preparing the proposed rule, we incorporated the results of this review, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which was the foundation for the proposed rule and this final rule. A summary of the peer review comments and our responses can be found in in the Summary of Comments and Recommendations below.

In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered comments we received on our April 7, 2021, proposed rule to list the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle as a threatened species with a 4(d) rule. We updated the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle SSA report (to version 1.2 (Service 2022, entire) based on comments and additional information provided during the proposed rule's Start Printed Page 53508 comment period. Those updates are reflected in this final rule, as follows:

1. We update the description of the species' representation and redundancy and clarify these conservation principles to provide a better understanding of the species' current and future viability.

2. We include new information provided during the comment period regarding the effectiveness of best management practices (BMPs) associated with forest management practices. We added a discussion on ways in which the implementation of such BMPs provides conservation benefits to the species.

3. For the 4(d) rule, we are not including the exception from prohibitions associated with Federal and State captive-breeding programs to support conservation efforts for wild populations. We determined this provision is redundant with the exception under 50 CFR 17.31(b) , which is already included in the 4(d) rule.

4. For the 4(d) rule, we are not including the exception from the prohibitions regarding incidental take resulting from herbicide/pesticide use from this final rule. We do not have enough information about the types or amounts of pesticides that may be applied in areas where Suwannee alligator snapping turtle occurs to be able assess the future impacts to the species. The additional materials provided during the public comment period indicate impacts to other turtle species from pesticide use occurs (Bishop et al. 1991, entire; Sparling et al. 2006, entire; Kittle et al. 2018, entire). Therefore, including this exception to incidental take may not provide for the conservation of the species. Further, we note that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not consulted on most pesticide registrations to date, so excepting take solely based on user compliance with label directions and State and local regulations EPA has not consulted on most pesticide registrations to date and is not appropriate in this situation. Retaining this exception in the absence of consultation on a specific pesticide registration may create confusion regarding the consideration of these impacts and whether Federal regulatory processes apply to these activities. It was not our intent to supersede the consultation on the pesticide registration nor other Federal activities.

5. For the 4(d) rule, we revise the text of the exception from incidental take prohibition resulting from forestry management practices. We remove the terms “silviculture and silvicultural practices” and replace them with “forest management practices” to clarify the exception to incidental take prohibitions, as this is more appropriate for the intent and purpose of the rule.

6. For the 4(d) rule, we are not including the exception from incidental take prohibition resulting from construction, operation, and maintenance activities that occur near and in a stream. We determined this exception is too vague to meaningfully provide conservation benefits to the species. In addition, this exception could have caused confusion regarding whether Federal or State regulatory processes apply to these activities. Many activities occurring near or in a stream require permits or project review by Federal or State agencies, and including this exception could have been interpreted as removing these requirements, which was not our intention.

7. For the 4(d) rule, we are not including the exception from incidental take prohibition resulting from maintenance dredging activities that occur in the previously disturbed portion of a maintained channel. We determined this exception is too vague to meaningfully provide conservation benefits to the species. In addition, dredging activities to promote river traffic can cause temporary turbidity, leading to decreased ability to see and ambush prey species; the removal of underwater snags, which could reduce prey availability by eliminating areas where prey is found ( e.g., congregation areas, nursery areas, feeding areas); and the filling of scour areas used to ambush prey. In addition, this exception could have caused confusion regarding whether Federal or State regulatory processes apply to these activities. All in-water work, including dredging in previously dredged area, requires appropriate State and Federal permits, so including this exception could have been interpreted as removing this requirement, which was not our intention.

8. For the 4(d) rule, we are not including the exception from prohibitions for Tribal employees and State-licensed wildlife rehabilitation facilities. A provision under 50 CFR 17.31(b)(1) now extends to federally recognized Tribes the exceptions to prohibitions for threatened wildlife to aid, salvage, or dispose of threatened wildlife and is already included in this 4(d) rule. We also are not including the exception from prohibitions for State-licensed wildlife rehabilitation facilities because it is redundant with the provision at 50 CFR 17.21(c)(3) , which allows take of endangered wildlife without a permit if such action is necessary to aid a sick, injured, or orphaned specimen without additional authorization, which is also already included in the 4(d) rule.

9. We update information to reflect that the alligator snapping turtle ( Macrochelys temminckii ) was transferred from Appendix III of CITES to Appendix II (CITES 2023, pp. 45-46).

10. We make minor, nonsubstantive editorial corrections and revisions for clarity and consistency throughout this document.

The information we received during the comment period on our April 7, 2021, proposed rule did not change our determination that the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle meets the Act's definition of a threatened species. The information provided through the comment period also did not cause us to revise our determination that designation of critical habitat for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is not prudent.

In the proposed rule published on April 7, 2021 ( 86 FR 18014 ), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by June 7, 2021. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposed listing determination and proposed 4(d) rule. A newspaper notice inviting general public comment was published in the Gainesville Sun on April 21, 2021. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing. All substantive information provided during the comment period either has been incorporated directly into the final rule or is addressed below.

As discussed in Peer Review above, we received a response from one peer reviewer on the draft SSA report. As discussed above, because we conducted this peer review prior to the publication of our proposed rule, we had already incorporated all applicable peer review comments into version 1.1 of the SSA report, which was the foundation for the proposed rule and this final rule and ultimately into the latest version of the SSA report, version 1.2 (Service 2022, entire). The peer reviewer generally concurred with our methods and conclusions and provided additional information regarding seed dispersal by the common snapping turtle ( Chelydra sepentina ). We added the information provided by the peer reviewer into the SSA report, version 1.1 (Service 2021, entire) as appropriate. Start Printed Page 53509

We received 34 public comments in response to our April 7, 2021, proposed rule. We reviewed all comments we received during the public comment period for substantive issues and new information regarding the proposed rule. Seventeen comments provided substantive comments or new information concerning the proposed listing of the species' status, proposed 4(d) rule, and prudency determination for critical habitat for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. Below, we provide a summary of public comments we received; however, comments that we incorporated as changes into the final rule, comments outside the scope of the proposed rule, and those without supporting information did not warrant an explicit response and, thus, are not presented here. Identical or similar comments have been consolidated and a single response provided.

(1) Comment: The Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR), Wildlife Resources Division commented that occasional observations by biologists and anglers indicate that ensnarement and/or hook ingestion by Suwannee alligator snapping turtle may occur as a result of legal fishing methods in Georgia, and research is needed to further quantify population impacts of incidental take on this species. The GDNR also recommended the rule place greater emphasis on promoting practices and regulations to reduce impacts to the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle from abandoned fishing gear.

Our Response: We plan to work with both GDNR and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to better understand impacts from legal and abandoned fishing gear. As discussed in our April 7, 2021, proposed rule, turtle bycatch from legal recreational and commercial fishing with hoop nets and trot lines (and varieties including jug lines, bush hooks, and limb lines) is a concern for the conservation of the species due to its effects on species abundance, particularly in light of the species' life-history traits. It is important to ensure that fishing activities take into consideration the need to prevent accidental turtle deaths from the use of such fishing gear, and we will work with our State partners to identify measures and revisions to existing State fishing regulations to reduce bycatch of Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. Given we did not receive information during the comment period for bycatch reduction techniques, we did not include an exception for incidental take of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle resulting from bycatch from otherwise lawful recreational and commercial fishing in our final 4(d) rule. Therefore, take of the species resulting from bycatch activities is prohibited in the 4(d) rule.

(2) Comment: One commenter stated their view that the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle should be listed as an endangered species rather than a threatened species.

Our Response: An endangered species is one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Based on the best available information as described in the SSA report (Service 2022, entire), we do not find that the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The current condition of the species provides for sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and representation such that it is not currently in danger of extinction (see Determination of Suwannee Alligator Snapping Turtle Status in the proposed listing rule ( 86 FR 18014 , April 7, 2021, at pp. 18026-18028) and below in this final rule). When evaluating the species' status based on the threats and the species' response to the threats in the future, the species meets the Act's definition of a threatened species because it is at risk of becoming an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. The commenters did not provide any new information regarding threats to the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle or its current status that was not already considered in the SSA report (Service 2021, entire) or our April 7, 2021, proposed rule. With no new information to consider, our conclusion regarding the status of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle remains the same.

(3) Comment: A commenter suggested we list the common snapping turtle ( C. serpentina ) under the Act based on similarity of appearance (see 16 U.S.C. 1533(e) ) to help curb the threat of incidental captures of Suwannee alligator snapping turtles by trappers that are targeting common snapping turtles.

Our Response: Under section 4(e) of the Act ( 16 U.S.C. 1533(e) ), a species may be listed as endangered or threatened due to similarity of appearance of a listed species if the species so closely resemble one another that it is difficult to tell them apart and if this similarity is a threat to the species that is warranted for listing. The likelihood of incidental capture from legal common snapping turtle harvest is anticipated to be low due to the disparity between the preferred habitat types used by the common snapping turtle and the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. Common snapping turtle habitat typically includes impoundments such as lakes, ponds, and oxbows. The Suwannee alligator snapping turtle prefers more riverine systems. While there may be some overlap between these habitat types and their ranges, the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle can be distinguished from the common snapping turtle based on certain physical characteristics. The common snapping turtle shares some similar features to the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle, but there are distinctive characteristics that can aid in differentiation of the two species. The Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's carapace has three keeled ridges and a curved, hooked, beak-like projection at the mouth, while the common snapping turtle lacks these features. Because of the physical characteristics that are unique to each species that facilitate identification, we have determined that listing the common snapping turtle due to similarity of appearance is not necessary or appropriate.

(4) Comment: One commenter noted the Service's analysis of redundancy and representation for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle in the SSA report was contrary to the agency's SSA framework and commented that we did not describe representation in a meaningful way.

Our Response: Our analysis of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's redundancy and representation adheres to the definitions presented in the SSA framework. Representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment, and redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events. At the time of our April 7, 2021, proposed rule, the best available scientific information regarding the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle indicated there was no genetic or environmental condition variation across the species' range. We assessed representation, which measures a species' adaptive potential in the face of natural or anthropogenic changes, as inherently low for this species, because the best available information at that time showed it lacked significant genetic variation within its single population. Based on Start Printed Page 53510 the public comments and new literature related to assessing adaptive capacity (Thurman et al. 2020, entire), in this final rule and our revised SSA report, version 1.2 (Service 2022, entire), we updated our discussion of representation by describing the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's adaptive capacity in terms of its genetic, biological, and ecological traits necessary to understand the species' plasticity to changing conditions over time. Adaptive capacity reflects the amount of tolerance for change based on genotypic and phenotypic attributes. Change can include impacts from climate change ( e.g., higher air and water temperatures, saltwater intrusion, etc.) and humans ( e.g., water withdrawal, fishing gear, habitat alterations, etc.). We assessed the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle to have low to moderate adaptive capacity in the life-history and demography traits and moderate to high adaptive capacity in the distribution, movement, evolutionary potential, ecological role, and abiotic niche traits. Further information on how we describe the species in terms of its adaptive capacity with its ability to acclimate to environmental stressors can be found in our SSA report, version 1.2 (Service 2022, pp. 37-39).

For redundancy, in our proposed and this final rule, we assessed current redundancy as limited, as the species is considered a single population with no physical barriers to movement. While there is only a single population, it is widely distributed across the historical range. We assessed the chance of a catastrophic event affecting the entire species as very low. However, given the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is currently assessed as a single population with an estimated abundance of 2,000 turtles across the species' historical range, we determined redundancy to be naturally limited, given the species' distribution is limited to the Suwannee River basin.

(5) Comment: One commenter inquired why the Service did not apply the blanket 4(d) rule to this species.

Our Response: Prior to August 27, 2019, the prohibitions for endangered species under section 9 of the Act were generally extended to threatened species (referred to as the “blanket 4(d) rule”) unless we adopted a species-specific 4(d) rule for a particular species. On August 27, 2019, we published a final rule ( 84 FR 44753 ) removing the blanket 4(d) rule for threatened species. That 2019 final rule was in effect when we published our April 7, 2021, proposed rule for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle and is still in effect. On May 6, 2024, a rule became effective that re-instated the blanket 4(d) rule ( 89 FR 23919 ). The updated regulations extend the majority of the protections (all of the prohibitions that apply to endangered species under section 9 with certain exceptions to those prohibitions) to threatened species, unless we issue an alternative rule under section 4(d) of the Act for a particular species ( i.e., a species-specific 4(d) rule). For species with a species-specific 4(d) rule, that rule contains all of the protective regulations for that species. We exercised our authority under section 4(d) of the Act and developed a proposed species-specific 4(d) rule to address the specific threats and conservation needs of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. The 4(d) rule is necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. For the species-specific 4(d) rule, we determined that it is not necessary to apply all of the Act's section 9 prohibitions to the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle; the provisions of the species-specific 4(d) rule are described below under Provisions of the 4(d) Rule and set forth below under Regulation Promulgation.

(6) Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the Service's description of the exceptions for construction, operation, and maintenance in the 4(d) rule is too broad and vague to determine when the exception applies.

Our Response: We agree that it is difficult to understand and identify specific situations when the exception to incidental take resulting for construction, operation, and maintenance activities would apply. Accordingly, as stated above under Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rule, we are not including an exception to the incidental take prohibitions in the 4(d) rule for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle because it is too vague to meaningfully provide conservation benefits to the species. In addition, many activities occurring near or in a stream require permits or project review by Federal or State agencies, and, if retained, this exception would have caused confusion with respect to the requirements that must be met when undertaking these activities.

(7) Comment: One commenter expressed concern about an exception for silviculture and forestry BMPs, given the implementation of less effective silviculture and forestry BMPs for riparian areas and potential negative impacts to the species.

Our Response: State-approved BMPs for silviculture and forestry maintain riparian buffers, resulting in reduced sedimentation into the stream from upland sources, reduced water temperature, increased dissolved oxygen, and more material for in-water woody debris. These attributes promote aquatic diversity and are required for healthy habitats.

Implementing BMPs that avoid or minimize the effects of habitat alterations in areas that support Suwannee alligator snapping turtles will provide additional measures for conserving the species by reducing indirect effects to the species. We recognize that silvicultural operations are widely implemented in accordance with State-approved forestry BMPs (as reviewed by Cristan et al. 2018, entire), which provide more stringent riparian protections, and the adherence to these BMPs broadly protects water quality, particularly related to sedimentation (as reviewed by Cristan et al. 2016, entire; Warrington et al. 2017, entire; and Schilling et al. 2021, entire). For example, Florida's State silviculture BMPs for designated outstanding Florida waters, such as the Suwannee and Santa Fe Rivers, require a 300-foot buffer on each side of the river. Forestry and silvicultural activities that implement State-approved BMPs will have a de minimis impact on the species, and we have determined that this exception to the incidental take prohibitions in the 4(d) rule will be beneficial to the species. If forestry and silvicultural activities do not implement or improperly implement BMPs, then this exception will not apply.

(8) Comment: One commenter suggested that current regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to address the threat of incidental bycatch to the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle, and a 4(d) rule that excepts take incidental to recreational fishing activities would only be appropriate if the methods of fishing that incidentally capture turtles were prohibited or significantly modified to prevent incidental capture.

Our Response: In the proposed rule, we requested information regarding ideas for the design of a turtle escape or exclusion device and modified trot line techniques that would effectively eliminate or significantly reduce bycatch of alligator snapping turtles from recreational fishing; however, we did not receive any comments to inform fishing gear modifications to reduce bycatch of Suwannee alligator snapping turtles. Recreational fishing activities are regulated by State natural resource and fish and game agencies, and these agencies issue permits for these Start Printed Page 53511 activities in accordance with their regulations. We will coordinate with State agencies to better understand the impacts of permitted recreational fishing on Suwannee alligator snapping turtles. In addition, we will work with the State to reduce the risk of bycatch, which may include modifying fishing mechanisms based on the best available science related to reducing fishing impacts through research and development on innovative fishing technologies and methodologies. Additionally, we will continue coordinating with State agencies on the development of public awareness programs regarding identification and conservation of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. Further, since we did not receive information during the comment period for bycatch reduction techniques, we do not include in the 4(d) rule an exception to incidental take of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle resulting from bycatch from otherwise lawful recreational and commercial fishing using techniques to reduce bycatch. Therefore, take of the species resulting from bycatch is prohibited by the 4(d) rule.

(9) Comment: One commenter expressed concern about the 4(d) rule's exception to the take prohibition for pesticide and herbicide use. The commenter stated that the exception is arbitrary and not supported by the best available scientific and commercial data. The commenter stated that exposure to pesticides and herbicides is harmful to turtle species and provided several citations to support the comment (such as, Bishop et al. 1991, entire; Sparling et al. 2006, entire; Kittle et al. 2018, entire))

Our Response: After review of the comments to the proposed rule and revisiting the best available scientific and commercial information, we are not including the pesticide and herbicide use exception from the incidental take prohibitions in the final 4(d) rule. In the proposed rule and this final rule, we describe the primary threats to the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle as illegal harvest and collection, nest predation, and hook ingestion and entanglement due to bycatch associated with freshwater fishing. And although nest predation is a primary threat to the species, the most common nest predators identified are raccoons ( Procyon lotor ). Nonnative, invasive species, such as feral pigs ( Sus scrofa ) and red imported fire ants ( Solenopsis invicta ), occur across the species' range, but to date, nest predation by these nonnative species has not been documented. In the preamble of our proposed 4(d) rule, we proposed an exception to incidental take prohibitions resulting from invasive species removal activities using pesticides and herbicides as these types of activities could be considered beneficial to the native ecosystem and are likely to improve habitat conditions for the species. However, we do not have enough information about the types or amounts of pesticides that may be applied in areas where Suwannee alligator snapping turtle occurs to be able assess the future impacts to the species.

The additional materials provided during the public comment period do not indicate Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is impacted greatly from pesticides used to reduce impacts from nonnative, invasive species; however, the information provided does indicate impacts to other turtle species from pesticide use (Bishop et al. 1991, entire; Sparling et al. 2006, entire; Kittle et al. 2018, entire). As documented in other turtle species from the literature provided by the commenter, we assessed that there is the potential of indirect effects from pesticides on the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle, and therefore, including this exception to incidental take may not provide for the conservation of the species.

Further, we note that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not consulted on most pesticide registrations to date, so excepting take solely based on users complying with labels is not appropriate in this situation. Thus, we are not including the exception from the prohibitions regarding incidental take resulting from herbicide/pesticide use from this final rule.

(10) Comment: One commenter suggested modifying the 4(d) rule to except captive breeding for turtles held in captivity prior to the effective date of the listing to allow for appropriate captive-breeding programs to contribute to the conservation of the species.

Our Response: We recognize the contribution of permitted captive breeding to the conservation of species. However, there are currently no captive-breeding efforts occurring for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle; therefore, there are no existing captive-breeding programs that we could except prior to the effective date of this final rule (see DATES , above). There are programs underway for M. temminckii that include captive rearing, head-start programs, and reintroductions that are successful. Similar programs may be implemented in the future to conserve the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. In our proposed 4(d) rule, we included a provision allowing incidental take associated with Federal and State captive-breeding programs to support conservation efforts for wild populations. However, we determined this provision is duplicative of an exception under 50 CFR 17.31(b) , which we also included in the proposed 4(d) rule and retain in this final 4(d) rule. Therefore, this final 4(d) rule does not include a separate captive-breeding exception from the incidental take prohibitions.

(11) Comment: A commenter claimed that the Service did not provide sufficient support for the not-prudent finding for critical habitat designation regarding the threat of illegal collection of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. The commenter also indicates the location data and maps are already available to the public in published reports.

Our Response: We recognize that designation of critical habitat can provide benefits to listed species; however, for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle, increased threats caused by the designation outweigh the benefits (for further discussion, see 86 FR 18014 , April 7, 2021, at p. 18032). We do not dispute the claim that publicly available reports identify specific location data for the species, including locations of where the species occurs from trapping efforts. We acknowledge that general location information is provided within the proposed rule and this final rule, and some specific location information can be found through other sources. However, because the critical habitat designation process includes identifying the physical or biological features for the species and specific areas occupied by the species, the designation of critical habitat would describe and disclose areas of higher quality habitat that supports more turtles, which may allow collectors to better focus their efforts in these areas, thereby exacerbating the threat of collection or other harm from humans.

Please refer to the April 7, 2021, proposed rule ( 86 FR 18014 ) and the SSA report, version 1.2 (Service 2022, pp. 4-14) for a full summary of species' information. Both are available on our ECOS website for the species at https://ecos.fws.gov/​ecp/​species/​10891 and at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0007.

A thorough review of the taxonomy, distribution, life history, and ecology of Start Printed Page 53512 the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle ( Macrochelys suwanniensis ) is presented in the SSA report version 1.2 (Service 2022, pp. 13-22); however, much of this information is based on the Macrochelys genus as a whole and describes the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle using the best available information.

Turtles in the genus Macrochelys are the largest species of freshwater turtle in North America, are highly aquatic, and are somewhat secretive. The genus includes two distinct species, M. temminckii and M. suwanniensis. Macrochelys turtles are characterized as having a large head, long tail, and an upper jaw with a strongly hooked beak. They have three raised keels with posterior elevations on the scutes of the carapace (upper shell), which is dark brown and often has algal growth that adds to their camouflage. Their eyes are positioned on the side of the head and are surrounded by small, fleshy, pointed projections that are unique to the genus.

Suwannee alligator snapping turtles are primarily freshwater turtles endemic to the Suwannee River basin and found more abundantly in the middle reaches of the Suwannee River where freshwater springs contribute to an increase in productivity of the aquatic system (Enge et al. 2014, p. 36). These turtles are typically bottom-dwelling, but surface periodically to breathe (Thomas 2014, p. 60). While the species is typically found in fresh water, it can tolerate some salinity and brackish waters, as barnacles have been found on the carapace of some turtles. The species is found in a variety of habitats across its range, but all life stages rely on submerged material ( i.e., deadhead logs and vegetation) as important structure for resting, foraging, and cover from predators (Enge et al. 2014, p. 39).

The Suwannee River basin encompasses parts of southern Georgia and northern Florida. Main water bodies that currently or historically supported the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle include the Suwannee River, Santa Fe River, New River, Alapaha River, Little River, and Withlacoochee River. Individuals occupy main river channels and tributaries where habitat is present.

Throughout this document, we provide descriptions of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle where the information is available specific to the species. We describe the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle as Macrochelys suwanniensis or Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. We reference Macrochelys when describing the genus and Macrochelys temminckii (abbreviated as M. temminckii ) when referring to the second species of the genus, alligator snapping turtle. Since the taxonomic distinction of the two Macrochelys spp. is relatively recent, we may refer to the genus, or alligator snapping turtles in general, to describe life-history traits.

The general life stages of Macrochelys spp. can be described as egg, hatchling (first year), juvenile (second year until age of sexual maturity), and adult (age of sexual maturity through death). Each life stage has specific requirements in order to contribute to the productivity of the next life stage. They excavate nests in sandy soils or other dry substrate near freshwater sources that are within 8 to 656 feet (ft) (2.5 to 200 meters (m)) from the shore. The incubation period for Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is between 105 to 110 days (Ernst and Lovich 2009, p. 145).

Males achieve sexual maturity in 11-21 years and females in 13-21 years (Ernst and Lovich 2009, p. 144; Reed et al. 2002, p. 4). The age of sexual maturity can be influenced by the size of the turtle, as size increases are greater when food resources and other environmental conditions are more favorable. Adult Suwannee alligator snapping turtles require streams and rivers with submerged logs and undercut banks, clean water, and ample prey.

Female alligator snapping turtles may produce a single clutch once a year or every other year at most even if the conditions are good (Reed et al. 2002, p. 4). Clutch size may vary across the species' range to between 9 and 61 eggs, with a mean clutch size of 27 eggs (Ernst and Lovich 2009, p. 145). Most nesting occurs from May to July (Reed et al. 2002, p. 4).

Suwannee alligator snapping turtles are long-lived species; provided suitable conditions, adults can reach carapace lengths of up to 29 inches and 249 pounds for males, while females can reach lengths of 22 inches and 62 pounds. The oldest documented Macrochelys turtle in captivity survived to at least 80 years of age, but in the wild, the species may live longer (Ernst and Lovich 2009, p. 147). The generation time for the species is around 31 years (range = 28.6-34.0 years, 95 percent confidence interval, Folt et al. 2016, p. 27).

Section 4 of the Act ( 16 U.S.C. 1533 ) and the implementing regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and threatened species. On April 5, 2024, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the regulations in 50 CFR part 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify endangered and threatened species and what criteria we apply when designating listed species' critical habitat ( 89 FR 24300 ). On the same day, the Service published a final rule revising our protections for endangered species and threatened species at 50 CFR part 17 ( 89 FR 23919 ). These final rules are now in effect and are incorporated into the current regulations. Our analysis for this final decision applied our current regulations. Given that we proposed listing for this species under our prior regulations (revised in 2019), we have also undertaken an analysis of whether our decision would be different if we had continued to apply the 2019 regulations; we concluded that the decision would be the same. The analyses under both the regulations currently in effect as of May 6, 2024, and the 2019 regulations are available on https://www.regulations.gov .

The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a “threatened species” as a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors:

(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;

(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

(C) Disease or predation;

(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects.

We use the term “threat” to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to Start Printed Page 53513 negatively affect individuals of a species. The term “threat” includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term “threat” may encompass—either together or separately—the source of the action or condition or the action or condition itself.

However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species.” In determining whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all identified threats by considering the species' expected response and the effects of the threats—in light of those actions and conditions that will ameliorate the threats—on an individual, population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether the species meets the definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species” only after conducting this cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the foreseeable future.

The Act does not define the term “foreseeable future,” which appears in the statutory definition of “threatened species.” Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis which is further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-37021, January 16, 2009; “M- Opinion,” available online at https://www.doi.gov/​sites/​doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/​files/​uploads/​M-37021.pdf ). The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (hereafter, the Services) can make reasonably reliable predictions about the threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats. We need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period of time. We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, using the best available data and taking into account considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics, threat-projection timeframes, and environmental variability. In other words, the foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can make reasonably reliable predictions. “Reliable” does not mean “certain”; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of the Act.

The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision on whether the species should be listed as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. However, it does provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve the further application of standards within the Act and its implementing regulations and policies.

To assess Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's viability, we used the three conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold years); redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events); and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment (for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general, species viability will increase with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.

The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these stages, we used the best available information to characterize viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the wild over time. We use this information to inform our regulatory decision. The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket FWS-R4-ES-2021-0007 on https://www.regulations.gov .

In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall viability and the risks to that viability.

The Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is found in the Suwannee River basin in Georgia and Florida. The species is mostly aquatic and uses a variety of habitat types including deeper water of large rivers and their major tributaries; however, they are also found in a wide variety of habitats, including small streams, springs, bayous, canals, swamps, lakes, reservoirs, and ponds. This large turtle species is an opportunistic feeder and consumes a variety of foods. Fish comprise a significant portion of its diet; however, crayfish, mollusks, smaller turtles, insects, snakes, birds, and vegetation (including acorns) have also been reported (Elsey 2006, pp. 448-489; Elbers and Moll 2011, entire). Additional information regarding the species' needs is provided in the SSA report (Service 2022, pp. 4-14) and the proposed listing rule ( 86 FR 18014 ; April 7, 2021).

We provide information regarding past, present, and future influences, including both positive and negative influences, on the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's current and future viability, including illegal harvest (Factor B), bycatch (Factor E), habitat loss and degradation (Factor A), nest predation (Factor C), climate change (Factor E), and conservation measures. The existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) have not been adequate to arrest the decline of the species. Additional threats such as historical commercial and recreational harvest targeting the species, disease, parasitic insects, boating, and contaminants are described in the SSA report (Service 2022, pp. 15-22); these additional threats may negatively affect individuals of the species or have historically Start Printed Page 53514 affected the species, particularly when compounded with other ongoing stressors or threats, but they do not impact the species' overall current or future viability.

Commercial and recreational turtle harvesting practices in the last century resulted in a decline of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle across its range (Enge et al. 2014, p. 4). Commercial harvest of both species of alligator snapping turtles reached its peak in the late 1960s and 1970s, when the meat was used for commercial turtle soup products and sold in large quantities for public consumption. In addition, many restaurants served turtle soup and purchased large quantities of alligator snapping turtles from trappers in the southeastern States (Reed et al. 2002, p. 5). In the 1970s, the demand for turtle meat was so high that as much as three to four tons of alligator snapping turtles ( M. temminckii ) were harvested from the Flint River in Georgia per day (Pritchard 1989, p. 76). The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (now the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)) reported significant numbers of turtles being taken from the Apalachicola and Ochlocknee Rivers to presumably be sent to restaurants in New Orleans and other destinations (Pritchard 1989, pp. 74-75). While such large-scale removal of Macrochelys turtles occurred across the range of the genus, the population demographics of Suwannee alligator snapping turtles in Florida indicate there was likely less commercial harvesting activities in the Suwannee River drainage than elsewhere (Enge et al. 2017, p. 6; Enge et al. 2014, entire; Johnston et al. 2015, entire).

Florida prohibited the commercial harvest of all Macrochelys spp. in 1972, and recreational or personal harvest in 2009; Georgia prohibited all harvest in 1992 (Service 2022, pp. 27-29). Despite the prohibitions on commercial and recreational harvest for the species, the historical removal of large turtles continues to affect the species due to their low fecundity, low juvenile survival, long lifespan, and delayed maturity. Commercial harvest is not currently a threat to the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle, but the effect of historical, large-scale removal of large turtles is ongoing.

Although both Florida and Georgia have prohibited recreational harvest, there is an international and domestic demand for turtles for consumption and for herpetofauna enthusiasts who collect turtle species for pets (Stanford et al. 2020, entire). The Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is no exception; farmed, hatchling alligator snapping turtles may be sold for up to 400 U.S. dollars per turtle (Lejeune et al. 2020, p. 8; MorphMarket 2024, unpaginated). Illegal harvest, or poaching, of Suwannee alligator snapping turtles may occur anywhere within the species' range for both the pet trade and turtle meat trade. The best available information regarding potential pressure from poaching comes from documented reports by law enforcement agencies and court cases involving the congeneric (species within the same genus) alligator snapping turtle. In 2017, three men were convicted of violating the Lacey Act ( 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378 ; 18 U.S.C. 42 ) because they collected 60 large alligator snapping turtles ( M. temminckii ) in a single year in Texas and transported them across State lines (see United States v. Travis Leger et al., No. 1:17-CR-00040 (E.D. Tex.)). We expect that illegal harvest is affecting Suwannee alligator snapping turtles, given it has been documented on many occasions for the heterospecific alligator snapping turtle. Illegal harvest is an ongoing threat to the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle because removing adult female turtles from the population lowers the viability of the species by reducing reproductive potential; in addition, the species is long-lived, slow to mature, and juvenile survival is very low, making it more difficult for the historically over-harvested population to recover.

Aside from the local and domestic use of turtles, the global demand for pet turtles and turtle meat continues to increase. Many species of turtles are collected from the wild as well as bred in captivity and are sold domestically and exported internationally. Macrochelys spp. are regularly exported out of the United States, typically as hatchlings or juveniles, to initiate brood stock for overseas turtle farms and for turtle collectors. According to the Service's Law Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS), which provides reports about the legal international wildlife trade, most shipments of live alligator snapping turtles exported from 2005 to 2018 consisted of small turtles destined mostly for Hong Kong and China (Service 2018, entire). Prior to 2006, up to 23,780 M. temminckii per year were exported from the United States ( 70 FR 74700 ; December 16, 2005). Since the time of the proposed listing, the species has been uplisted to CITES Appendix II that may provide additional protections to the species. See the section below for additional information, Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms.

Because of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's delayed maturity, long generation times, and relatively low reproductive output, the species cannot sustain collection from the wild, especially of adult females, over any length of time (Reed et al. 2002, pp. 8-12). Adult turtles do not reach sexual maturity until 11 to 21 years of age. A mature female typically produces only one clutch per year consisting of 8-52 eggs (Ernst and Barbour 1989, p. 133). These turtles are characterized by low survivorship in early life stages, but surviving individuals may live many decades once they reach maturity. The life-history traits of the species (low fecundity, late age of maturity, and low survival of nests and juveniles) contribute to the population's slow response rebound after historical over-exploitation. Therefore, population growth rates are extremely sensitive to the harvest of adult females. Adult female survivorship of less than 98 percent per year is considered unsustainable, and a further reduction of this adult survivorship will generally result in significant local population declines (Reed et al. 2002, p. 9), although dynamics likely vary across the species' range. These data underscore how influential adult female mortality is on the ability of the species to maintain viability.

Although regulatory harvest restrictions have decreased the number of Suwannee alligator snapping turtles harvested, populations have not necessarily increased in response. This lag in population response is likely due to the demography of the species—specifically delayed maturity, long generation times, and relatively low reproductive output. The Suwannee alligator snapping turtle population remains low despite commercial and recreational harvest prohibitions (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2017, p. 6). Through expert elicitation, the magnitude of the threat of illegal harvest or poaching across the basin ranges from 20-55 percent of the species' range may be affected (Service 2022, p. 28).

Suwannee alligator snapping turtles can be killed or harmed incidentally during fishing and other recreational activities. Some of these threats include fishhook ingestion; drowning when hooked on trotlines (a fishing line strung across a stream with multiple hooks set at intervals), limb lines, bush Start Printed Page 53515 hooks (single hooks hung from branches), or jug lines (line with a hook affixed to a floating jug); and injuries or drowning when entangled in various types of fishing line. The magnitude of the threat due to incidental hooking ( i.e., recreational trot and limb lines, fishing tackle, etc.) as provided though expert elicitation describes the impact to the species as affecting between 30-75 percent of the species' range (Service 2022, p. 28).

Hoop nets are also used to capture catfish and baitfish and are made up of a series of hoops with netting and funnels where fish enter but are unable to escape through the narrow entry point. The nets are left submerged and may entrap small Suwannee alligator snapping turtles that enter the traps and are unable to escape. Actively used or discarded fishing line and hooks pose harm to Suwannee alligator snapping turtles. They can ingest baited fishhooks and attached fishing line and depending on where ingested hooks and line lodge in the digestive tract, they can cause harm or death (Enge et al. 2014, pp. 40-41). For example, hooks and line can cause gastrointestinal tract blockages, and the hooks can puncture the digestive organs, leading to mortality (Enge et al. 2014, pp. 40-41). Fishhooks have been found in the gastrointestinal tracts of radiographed Suwannee alligator snapping turtles (Enge et al. 2014, entire; Thomas 2014, pp. 42-43).

Trotlines also negatively affect Suwannee alligator snapping turtles. Trotlines are a series of submerged lines with hooks off a longer line. Trotline fishing involves leaving the lines unattended for extended periods, before returning to check them. Limblines and bush hooks are similar to trot lines in that they are typically set and left unattended; however, they only use a single hook. The turtles can become entangled in the lines and drown, as well as ingest trotline hooks and lines, also causing drowning or internal injuries. Bycatch from trotlines that resulted in mortality of Macrochelys turtles has been well documented. Dead turtles have been found on lines that had seemingly been abandoned (Moore et al. 2013, p. 145). The lines and hooks may also become dislodged from their place of attachment when left unattended, becoming aquatic debris that remains in the waterway for extended periods of time and may continue to be an entanglement hazard for many species, including Suwannee alligator snapping turtles.

The Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's aquatic and nesting habitats have been altered by anthropogenic disturbances. Changes in the riparian or nearshore areas affect the amount of suitable soils for nesting sites because the species constructs nests on land near the water. Riparian cover is important as it moderates in-stream water temperatures and dissolved oxygen levels. In addition to affecting the distribution and abundance of alligator snapping turtle prey species, these microhabitat conditions affect the snapping turtles directly. Moderate temperatures and sufficient dissolved oxygen levels allow the turtles to remain stationary on the stream bottom for longer periods, increasing the ambush foraging opportunities. Changes in the riparian structure may affect the microclimate and conditions of the associated water body, directly affecting the foraging success of the turtles.

Activities and processes that can alter habitat include dredging, deadhead logging (removal of submerged or partially submerged snags, woody debris, and other large vegetation for wood salvage), removal of riparian cover, channelization, stream bank erosion, siltation, and land use adjacent to rivers ( e.g., clearing land for agriculture). These activities negatively influence habitat suitability for Suwannee alligator snapping turtles. Erosion can change the stream bank structure, affecting the substrate that may be suitable for nesting or accessing nesting sites. Siltation affects water quality and may reduce the health and availability of prey species. Channelization destroys the natural benthic habitat and also affects the water depth and normal flow. Submerged obstacles may be removed during the channelization, which affects the microhabitat dynamics within the waterway and removes important structures for alligator snapping turtles to use for resting, foraging, and cover from predators. While channelization within the species' range does not regularly occur, it is not prohibited. Deadhead logs and fallen riparian woody debris, where present, provide refugia during low-water periods and resting areas for all life stages and support important feeding areas for hatchlings and juveniles (Enge et al. 2014, p. 40; Ewert et al. 2006, p. 62).

Suwannee alligator snapping turtle habitat is also influenced by water availability and quantity, as well as water quality, across the species' range. Ground water withdrawals in the Florida portion of the species' range are managed by the Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD); withdrawals increased by 64 percent between 1975 and 2000, mostly for irrigation. Most withdrawals in the basin occur in agricultural areas along the Suwannee River during the spring (March through May) (Thom et al. 2015, p. 2). Water withdrawals may reduce flow in some streams, effectively isolating some turtles from the rest of the population or making immature turtles more vulnerable to predators. Additionally, reduced water levels may impact prey abundance and distribution through restricting habitat connectivity, reducing dissolved oxygen levels, and increasing water temperatures.

Water quality may also be a factor for Suwannee alligator snapping turtles as contaminants enter the aquatic systems through runoff. The Lower Suwannee River's middle and lower basins are directly impacted by nutrients, including nitrates. Agricultural practices are the main source of nitrates, which specifically come from fertilizers and in some cases from manure and other waste products. They introduce nitrates to the river and groundwater ( i.e., springs) through surface runoff and groundwater seepage. Groundwater seepage transports nitrates to the aquifer, which then reemerge through springs and other groundwater discharge, especially during low-flow periods (Pittman et al. 1997, entire; Katz et al. 1999, entire; Thom et al. 2015, p. 2).

The direct effects of water quality and water quantity on the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle have not been quantified; however, as the human population that relies on water systems in the species' range continues to increase, the indirect effects across the entire range, coupled with other stressors, is likely to further reduce the species' viability. Underscoring the potential severity of this threat, Florida's human population is anticipated to grow from nearly 21.5 million in 2019 to more than 24.0 million by 2030 (Rayer and Wang 2020, p. 9). The public water supply demand will increase with increased human population growth. All counties within the species' range in Florida (Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lafayette, Levy, Madison, Suwannee, and Union Counties) are part of the SRWMD supply area and are projected to increase the public water supply demand by an average of 11.29 percent in millions of gallons of water per day from 2010 to 2035 (SRWMD 2015, p. 42). In addition, the human population in these counties will experience an average of 17.25 percent population growth from the year 2010 to 2035 (SRWMD 2015, p. 43). As the human population increases, other threats to the species and its habitat are Start Printed Page 53516 likely to increase. For example, recreational use of the Suwannee River will more than likely continue to rise, which will increase human encounters with Suwannee alligator snapping turtles through incidental bycatch. Also, more development may result in an increase in contaminated runoff and declines in water quality.

Nest predation rates for Macrochelys spp. are high. Raccoons ( Procyon lotor ) are common nest predators, but nine-banded armadillos ( Dasypus novemcinctus ), Virginia opossums ( Didelphis virginiana ), bobcats ( Lynx rufus ), and river otters ( Lontra canadensis ) may also depredate nests (Ernst and Lovich 2009, p. 149; Ewert et al. 2006, p. 67; Holcomb and Carr 2013, p. 482). Additional nonnative species found within the species' range that may depredate nests include feral pigs ( Sus scrofa ) and invasive red imported fire ants ( Solenopsis invicta ) (Pritchard 1989, p. 69). Although not documented in Suwannee alligator snapping turtle nests, fire ants are prevalent across the species' range, and predation by fire ants was the suspected culprit in the failure of alligator snapping turtle ( M. temminckii ) nests in Louisiana (Holcomb 2010, p. 51). Beyond nest failure, some hatchlings endured wounds inflicted by fire ants that led to the loss of a limb or tail, which reduced their mobility and their chance of survival (Holcomb 2010, p. 72). The recovery of the species from historical overharvest depends on successful reproduction and survival of young. The currently low population size does not allow for absorbing the impact of elevated nest predation. The degree of added threat from the newer, introduced nest predators is unknown, but we can conclude that the overall threat from nest predation is greater than it was in the past because of introduced predators such as feral hogs, and fire ants. The magnitude of nest predation by native and exotic species affected between 5-10 percent of the spatial extent of the species' range, as provided through expert elicitation (Service 2022, p. 28). Coupled with other threats, nest predation will continue to negatively affect the species' overall viability.

Climate change may also affect the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle to varying degrees, but the extent of impact is influenced by certain geographical factors, including proximity to the coast and latitudinal thermogradients. Climate change may affect the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle in several ways. First, the effects of decreased precipitation due to climate change will cause an increase in water withdrawal for human use ( i.e., potable water and agriculture irrigation). Additionally, reduced precipitation may directly and indirectly impact habitat, food, and water availability throughout the Suwannee River basin. Available water will be reduced as evaporation increases with continued warming temperatures. Furthermore, increased temperatures may have physiological impacts on sex ratios because these turtles have temperature-dependent sex determination, and higher temperatures may skew the sex ratio.

In the southeastern United States, temperatures are predicted to warm by 4 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (2.2 to 4.4 degrees Celsius (°C)) by 2100 (Carter et al. 2014, p. 399). Temperature determines the sex of the Macrochelys developing embryos; certain nest temperatures result in primarily male hatchlings with females produced at temperatures of the two extremes of the intermediate male-producing temperatures. Females are produced when the nest temperatures are either cooler or warmer than the temperature threshold for male development. In order to develop mixed ratios of both sexes, fluctuating temperatures near the intermediate and extremes are ideal. In addition to temperature effects on sex ratio, temperature has been associated with nest viability, with highest viability in nests with intermediate sex ratios (produced at the male-producing intermediate temperature range with fluctuations of warmer or cooler temperatures for female-producing temperatures during the incubation period) and lowest in nests with female-biased sex ratios (Ewert and Jackson 1994, pp. 28-29). Thus, warming temperatures might lead to Suwannee alligator snapping turtle nests with strongly female-biased sex ratios. These skewed sex ratios may result in declining viability as mating behaviors are altered and other issues with unbalanced populations arise.

Collectively, these impacts from reduced precipitation and increased temperature would reduce the quality or availability of suitable habitat for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle (Thom et al. 2015, p. 126). Climate change impacts on the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle will likely act in concert with, and exacerbate, the impacts of other threats and stressors.

Other stressors that may affect Suwannee alligator snapping turtles include disease, nest parasites, contaminants from urban and agricultural runoff, and historical recreational harvest, but none of these stressors are having species-level impacts on the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. These stressors may act on individuals or have highly localized impacts. While each is relatively uncommon, these stressors may exacerbate the effects of other ongoing threats.

Additional information on these stressors acting on the species is available in the species' SSA report under “Factors Influencing Viability” (Service 2022, pp. 23-29). This information includes historical and current threats that have caused and are causing a decline in the species' viability. The primary threats currently acting on the species include illegal harvest, nest predation, and hook ingestion and entanglement due to bycatch associated with freshwater fishing. These primary threats are not only affecting the species now but are expected to continue impacting the species and were included in the species' future condition projections in the SSA report (Service 2022, pp. 41-56).

Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. ) requires that an applicant for a Federal license or permit provide a certification that any discharges from the facility will not degrade water quality or violate water-quality standards, including State-established water quality standard requirements. Section 404 of the CWA establishes programs to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States.

Nationwide, regional general, or individual permits are issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to fill wetlands; to install, replace, or remove culverts; to install, repair, replace, or remove bridges; or to realign streams or water features. These permit types are summarized below.

• Nationwide permits are for “minor” impacts to streams and wetlands, and do not require an intense review process. The impacts allowed under nationwide permits usually include projects affecting stream reaches less than 150 ft (45.72 m) in length, and wetland fill projects up to 0.50 acres (0.2 hectares). Mitigation is usually provided for the same type of wetland or stream impacted and is usually at a 2:1 ratio to offset losses. Start Printed Page 53517
• Regional general permits are for various specific types of impacts that are common to a particular region; these permits will vary based on location in a certain region or State.
• Individual permits are for the larger, higher impact, and more complex projects. These require a complex permit process with multi-agency input and involvement. Impacts in these types of permits are reviewed individually, and the compensatory mitigation chosen may vary depending on the project and types of impacts.

The CWA regulations, set forth in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for the Environmental Protection Agency and in title 33 of the CFR for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ensure proper mitigation measures are applied to minimize the impact of activities occurring in streams and wetlands where the species occurs. These regulations contribute to the conservation of the species by minimizing or mitigating the effects of certain activities on Suwannee alligator snapping turtles and their habitat.

Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is included in the CITES Appendices under Macrochelys temminckii, based on the CITES standard nomenclature reference for turtles (Fritz & Havaš 2007, p. 172), which recognizes M. temminckii as the only taxon in the genus Macrochelys. This species was originally included in CITES Appendix III in 2006, when the genus was recognized as a single species, described as Macroclemys and synonymous with Macrochelys ( 70 FR 74700 ; December 16, 2005). At the 19th Conference of the Parties (November 2022), Macrochelys temminckii was transferred from Appendix III of CITES to Appendix II (CITES 2023, pp. 45-46). Because CITES only recognizes a single species of Macrochelys ( M. temminckii ), both taxa, the alligator snapping turtle and the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle, are protected under CITES Appendix II regulations.

CITES requires permits for exports of Appendix II species, which are only issued when: (1) the Scientific Authority has advised that the export will not be detrimental to the survival of the species; (2) the Management Authority is satisfied that the specimen(s) were legally acquired; and (3) the Management Authority is satisfied that any living specimens will be prepared and shipped so as to minimize the risk of injury, damage to health, or cruel treatment. Export numbers are also monitored by U.S. CITES Authorities and reported to CITES annually. Whenever a Scientific Authority determines that the export of specimens of any such species should be limited in order to maintain that species throughout its range at a level consistent with its role in the ecosystems in which it occurs and well above the level at which that species might become eligible for inclusion in Appendix I, the Scientific Authority shall advise the appropriate Management Authority of suitable measures to be taken to limit the grant of export permits for specimens of that species.These requirements help regulate and document legal, international trade; they further ensure that specimens entering international trade are acquired legally, and that the trade of the species is biologically sustainable for, and will not be detrimental to the survival of, the species. Thus, Appendix II regulations complement and lend additional support to State wildlife agencies in their efforts to regulate and manage these species, improve data gathering to increase knowledge of trade in the species, and strengthen State and Federal wildlife enforcement activities to prevent poaching and illegal trade.

When this taxon was included in CITES Appendix III, reporting of annual exports was also required. While CITES reporting indicates the number of turtles exported with other relevant data, in the past, the information required for the export reports has not always accurately identified the source stock of the exported turtle(s). Most alligator snapping turtles that were exported between 2005 and 2018 were identified as “wild” individuals; however, many were likely from farmed parental stock (Service 2018, entire). The discrepancy in reporting the actual source of the internationally exported turtles has not allowed us to easily evaluate the impact of export on Suwannee alligator snapping turtles. Inclusion in Appendix II, unlike Appendix III, requires an evaluation that the export will not be detrimental to the survival of the species, which will help better assess the impact of export.

Approximately 5 percent of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's range includes areas within two National Wildlife Refuges (NWR), Okefenokee in Georgia and Lower Suwannee in Florida. These NWRs are managed by the Service to conserve native wildlife species and their habitats and are protected from future development. Both NWRs have comprehensive conservation plans (CCP) that ensure each NWR is managed to fulfill the purpose(s) for which it was established.

Okefenokee NWR is at the northernmost proximity of the species' range and is a freshwater wetland. There are only a few anecdotal reports of the species occurring within Okefenokee NWR. There have been no systematic surveys conducted within the swamp, so the extent of use by the species of that area has not yet been documented. However, the paucity of documented and anecdotal records from the surrounding areas would indicate that the species is not common or widespread at this location.

The Okefenokee NWR CCP includes a strategy within the wildlife management goal to “develop and implement surveys to determine distribution and population status of amphibians and reptiles, particularly those species that are threatened, endangered, or species of special concern.” The CCP also includes an objective to “identify factors influencing declines in the refuge's fishery by examining water chemistry, groundwater withdrawals, water quality, pH levels, invertebrate populations, and the physical environment” (Service 2006, pp. 84-86). This knowledge would clearly benefit management of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle.

The Lower Suwannee NWR is at the mouth of the Suwannee River where it feeds into the Gulf of Mexico. Twenty miles of the Suwannee River is within the refuge and is suitable habitat for Suwannee alligator snapping turtles, albeit less so as salinity increases the closer the river gets to the Gulf of Mexico. The species is considered common within the refuge, and nesting has been confirmed; however, the species is not commonly seen (due to their ability to burrow into the river or creek banks, or to sit on the bottom of the river and stay submerged until surfacing for air is needed), and cryptic coloration when submerged makes detection of the species very difficult (Woodward 2021, pers. comm.). The Lower Suwannee NWR CCP includes management actions that may benefit the species and provides goals for wildlife, habitat, and landscape management. The CCP's objectives and strategies provide that the refuge monitor and manage wildlife populations, manage the habitats for endangered and threatened species and species of special concern in the State of Florida, and promote interagency and private landowner cooperation (Service 2001, pp. 11-22). The Lower Suwannee River NWR provides logistical, Start Printed Page 53518 operational, in-kind, and financial support to FWC's Suwannee alligator snapping turtle team to conduct surveys on the refuge.

Moody Air Force Base (Base) is near Valdosta, Georgia, and has many freshwater ponds and a large lake, Mission Lake, that drains into the Grand Bay system. Suwannee alligator snapping turtles do not commonly occur on the Base, but they are occasionally found. The Base's integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) describes Macrochelys as occurring on the Base; however, there are no management activities described directly for the species in the INRMP. The Department of Defense ensures INRMPs are consistent with the Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997, as amended through 2010 ( 16 U.S.C. 670 et seq. ), which requires the preparation, implementation, update, and review of an INRMP for each military installation in the United States and its territories with significant natural resources.

The Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is protected by State law in both Florida and Georgia as a threatened species. Florida Administrative Code rule 68A-27.003 makes it illegal to take, possess, or sell (except as specifically permitted or authorized) species listed as federally designated endangered or threatened species and State-designated threatened species; this includes the species' parts, their nests, and their eggs. Since the original 2011 biological status review for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle (FWC 2011, entire), two species of alligator snapping turtle were differentiated based upon genetic and skeletal differences (Thomas 2014, entire), necessitating new biological status reviews of both species. During FWC's 2017 biological assessment of Macrochelys, the biological review group determined that M. suwanniensis was distinct and warranted designation as State-threatened based upon International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List criteria (Enge et al. 2017. p. 3).

Florida developed a species action plan (SAP) that includes all Macrochelys spp. due to their similarity in appearance, vulnerability to deliberate human take, incidental take with fishing gear, pollution, riverine habitat alteration, and nest predation (FWC 2018, p. iii). The objectives of the SAP include habitat conservation and management, population management, monitoring and research, rule and permitting intent, law enforcement, incentives and influencing, education and outreach, and coordination with other entities (FWC 2018, pp. 10-27). Implementation of the Macrochelys spp. SAP is ongoing (FWC 2018, entire). FWC has established a team of biologists who continue to study the species to better understand the species and population trends.

Both Macrochelys suwanniensis and M. temminckii are found in Georgia, but their ranges do not overlap. Georgia listed M. temminckii as threatened in 1992, which at the time included both species, and continues to cover both species as threatened. State law protects threatened animal species by prohibiting their harassment, capture, killing, sale, and purchase, as well as the destruction of their habitat on public lands (Georgia Administrative Code, rule 391-4-10-.06). In the State's wildlife action plan, the Department of Natural Resources indicates they intend to conduct genetic, taxonomic, and reproductive studies of high-priority species (GDNR 2015, p. D-5). Current State regulations are intended to minimize the impact of poaching and also contribute to the conservation of the species through public outreach.

Structural features within the water are important components of the habitat for Suwannee alligator snapping turtles. Submerged and partially submerged vegetation provide feeding and sheltering areas for all age classes. The structural diversity and channel stabilization created by instream woody debris provides essential habitat for spawning and rearing aquatic species (Bilby 1984, p. 609; Bisson et al. 1987, p. 143). Snag or woody habitat was reported as the major stable substrate in southeastern Coastal Plain sandy-bottom streams and a site of high invertebrate diversity and productivity (Wallace and Benke 1984, p. 1651). Wood enhances the ability of a river or stream ecosystem to use the nutrient and energy inputs and has a major influence on the hydrodynamic behavior of the river (Wallace and Benke 1984, p. 1643). One component of this woody habitat is deadhead logs, which are sunken timbers from historical logging operations. Deadhead logging is the removal of submerged cut timber from a river or creek bed and banks. However, current State regulations minimize the impact of deadhead logging on the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. Florida allows deadhead logging only with proper permits from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection; this State agency assesses the proposed activity's impacts on wildlife before issuing a permit. Further, the State of Florida prohibits deadhead logging in some of the waterways in the species' range. Georgia is not currently processing permits; therefore, deadhead logging is not currently being permitted in any of Georgia's waterways.

A buffer such as a strip of trees, plants, or grass along a stream or wetland naturally filters out dirt and pollution from rainwater runoff before it enters rivers, streams, wetlands, and marshes. This vegetation not only serves as a filter for the aquatic system, but the riparian cover influences microhabitat conditions such as in-stream water temperature and dissolved oxygen levels. These habitat conditions not only influence the distribution and abundance of alligator snapping turtle prey species but also directly affect Suwannee alligator snapping turtles. Moderate temperatures and sufficient dissolved oxygen levels allow the turtles to remain stationary on the stream bottom for longer periods, increasing their ambush foraging opportunities. Loss of riparian vegetation and canopy cover result in increased solar radiation, elevation of stream temperatures, loss of allochthonous (organic material originating from outside the channel) food material, and removal of submerged root systems that provide habitat for alligator snapping turtle prey species (Allan 2004, pp. 266-267).

The Georgia Erosion and Sediment Control Act of 1975 restricts disturbance and trimming of vegetation within a 25-ft (7.62-m) buffer adjacent to creeks, streams, rivers, saltwater marshes, and most lakes and ponds, and the Georgia Planning Act of 1989 requires some local governments to adopt a 100-ft (30.48-m) buffer. Georgia also has a non-point water pollution source management program under which the State established and updates a nonpoint source management plan; this plan sets long-term goals and short-term activities for the State, partners, and stakeholders to address non-point source pollution. Although not focused on buffers per se, the Florida Surface Water Improvement and Management Act of 1987 addresses Statewide non-point source pollution impacts to waterbodies on a landscape scale and partners with Federal, State, and local governments, and the private sector to restore damaged ecosystems and prevent pollution from storm water runoff. These State laws provide Start Printed Page 53519 riparian protections and promote water quality, which protect potential nesting areas for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle.

Water conservation measures restricting lawn and landscaping irrigation can benefit the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle by limiting water withdrawal, which directly benefits the turtle through maintaining available habitat and supporting habitat for prey species, and by reducing runoff of fertilizers and other turf management chemicals that could disrupt or alter water chemistry in the streams. The SRWMD manages the water and other related resources within the range of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle including the Suwannee, Withlacoochee, Alapaha, Santa Fe, and Ichetucknee Rivers within Florida. The agency monitors the water quantity and quality by regular testing and reporting. It also implements water-use restrictions to conserve freshwater resources of springs and rivers within the SRWMD. Unnecessary water use is discouraged, and landscape irrigation restrictions are implemented as needed, such as limiting watering to twice per week based on district water conservation measures that apply to residential landscaping, public or commercial recreation areas, and businesses that are not regulated by a district-issued water use permit (SRWMD 2021, unpaginated). Landscape irrigation accounts for the largest percentage of household water use in the State of Florida. Mandatory lawn and landscape watering measures are in effect throughout the SRWMD. These restrictions contribute to maintaining healthy groundwater level and flows.

The current condition for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle considers the current abundance, current threats, and current conservation actions in the context of what is known about the species' historical range. In order to determine species-specific population and habitat factors along with threats and conservation actions influencing the species, expert elicitation was used in the absence of available related information. To describe Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's current resiliency, redundancy, and representation, we assessed the species as a single population, because there is evidence that the turtles may move between the mouths of the Suwannee and Santa Fe Rivers in Florida. The entire species is estimated to have an abundance of 2,000 turtles across its entire range in Georgia and Florida (Service 2022, p. 34).

The primary threats currently acting on the species include illegal harvest, nest predation, and hook ingestion and entanglement due to bycatch associated with freshwater fishing. Other stressors acting on the species include historical commercial and recreational harvest, habitat alteration and degradation, and the effects of climate change. The species is State-listed as threatened in both Florida and Georgia. When evaluating range expansion or constriction, recent surveys have confirmed minimal change in the known, limited historical range.

The resiliency of the single Suwannee alligator snapping turtle population is described according to its abundance, threats, and range expansion or contraction. Current resilience was assessed as current abundance, along with information about current threats, conservation actions, and distribution serving as auxiliary information about the causes and effects of current versus historical abundances. There is little information with which to make rigorous comparisons between current and historical abundances; however, population depletions historically occurred for consumption and cumulated through the 1970s, when turtles and turtle meat were exported regionally for commercial use. Information about the magnitude of the changes in abundance over time comes from anecdotal observations by trappers (Pritchard 1989, pp. 74, 76, 80, 83). The historical large-scale removal of large, reproductive turtles from the population for commercial harvest continues to affect the species and its ability to rebound. The species is described as a single population with an estimated abundance of 2,000 turtles across most of its historical range. As a result of the impacts from historical and ongoing threats, as described above, the population size has been reduced from historical levels. This decline has impacted the current ability of the species to withstand environmental stochasticity. Additional information regarding current condition descriptions is included in the SSA report (Service 2022, pp. 30-40).

The home range for Suwannee alligator snapping turtles has been reported between 780 ft (243 m) and 6,604 ft (2,013 m) (Thomas 2014, pp. 41-42). Turtles are not confined to any part of their range as long as there are no physical barriers; while this species is aquatic with the exception of nesting, these turtles are capable of moving across land if necessary, as conditions become unsuitable or resources are diminished. When describing the species' representation, for the purposes of the SSA in evaluating the species' current and future viability, the species consists of a single representative unit. Representation is used to describe the species' ability to withstand environmental changes over time, or the species' adaptive capacity. We describe the species in terms of its adaptive capacity with its ability to acclimate to environmental stressors (Service 2022, pp. 37-39). We considered life-history attributes and assessed the species' propensity to respond to chronic environmental influences (Thurman et al. 2020, entire). The species has a type 3 survivorship curve, meaning only a few individuals reach maturity with adults usually having a long life span. This type of survivorship limits the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle to an overall low to moderate adaptive capacity in the life-history and demographic attributes. The high rating of its fecundity and parity is overshadowed by the low rate of hatchling survivorship to maturity. The low level of parental investment allows females to nest and resume feeding and sheltering activities with minimal impacts to their health, thus allowing for a high adaptive capacity for this attribute. The species has a moderate to high adaptive capacity in the distribution, movement, evolutionary potential, ecological role, and abiotic niche attributes. The life history and demographic attributes used in determining the species' adaptive capacity have the greatest influence on the species' ability to respond to changes in its physical and biological environments over time. Therefore, representation will continue to be low to moderate.

The best available science regarding the species indicates there is no genetic variation within the species' single population across the species' range that would allow for delineating additional representative units.

The Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's redundancy is likewise limited to the single population, with an estimated abundance of 2,000 turtles, across its range. Redundancy is related to a species' response to a catastrophic event. While there is only a single population, it is widely distributed across the historical range; therefore, the chance of a catastrophic event affecting the entire species is very low.

In summary, the overall current condition of the species' viability is affected by the residual effects of historical overharvest, historical and Start Printed Page 53520 ongoing impacts from recreational fishing, including incidental limb line/bush hook take and bycatch, and from hook ingestion, illegal harvest, habitat alteration, nest predation, and the species' life history ( i.e., low annual recruitment and delayed sexual maturity). Because of these threats, and particularly the legacy effects of historical harvest, the overall current condition is a single population with an estimated abundance of 2,000 turtles across most of the species' historical range. The species' resiliency is likely lower than it was historically as a result of the loss of reproductive females and the species' life history (long-lived, late age to sexual maturity, low intrinsic growth rate). However, the species was not well-studied historically, so there is little information (anecdotal observations) with which to make comparisons between historical and current abundance estimates. Redundancy and representation are limited, respectively, since the species is considered a single population with little genetic variability and there are no physical barriers to movement.

The future condition of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is described in detail in the SSA report (Service 2022, pp. 41-56). When evaluating the species' future viability, we consider the current condition of the species and the threats acting on the species to develop a model to determine future trends of species' estimated abundance. We applied six plausible scenarios that factored in the estimated abundance and threats acting on the species to project the future resiliency of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle (see table, below). Three scenarios consider conservation actions to be applied, while the remaining three scenarios project conditions with no conservation actions. Conservation actions that could decrease the spatial extent of habitat threats include but are not limited to: increased enforcement of state laws or law enforcement presence to reduce poaching or bycatch on illegally set trot or limb lines, prohibited recreational fishing or certain gear ( e.g., trotlines, hoopnets) in the Suwanee River basin, and management actions that reduce the densities of nest predators. In addition to habitat modification, long term female population augmentation can be implemented by head-starting and captive breeding programs by Federal, State, and non-governmental organizations. The actual amount that any of these actions would influence the prevalence of threats will depend on factors like the time, money, personnel, and conservation partners available, but we selected a 25 percent reduction in the spatial extent of threats to explore how much a change of that amount affected future population dynamics (Service 2022, pp. 37-38).

To assess future conditions and the viability of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle, we constructed a female-only, stage-structured matrix population model to project the population dynamics over 50 years to encompass a two-generation period for the species and the reliability in predicting the response to the threats in that time frame. Species experts identified five primary threats that were likely to reduce stage-specific survival probabilities: commercial fishing bycatch (includes entanglement, drowning, or otherwise dying from interaction with fishing gear; influencing hatchling, juvenile, and adult survival), recreational fishing bycatch (has the same impacts as commercial fishing bycatch; influenced juvenile and adult survival), hook ingestion (surviving a bycatch event but enduring the lingering effects of an ingested hook; influenced juvenile and adult survival), illegal collection ( i.e., poaching; influenced hatchling, juvenile, and adult survival), and subsidized nest predators (influenced nest survival) with two having the greatest impact (illegal harvest and nest predation). The subsidized nest predator threat reflects additional nest depredation beyond what would be expected from common nest mesopredators ( e.g., raccoons and opossums), with fire ants ( Solenopsis spp.) being the primary nest predator.

We used the best available information from the literature to provide values for the population matrix and elicited data from species experts to quantify stage-specific initial abundance, the spatial extent of threats, and threat-specific percent reductions to survival. To account for potential uncertainty in the effects of each threat, the six future scenarios were divided along a spectrum: threat-induced reductions to survival were decreased by 25 percent, were unaltered, or were increased by 25 percent. To simulate conservation actions, the spatial extent of each threat was either left the same or reduced by 25 percent (see table, below). The 25 percent was selected using expert input and included a logical extent in which we would expect to see evident impacts to the population. We used a fully stochastic projection model that accounts for uncertainty in demographic parameters to predict future conditions of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle units under the six different scenarios. We then used the model output to predict the probability of extinction and quasi-extinction. In the model, quasi-extinction is defined as the point in time at which the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle population declined to less than 5 percent of the starting abundance (females only). Time to quasi-extinction varied across scenarios, but in general, the Suwannee River basin is likely to reach this in 32-42 years (Service 2022, p. 46).

Table 1—Six Future Scenarios Modeled for the Suwannee Alligator Snapping Turtle's Single Population With Magnitude of Threat and Conservation Absent/Present. Scenario Names Are Given in Quotation Marks

Threat magnitudeConservation absent  Conservation present  Decreased Impact of threats: Impact of threats: Expert-Elicited  Impact of threats: Impact of threats: Increased Impact of threats: Impact of threats:  The spatial extent of threats for the Conservation Absent scenarios were expert-elicited.  The spatial extent of threats for the Conservation Present scenarios were reduced by 25 percent.  Experts throughout the range of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle were elicited for their expert, professional opinion on the threats to the species.

Suwannee alligator snapping turtle abundance was predicted to decline over the next 50 years in all six scenarios. The single population's resiliency measure also declined as abundance declined. Given the high uncertainties parameterized in the model, the species does not have a high likelihood of extinction in the basin within 50 years, however the loss of 95 percent of the adult female abundance is expected to occur (quasi-extinction) Resiliency continues to decline in all scenarios.

Future representation for Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is expected to decline as the adaptive capacity for the distribution, movement, evolutionary potential, ecological role, and abiotic ecological attributes may not provide the species with the capacity to offset the low to moderate life history and demography complexes. These two attribute categories directly impact reproduction and the ability to maintain or to grow the population. Representation is further reduced by the continued impacts of human activities ( e.g., unattended fishing gear and reduced water flow) and the probability of low numbers of adult females within the population. (Service 2022, p. 48).

Future redundancy for Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is expected to decline over the next 50 years. Where the species persists in the future, they are predicted to be rare and not found in resilient groupings. The addition of conservation actions, or different assumptions about the impact of threats on the species' demography may alter the time to quasi- extinction by about a decade at most, typically less. No scenarios resulted in stable or increasing population within the Suwannee River basin (Service 2022, p. 48).

We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.

Section 4 of the Act ( 16 U.S.C. 1533 ) and its implementing regulations ( 50 CFR part 424 ) set forth the procedures for determining whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a “threatened species” as a species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the definition of endangered species or threatened species because of any of the following factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

After evaluating threats to the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we determined that the historical and ongoing threats that are acting on the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle include illegal harvest and collection (Factor B), nest predation (Factor C), and hook ingestion and entanglement due to bycatch associated with freshwater fishing (Factor E). While historical activities that included removal of turtles for consumption through recreational and commercial harvest (Factor B) continue to suppress the viability of the species despite current harvest prohibitions, the species is currently well-distributed across most of its historical range. There are currently about 2,000 individuals distributed throughout the entire species' range across southern Georgia and northern Florida in the Suwannee River basin (Service 2022, p. 27).

The magnitude of the threats acting on the species were obtained through expert elicitation. Incidental hooking ( i.e., recreational trot and limb lines, fishing tackle, etc.) affects between 30-75 percent of the species. Illegal harvest or poaching across the basin ranges from 20-55 percent. Nest predation by native and exotic species affected between 5-10 percent of the spatial extent of the species' range (Service 2022, p. 28). Due to the delayed age of sexual maturity and a generation time of about 28 years, the species is slow to recover from historical harvest pressures that reduced the species' viability. As the genus was recently split, the specific impact of large-scale harvest on Suwannee alligator snapping turtles is unknown; however, for Macrochelys temminckii, 22 years after M. temminckii commercial harvest ended in Georgia, surveys conducted during 2014 and 2015 in Georgia's Flint River revealed no significant change in abundance since 1989 (King et al. 2016, entire). We expect commercial harvest had a similar impact on the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle as it did on the alligator snapping turtle. Thus, despite prohibition of legal harvest of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle in Georgia and Florida, the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle population will similarly be slow to recover.

Alligator snapping turtle populations experienced severe depletion in the past when these turtles were heavily harvested, primarily for consumption, prior to prohibitions (Factor B). This past large-scale removal of large, adult turtles continues to affect the current demographics because the species has a relatively long lifespan, late age to maturity, and low fecundity with production of a single clutch every 1 to 2 years. The current recruitment rate has declined because of past commercial harvest practices, which caused the large-scale loss of adult females that have the highest reproductive potential; however, successful reproduction is occurring. The species is not currently impacted by commercial harvest; however, the species' resiliency is lower than it was historically as a result of the loss of reproductive females, low juvenile survival, and the species' life-history traits (long-lived, late age to sexual maturity, low intrinsic growth rate). The current estimated population size of 2,000 turtles provides sufficient contribution to the species' current viability through successful reproduction, albeit at a lower recruitment rate than historically. Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude that the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is not currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.

When evaluating the future viability of the species to determine whether the species may become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout its range, we found that the threats currently acting on the species are expected to continue across its range into the future, resulting in greater reduction of the number and distribution of reproductive individuals. Start Printed Page 53522 We determined the appropriate timeframe for assessing whether this species is likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future is 50 years. Based on our knowledge of the species' life history and the threats acting on the species, this 50-year timeframe provides a period for which we can make reasonably reliable predictions about the threats to the species and the species' response to those threats. Additional information regarding the model and future scenarios is available under “Future Conditions” in the SSA report (Service 2022, pp. 51-56).

This species is highly dependent upon adult female survival to maintain viable populations. Existing and ongoing threats affecting adult female survival are projected to reduce recruitment to an extent that the single population will continue to decline in the foreseeable future. While there is uncertainty regarding the rate at which population declines will occur, these threats are projected to drive the species towards extinction unless reduced.

A key statutory difference between a threatened and an endangered species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of extinction. As described above, the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is not in danger of extinction throughout its range at this time. However, the best available information shows that the species' viability is expected to decline with quasi-extinction projected to occur within the next 50 years under all modeled future scenarios (Service 2022, p. 41). Based on modeling results, which address uncertainty regarding the extent and severity of threats, resiliency is expected to decline under all scenarios. Regardless of the scenario, the projected loss of resiliency with limited representation and redundancy, across the range of the species will place the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle at risk of extinction across all of its range due to the inability of this species to maintain a viable population in the foreseeable future.

Recreational harvest of Macrochelys spp. was prohibited in Georgia and Florida, in 1992 and 2009, respectively, and State-listed as threatened in Georgia (in 1992) and Florida (in 2018). Based on the projection of future conditions, these threats will cause about a 20-year shift in the species' resiliency, indicating these factors will act faster on the generations in the foreseeable future.

Despite the implementation of the conservation actions described earlier in this final rule, the lag in the species' response to historical over-harvesting indicates other factors may be acting on the species or additional conservation actions are needed. The future conditions projections, which include three conservation-based scenarios, based on the female-only matrix population model indicates a 95 percent decline in less than 50 years under the most optimistic scenario. Therefore, given the future projections in the model, the species is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future. Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude that Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.

Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020) ( Everson ), vacated the provision of the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase “Significant Portion of Its Range” in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of “Endangered Species” and “Threatened Species” (Final Policy; 79 FR 37578 ; July 1, 2014) that provided if the Services determine that a species is threatened throughout all of its range, the Services will not analyze whether the species is endangered in a significant portion of its range.

Therefore, we proceed to evaluating whether the species is endangered in a significant portion of its range—that is, whether there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1) the portion is significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for us to address the “significance” question or the “status” question first. We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' range.

Following the court's holding in Everson, we now consider whether there are any significant portions of the species' range where the species is in danger of extinction now ( i.e., endangered). In undertaking this analysis for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle, we choose to address the status question first. We consider information pertaining to the geographical distribution of both the species and the threats that the species faces to identify any portions of the range where the species is endangered.

We evaluated the range of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle to determine if the species is in danger of extinction now in any portion of its range.The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways. We focused our analysis on portions of the species' range that may meet the Act's definition of an endangered species. For the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle, we considered whether the threats to or their effects on the species are greater in any biologically meaningful portion of the species' range than in other portions such that the species is in danger of extinction now in that portion.

We examined the following threats: illegal harvest (poaching), bycatch, habitat alteration, nest predation, and climate change, including cumulative threats. We also considered the cumulative effects acting on the species with additional stressors such as disease, parasites, and contaminants. Due to the species' low population size due to historical overharvest and limited redundancy and representation, we find that additional stressors such as disease, parasites, and contaminants would add to the ongoing impacts to the species from ongoing threats further negatively affecting the species' viability.

In the current condition analysis, as described in the SSA report, expert elicitation values were provided to better understand the occurrence of the threats and the collective amount of the species' range affected (Service 2022, pp. 33-35). The impact of the threats was estimated as a proxy for the magnitude of the threats in terms of the amount of the entire species' range affected; these estimates do not indicate the spatial distribution of the threats. Rather, they estimate the percentages of the total amount of the species' range affected by each threat noted. Bycatch from incidental hooking affects 30-75 percent of the species' range, illegal harvest affects 20-55 percent of the species' range, and nest predation affects 5-10 percent of the species' range; however, the impact of each threat is spread out and not concentrated in a manner that is causing more significant declines in any particular portion such that any portion is likely to have a different status. Therefore, we found no portion of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's range where threats are impacting individuals differently from how they are affecting the species elsewhere in its range, or where the biological condition Start Printed Page 53523 of the species differs from its condition elsewhere in its range such that the status of the species in that portion differs from any other portion of the species' range.

Therefore, no portion of the species' range provides a basis for determining that the species is in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its range, and we determine that the species is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. This does not conflict with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018) and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) because, in reaching this conclusion, we did not apply the aspects of the Final Policy, including the definition of “significant” that those court decisions held to be invalid.

Our review of the best scientific and commercial data available indicates that the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle meets the Act's definition of a threatened species. Therefore, we are listing the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle as a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed species, planning and implementation of recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, foreign governments, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies, including the Service, and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.

The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems.

The recovery planning process begins with development of a recovery outline made available to the public soon after a final listing determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation of urgent recovery actions while a recovery plan is being developed. Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) may be established to develop and implement recovery plans. The recovery planning process involves the identification of actions that are necessary to halt and reverse the species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and recovery. The recovery plan identifies recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for reclassification from endangered to threatened (“downlisting”) or removal from protected status (“delisting”), and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Revisions of the plan may be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive information becomes available. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our website ( https://ecos.fws.gov/​ecp/​species/​10891 ), or from our Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration of native vegetation, research, captive propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.

Once this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Florida and Georgia will be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the protection or recovery of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found at https://www.fws.gov/​service/​financial-assistance .

Please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

Section 7 of the Act is titled Interagency Cooperation and mandates all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities to further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations implementing section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402 .

Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal action agency shall, in consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Each Federal agency shall review its action at the earliest possible time to determine whether it may affect listed species or critical habitat. If a determination is made that the action may affect listed species or critical habitat, formal consultation is required ( 50 CFR 402.14(a) ), unless the Service concurs in writing that the action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat. At the end of a formal consultation, the Service issues a biological opinion, containing its determination of whether the Federal action is likely to result in jeopardy or adverse modification.

Examples of discretionary actions for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle that may be subject to consultation procedures under section 7 are land management or other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by the Service, U.S. Forest Service, and Department of Defense (Moody Air Force Base) as well as actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act ( 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. ) or a permit from the Service under Start Printed Page 53524 section 10 of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat—and actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency—do not require section 7 consultation. Federal agencies should coordinate with the local Service Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) with any specific questions on section 7 consultation and conference requirements.

It is the policy of the Services, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 ( 59 FR 34272 ), to identify to the extent known at the time a species is listed, specific activities that will not be considered likely to result in violation of section 9 of the Act. To the extent possible, activities that will be considered likely to result in violation will also be identified in as specific a manner as possible. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the species. Although most of the prohibitions in section 9 of the Act apply to endangered species, sections 9(a)(1)(G) and 9(a)(2)(E) of the Act prohibit the violation of any regulation under section 4(d) pertaining to any threatened species of fish or wildlife, or threatened species of plant, respectively. Section 4(d) of the Act directs the Secretary to promulgate protective regulations that are necessary and advisable for the conservation of threatened species. As a result, we interpret our policy to mean that, when we list a species as a threatened species, to the extent possible, we identify activities that will or will not be considered likely to result in violation of the protective regulations under section 4(d) for that species.

Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence states that the Secretary shall issue such regulations as she deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of species listed as threatened species. Conservation is defined in the Act to mean the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Additionally, the second sentence of section 4(d) of the Act states that the Secretary may by regulation prohibit with respect to any threatened species any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case of plants. With these two sentences in section 4(d), Congress delegated broad authority to the Secretary to determine what protections would be necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened species, and even broader authority to put in place any of the section 9 prohibitions, for a given species.

The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the conservation of a species. For example, courts have upheld, as a valid exercise of agency authority, rules developed under section 4(d) that included limited prohibitions against takings (see Alsea Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 WL 2344927 (D. Or. 2007); Washington Environmental Council v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 WL 511479 (W.D. Wash. 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) rules that do not address all of the threats a species faces (see State of Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative history when the Act was initially enacted, “once an animal is on the threatened list, the Secretary has an almost infinite number of options available to [her] with regard to the permitted activities for those species. [She] may, for example, permit taking, but not importation of such species, or [s]he may choose to forbid both taking and importation but allow the transportation of such species” (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).

The provisions of this species' protective regulations under section 4(d) of the Act are one of many tools that we will use to promote the conservation of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. Nothing in 4(d) rules change in any way the recovery planning provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act, or the ability of the Service to enter into partnerships for the management and protection of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. As mentioned previously in Available Conservation Measures, Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. These requirements are the same for a threatened species regardless of what is included in its 4(d) rule.

Section 7 consultation is required for Federal actions that “may affect” a listed species regardless of whether take caused by the activity is prohibited or excepted by a 4(d) rule (“blanket rule” or species-specific 4(d) rule). A 4(d) rule does not change the process and criteria for informal or formal consultations and does not alter the analytical process used for biological opinions or concurrence letters. For example, as with an endangered species, if a Federal agency determines that an action is “not likely to adversely affect” a threatened species, this will require the Service's written concurrence ( 50 CFR 402.13(c) . Similarly, if a Federal agency determines that an action is “likely to adversely affect” a threatened species, the action will require formal consultation and the formulation of a biological opinion ( 50 CFR 402.14(a) ). Because consultation obligations and processes are unaffected by 4(d) rules, we may consider developing tools to streamline future intra-Service and inter-Agency consultations for actions that result in forms of take that are not prohibited by the 4(d) rule (but that still require consultation). These tools may include consultation guidance, Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) effects determination keys, template language for biological opinions, or programmatic consultations.

Exercising the Secretary's authority under section 4(d) of the Act, we have developed a rule that is designed to address the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's conservation needs. As discussed previously in Summary of Biological Status and Threats, we have concluded that the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future primarily due to illegal harvest (poaching), nest predation, and bycatch-related incidents of hook ingestion and entanglement due recreational fishing of freshwater fish. There are other activities that could affect the species and its habitat if they occur in areas occupied by the species, such as impacts to water quality and quantity. Start Printed Page 53525

Due to the life-history characteristics of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle, specifically delayed maturity, long generation times, and relatively low reproductive output, this species cannot sustain significant collection from the wild, especially of adult females (Reed et al. 2002, pp. 8-12). An adult female harvest rate of more than 2 percent per year is considered unsustainable, and harvest of this magnitude or greater will result in significant local population declines (Reed et al. 2002, p. 9). Although both Florida and Georgia prohibit commercial and recreational harvest of Suwannee alligator snapping turtles, due to the species' demography, the overall population has not recovered from prior extensive loss of individuals due to past over-exploitation.

Habitat alteration is also a concern for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle, as the species is endemic to the Suwannee River basin and its river ecosystems, including tributary waterbodies and associated wetland habitats ( e.g., swamps, lakes, reservoirs, etc.), where structure ( e.g., tree root masses, stumps, submerged trees, etc.) and a high percentage of canopy cover is more often selected over open water (Howey and Dinkelacker 2009, p. 589). Suwannee alligator snapping turtles spend the majority of their time in aquatic habitat; overland movements are generally restricted to nesting females and juveniles moving from the nest to water (Reed et al. 2002, p. 5). The primary causes for habitat alteration include actions that change hydrologic conditions to the extent that dispersal and genetic interchange are impeded.

Some examples of activities that may alter the habitat include dredging, deadhead logging, clearing and snagging, removal of riparian cover, channelization, in-stream activities that result in stream bank erosion and siltation ( e.g., stream crossings, bridge replacements, flood control structures, etc.), and changes in land use within the riparian zone of waterbodies ( e.g., clearing land for agriculture). Deadhead logs and fallen riparian woody debris provide refugia during low-water periods (Enge et al. 2014, p. 40), resting areas for all life stages (Ewert et al. 2006, p. 62), and important feeding areas for hatchlings and juveniles. The species' habitat needs concentrate around a freshwater ecosystem that supplies both shallower water for hatchlings and juveniles and deeper water for adults, with associated forested habitat that is free from inundation for nesting and that provides structure within the waterbody.

Regulating certain activities and take associated with other activities under this 4(d) rule will prevent continued declines in population abundance, and decrease synergistic, negative effects from other threats.

Section 4(d) requires the Secretary to issue such regulations as she deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of each threatened species and authorizes the Secretary to include among those protective regulations any of the prohibitions that section 9(a)(1) of the Act prescribes for endangered species. We are not required to make a “necessary and advisable” determination when we apply or do not apply specific section 9 prohibitions to a threatened species ( In re: Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing and 4(d) Rule Litigation, 818 F. Supp. 2d 214, 228 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or. v. Babbitt, 1 F.3d 1, 8 (D.C. Cir. 1993), rev'd on other grounds, 515 U.S. 687 (1995))). Nevertheless, even though we are not required to make such a determination, we have chosen to be as transparent as possible and explain below why we find that the protections, prohibitions, and exceptions in this rule as a whole satisfy the requirement in section 4(d) of the Act to issue regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle.

The protective regulations for Suwannee alligator snapping turtle incorporate prohibitions from section 9(a)(1) to address the threats to the species. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, and implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.21 , make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit or to cause to be committed any of the following acts with regard to any endangered wildlife: (1) import into, or export from, the United States; (2) take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect) within the United States, within the territorial sea of the United States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such wildlife that has been taken illegally; (4) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of commercial activity; or (5) sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce. This protective regulation includes all of these prohibitions because the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is at risk of extinction in the foreseeable future and putting these prohibitions in place will help to prevent further declines, preserve the species' remaining population, slow its rate of decline, and decrease synergistic, negative effects from other ongoing or future threats.

In particular, this 4(d) rule will provide for the conservation of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle by prohibiting the following activities, unless they fall within specific exceptions or are otherwise authorized or permitted: importing or exporting; take; possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens; delivering, receiving, carrying, transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or selling or offering for sale in interstate or foreign commerce.

Under the Act, “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Some of these provisions have been further defined in regulation at 50 CFR 17.3 . Take can result knowingly or otherwise, by direct and indirect impacts, intentionally or incidentally. Regulating take of the species resulting from activities including, but not limited to, illegal harvest (poaching), hook ingestions and entanglement due to bycatch associated with irresponsible commercial and recreational fishing of some species of freshwater fish (particularly as a result of unlawful activities or abandonment of equipment), and habitat alteration will provide for the conservation of the species. Therefore, we are prohibiting take of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle, except for take resulting from those actions and activities specifically excepted by the 4(d) rule. Exceptions to the prohibition on take include the general exceptions to the prohibition on take of endangered wildlife, as set forth in 50 CFR 17.21 and additional exceptions, as described below.

Despite these prohibitions regarding threatened species, we may under certain circumstances issue permits to carry out one or more otherwise prohibited activities, including those described above. The regulations that govern permits for threatened wildlife state that the Director may issue a permit authorizing any activity otherwise prohibited with regard to threatened species. These include permits issued for the following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance propagation or survival, for economic hardship, for zoological exhibition, for educational purposes, for incidental taking, or for special purposes consistent with the purposes Start Printed Page 53526 of the Act ( 50 CFR 17.32 ). The statute also contains certain exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.

In addition, to further the conservation of the species, any employee or agent of the Service, any other Federal land management agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, a State conservation agency, or a federally recognized Tribe, who is designated by their agency or Tribe for such purposes, may, when acting in the course of their official duties, take threatened wildlife without a permit if such action is necessary to: (i) Aid a sick, injured, or orphaned specimen; or (ii) Dispose of a dead specimen; or (iii) Salvage a dead specimen that may be useful for scientific study; or (iv) Remove specimens that constitute a demonstrable but nonimmediate threat to human safety, provided that the taking is done in a humane manner; the taking may involve killing or injuring only if it has not been reasonably possible to eliminate such threat by live capturing and releasing the specimen unharmed, in an appropriate area.

We recognize the special and unique relationship that we have with our State natural resource agency partners in contributing to conservation of listed species. State agencies often possess scientific data and valuable expertise on the status and distribution of endangered, threatened, and candidate species of wildlife and plants. State agencies, because of their authorities and their close working relationships with local governments and landowners, are in a unique position to assist us in implementing all aspects of the Act. In this regard, section 6 of the Act provides that we must cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with the States in carrying out programs authorized by the Act. Therefore, any qualified employee or agent of a State conservation agency that is a party to a cooperative agreement with us in accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, who is designated by his or her agency for such purposes, will be able to conduct activities designed to conserve the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle that may result in otherwise prohibited take without additional authorization.

The 4(d) rule will also provide for the conservation of the species by allowing exceptions that incentivize conservation actions or that, while they may have some minimal level of take of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle, are not expected to rise to the level that would have a negative impact ( i.e., would have only de minimis impacts) on the species' conservation. The exceptions to these prohibitions include take resulting from the following activities forest management practices that use State-approved best management practices (described below) that are expected to have negligible impacts to the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle and its habitat.

Pesticide and Herbicide Use: Pesticide and herbicide application was included as an exception in the proposed 4(d) rule and after further consideration, we are removing this exception. When considering pesticide use, we note that the EPA has not consulted on most pesticide registrations to date, so excepting take solely based on user compliance with label directions and State and local regulations is not appropriate in all situations. The Service will continue to coordinate with EPA on further pesticide consultation and registration efforts. We have reviewed comments provided during the public comment period on the exception to the prohibition of take related to pesticide use and the impact of pesticide use on the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. We have determined that the exception for pesticide use described in the preamble of the proposed rule was not necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species and have therefore not included that exception in this final rule.

Forest Management Practices: Forest management practices that implement State-approved BMPs designed to protect water quality and stream and riparian habitat will avoid or minimize the effects of habitat alterations in areas that support Suwannee alligator snapping turtles. We considered that forest management activities may result in removal of riparian cover or forested habitat, changes in land use within the riparian zone, or stream bank erosion and/or siltation. We recognize that forest management practices are widely implemented in accordance with State-approved BMPs (as reviewed by Cristan et al. 2018, entire), and the adherence to these BMPs broadly protects water quality, particularly related to sedimentation (as reviewed by Cristan et al. 2016, entire; Warrington et al. 2017, entire; and Schilling et al. 2021, entire), to an extent that does not impair the species' conservation. Forest landowners who properly implement those BMPs are helping conserve the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle, and this 4(d) rule is an incentive for all landowners to properly implement applicable State-approved BMPs to avoid any take implications. Further, those forest landowners who are third-party-certified (attesting to the sustainable management of a working forest) to a credible forest management standard are providing audited certainty that BMP implementation is taking place across the landscape.

Summary: Thus, under this final 4(d) rule, incidental take associated with forest management practices that use State-approved BMPs to protect water quality and stream and riparian habitat is excepted from the prohibitions.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, we designate a species' critical habitat concurrently with listing the species. Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:

(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features

(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and

(b) Which may require special management considerations or protection; and

(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary ( i.e., range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis ( e.g., migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically, but not solely by vagrant individuals).

Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.

Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the Start Printed Page 53527 requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation also does not allow the government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal landowners. Rather, designation requires that, where a landowner requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect an area designated as critical habitat, the Federal agency consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the action may affect the listed species itself (such as for occupied critical habitat), the Federal action agency would have already been required to consult with the Service even absent the critical habitat designation because of the requirement to ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Even if the Service were to conclude after consultation that the proposed activity is likely to result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat, the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead, they must implement “reasonable and prudent alternatives” to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the conservation of the species and (2) which may require special management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific data available, those physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, cover, and protected habitat).

Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.

Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 ( 59 FR 34271 )), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 ( Pub. L. 106-554 ; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing regulations ( 50 CFR 424.12 ) require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered species or a threatened species. On April 5, 2024, we published a final rule that revised our regulations at 50 CFR part 424 to further clarify when designation of critical habitat may not be prudent ( 89 FR 24300 ). Our regulations ( 50 CFR424.12(a)(1) ) state that designation of critical habitat may not be prudent in circumstances such as, but not limited to, the following:

(i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of such threat to the species;

(ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the species;

(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States; or

(iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.

In the April 7, 2021, proposed rule ( 86 FR 18014 ), we determined that designation of critical habitat would not be prudent. However, we invited public comment and requested information on the factors that the regulations identify as reasons why designation of critical habitat may be not prudent, and the extent to which designation might increase threats to the species, as well as the possible benefits of critical habitat designation to the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle.

During the comment period, we did not receive any comments that caused us to change the not-prudent determination or our rationale for it. The not-prudent determination for the proposed rule was based on increasing the threat of collection as described in 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)(i) . This component of the latest regulatory language has not changed from the regulatory language used in the proposed rule. The non-prudent determination for this final rule is the same as the proposed because the threat of collection is one of the factors in determining prudency that remained consistent in the previous regulations and the current regulations

Therefore, after review and consideration of the comments we received, we now make a final determination that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent, in accordance with 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) , because the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle faces the threat of poaching, and designation can reasonably be expected to increase the degree of this threat to the species by making location information more readily available.

Regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are exempt from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and do not require an environmental analysis under NEPA. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 ( 48 FR 49244 ). This includes listing, delisting, and reclassification rules, as well as critical habitat designations and species-specific protective regulations promulgated concurrently with a decision to list or reclassify a species as threatened. The courts have upheld this position ( e.g., Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) (critical habitat); Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005 WL 2000928 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2005) (concurrent 4(d) rule)).

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951 ), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Start Printed Page 53528 Governments), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretary's Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to Tribes.

Upon the initiation of the SSA process, we contacted Tribes within the range of Suwannee alligator snapping turtle and additional Tribes of interest to inform them of our intent to complete an SSA for the species that would inform the species' 12-month finding. We did not receive any responses. In addition, no Tribes commented on our April 7, 2021, proposed rule to list the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle.

A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0007 and upon request from the Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

The primary authors of this rule are the staff members of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Florida Ecological Services Field Office.

• Endangered and threatened species
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
• Transportation

Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations , as set forth below:

1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407 ; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.

2. In § 17.11, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by adding an entry for “Turtle, Suwannee alligator snapping” in alphabetical order under REPTILES to read as follows:

Common nameScientific nameWhere listedStatusListing citations and applicable rules *         *         *         *         *         *         * *         *         *         *         *         *         *Reptiles *         *         *         *         *         *         *Turtle, Suwannee alligator snapping Wherever foundT89 [INSERT PAGE WHERE DOCUMENT BEGINS], 6/27/2024; .  *         *         *         *         *         *         *

3. Amend §  17.42 by adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:

(k) Suwannee alligator snapping turtle ( Macrochelys suwanniensis ).

(1) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions that apply to endangered wildlife also apply to Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. Except as provided under paragraph (k)(2) of this section and §§ 17.4, 17.5, and 17.8 it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit, or cause to be committed, any of the following acts in regard to this species:

(i) Import or export, as set forth at § 17.21(b) for endangered wildlife.

(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(1) for endangered wildlife.

(iii) Possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens, as set forth at § 17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife.

(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity, as set forth at § 17.21(e) for endangered wildlife.

(v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth at § 17.21(f) for endangered wildlife.

(2) General exceptions from prohibitions. In regard to this species, you may:

(i) Conduct activities as authorized by a permit under § 17.32.

(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(2) through (4) for endangered wildlife.

(iii) Take as set forth at § 17.31(b).

(iv) Possess and engage in other acts with unlawfully taken wildlife, as set forth at § 17.21(d)(2) for endangered wildlife.

(3) Exception from prohibitions for specific types of incidental take. You may take this species incidental to an otherwise lawful activity caused by forest management practices that use State-approved best management practices designed to protect water quality and stream and riparian habitat.

Martha Williams,

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[ FR Doc. 2024-13946 Filed 6-26-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

• Executive Orders

Reader Aids

Information.

• About This Site
• Accessibility
• No Fear Act
• Continuity Information

124

COMMENTS

1. A literature review of risk, regulation, and profitability of banks

   This study presents a systematic literature review of regulation, profitability, and risk in the banking industry and explores the relationship between them. It proposes a policy initiative using a model that offers guidelines to establish the right mix among these variables. This is a systematic literature review study. Firstly, the necessary data are extracted using the relevant keywords ...

2. (PDF) Fundamental Analysis of Selected Public and Private Sector Banks

   Literature Review (Parveen ... The objective of the study is to profitability and to evaluate the productivity of public and private sector bank with special reference to selected banks during the ...

3. Efficiency of Indian Banks

   The total assets size of Indian banks is around $2.3 trillion at present, which is about 1.2 times the country's GDP, signifying banks' role in the Indian economy. The public sector banks (PSBs) control the majority share of banking business in India. However, in recent years, the private sector banks are gaining mileage over their ...

4. A STUDY ON PERFORMANCE OF PRIVATE SECTOR BANKS IN INDIA

   There are sev en new generation private sector banks in India. They are Axis Bank, Development Credit Bank, HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank, Indusind Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank and Yes Bank. Review of ...

5. Non-Performing Assets of Banks: A Literature Review PJAEE, 18 (10

   [Show full abstract] State Bank of India (SBI) and its associates, nationalised banks and private sector banks on the banking industry in this regard. Design/methodology/approach The individual ...

6. Examining the dynamics between banking sector performance

   2. Background of study. The banking sector's significance in fostering both economic and ecological welfare cannot be understated (Y. Zhang & Zhou, Citation 2020).Governments increasingly rely on the financial system, especially banking institutions, to develop and implement sustainability regulations aimed at issues like climate change (Orazalin et al., Citation 2024).

7. PDF Analysis of Financial Position and Performance of Public and Private

   position and performance of public sector bank (SBI) and private sector bank (HDFC) in India. The article has been divided into eight sections. Section II covers literature review. Research gap has been mentioned in section III. Section IV and V contain objective and materials & methods of the study.

8. PDF Financial Performance of Banks in India: A Study of Selected Private

   2. Literature Review Several research studies are available, exploring different aspects of banking sector in India. However, there is still lack of up-to-date examination of financial performance of banks. This literature review charts out the most significant studies related to the topic of the present research article.

9. Privatization, Performance, and Efficiency: A Study of Indian Banks

   Performance Performance. Enhancing efficiency and performance of public sector banks (PSBs) is a key objective of economic reforms in many countries including India. It is believed that private ownership helps improve efficiency and performance. Accordingly, the Indian government started diluting its equity in PSBs from early 1990s in a phased ...

10. PDF A Study on Profitability Analysis of Private Sector Banks In India

    II. Review Of Literature Review of literature is essential for every research to carry on investigation successfully. Hence the present study is also based on the following review. B.Satish Kumar (2008), in his article on an evaluation of the financial performance of Indian private sector banks wrote Private sector banks play an important role ...

11. PDF A Comparative Study Of Financial Performances Of Public And Private

    Literature Review is a very important part of the research. Jaiswal, G. (2018) emphasized the ... Bank from the Private Sector and Bank of Baroda and State Bank of India from the public sector. Data have been collected through annual reports of the consecutive five years i.e., 2013-

12. Review of Literature

    He used bank-level data for the period 1998-2002 and performed means test for three groups of banks—partially privatized, fully state-owned, and those already in the private sector. The study found that the partially privatized banks performed better than the fully public sector banks in respect of efficiency parameters and certain ...

13. PDF Financial Performance of Private Commercial Banks in India

    measuring the performance of three large private sectors banks namely HDFC, ICICI and AXIS BANK through extensive use of key financial ratios. LITERATURE REVIEW Sharifi and Akhter (2016) considered the credit deposit ratio as a barometer of progress of a financial institution like commercial banks. According to them, it indicates the level credit

14. PDF Impact of Bank Specific Variables on Financial Performance of Private

    he profitability of private sector banks. Both the ROA and the ROE are dependent variables. The independent variables employed in the study to analyze and explain the impact of bank specific variables on the financial performance of private sector banks include liquidity ris. , credit risk, capital adequacy, expense management, solvency, growth ...

15. Financial Performance Analysis of Private Sector Banks in India: An

    Literature Review (Baidoo, Amankwah, & Tobazza, 2014) evaluate financial performance of seven banks of Ghana by the level of capital adequacy, assets, management, earnings, liquidity and sensitivity. ... management and sensitivity to market risk parameters were considered. Only private sector bank has been selected for this research study so ...

16. (PDF) customers-satisfaction-in-public-and-private-sector-banks-in

    Literature Review . ... creating brand loyalty in banking sector. Most of the literature reviews referred in the paper reveals that as compared to public sector, private sector bank customers ...

17. Ownership, bank size, capitalization and bank performance: Evidence

    1. Introduction. The early studies on the financial performance of commercial banks show that bank-specific factors like board size, bank size, capital ratio, funding cost, revenue diversification, and bank age are the major factors which determine the financial performance of the firms (Athanasoglou et al., Citation 2006; Dietrich & Wanzenried, Citation 2011; Molyneux & Thornton, Citation 1992).

18. (Pdf) Fundamental Analysis of Selected Private and Public Bank Sectors

    In total there are almost 90+ National & International Banks in India. These banks are serving millions of customers with thousands of branches and relationship centers. The State Bank of India aka SBI is the largest Public Sector Bank and HDFC is the largest Private Sector Bank in India. literature.

19. A critical review of non-performing assets in the Indian banking

    The overall position of NPAs of the private sector goes up to a maximum of 72 per cent in the year 2016-2017. Majority of the private sector banks show a sharp rise in the NPA growth rates after the year 2015-2016. This sudden rise may have been the result of "asset quality review" conducted by the RBI in the year 2015.

20. A Study on Performance Evaluation of Private Sector-Banks: Pre-Covid Crisis

    This study is based on the analysis of private sector banks. Currently 22 banks are working under private sector banks in India. Out of 22 banks, following four banks are selected on the basis of market position, profitability and capitalization. 1. HDFC Bank (Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited)- 1994.

21. Literature Review of Public and Private Sector Bank

    Literature Review of Public and Private Sector Bank - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. literature review of public and private sector bank

22. (PDF) A Review of Literature on the Financial Performance Evaluation of

    The main objective of this study is to review the literature on the financial performance of Cooperative Banks and Public Sector Banks in India. This evaluation is based on an overview of 24 ...

23. World Economic Outlook, April 2024: Steady but Slow: Resilience ...

    The baseline forecast is for the world economy to continue growing at 3.2 percent during 2024 and 2025, at the same pace as in 2023. A slight acceleration for advanced economies—where growth is expected to rise from 1.6 percent in 2023 to 1.7 percent in 2024 and 1.8 percent in 2025—will be offset by a modest slowdown in emerging market and developing economies from 4.3 percent in 2023 to 4 ...

24. Buildings

    The need for governments and stakeholders to find urgent solutions to address the destructive effects of disasters in urban areas has led to the call for cross-sector collaborations such as public-private partnerships to assist with the development of urban community resilience in this modern era. This paper comprehensively reviews studies on the critical strategies in using public-private ...

25. Open Knowledge Repository

    Furthermore, the findings show that mixed ownership with the private sector can drive better results when compared to fully owned businesses of the state. Similarly, a higher degree of separation from the state seems to improve performance, highlighting the role of corporate governance and ownership reforms to foster independence.

26. A SURVEY OF LITERATURE REVIEW ON BANK PREFORMANCE

    Abstract. This study analyses existing literature review studies on banking sector performance. Specially, this research aim is to identify topics of interest and development niche for this vast ...

27. Comparative Study of Stress Levels and Coping ...

    Purpose: The study compares stress levels and coping mechanisms among women bank employees in Kanpur City, focusing on key stressors, coping mechanisms, and differences in effectiveness. It aims to contribute to understanding stressors faced by women in the banking sector, inform strategies for improving well-being, and contribute to gender equity and workplace health efforts.

28. Federal Register :: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants

    Based on Start Printed Page 53510 the public comments and new literature related to assessing adaptive capacity (Thurman et al. 2020, entire), in this final rule and our revised SSA report, version 1.2 (Service 2022, entire), we updated our discussion of representation by describing the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's adaptive capacity in ...

29. (Pdf) a Comparative Study on E-banking in Public and Private Sectors

    The objective of the study is to find consumer satisfaction in respect of e-banking and the perception of employees for using e-banking in Public and Private sector banks in the Balasore district ...

30. Does Financial Literacy Influence Investment? A Systematic Literature

    The researchers condu cted a systematic literature review on financial literacy and investment, using the keywords "investors" an d "financial literacy". The all operator was used to retrieve a ...

• assignment
• essay
• homework
• paper
• report
• resume
• review
• speech
• thesis