|
|
Ganhar, J. (1979). The Wildlife of Ladakh. Srinagar, India: Haramukh Publications.
|
|
|
|
Gaston, A. J., Garson, P. J., & Hunter, M. L. (1983). The status and conservation of forest wildlife in Himachal Pradesh, Western Himalayas. Biological Conservation, 27(4), 291–314.
Abstract: The wildlife of temperate forest ecosystems in the Western Himalayas is threatened by destruction of habitat and hunting. Two species of pheasants occuring in the survey area (western tragopan Tragopan melanocephalus and cheer pheasant Catreus wallichi) are listed in the IUCN Red Data Book (1979). Small populations of both species were located and information on their habitat requirements was obtained. The status of most large mammal species appears to be precarious, with the populations encountered being small and fragmented. Species formerly common but now rare include Himalayan brown bear Ursus arctos, Himalayan tahr Hemitragus jemlahicus and musk deer Moschus moschiferus. The snow leopard Panthera uncia has disappeared completely from the area.-from Authors
|
|
|
|
Green, M. J. B. (1987). Protected areas and snow leopards: their distribution and status. Tiger Paper, 14(4), 1–10.
Abstract: Considerable efforts have been devoted to conserving the snow leopard Panthera uncia in recent years, but progress has inevitably been slow due to the difficulties of studying a sparsely distributed, secretive and endangered species in often isolated mountainous terrain. Although knowledge about the species overall distribution in the highlands of Central Asia still remains fragmenatry, it is important to briefly examine all the available information in order to review measures taken to date to conserve the species through the protected areas network. The purpose of this paper is to examine the distribution and status of protected areas inhabited or visited by snow leopard in relation to the species' distribution and highlight deficiences in the present network.
|
|
|
|
Green, M. J. B. (1992). Nature Reserves of the Himalaya and the Mountains of Central Asia. New Delhi: IUCN, Cambridge and Oxford University Press.
|
|
|
|
Heinen, J. T., & Metha, J. C. (1999). Conceptual and legal issues in the designation and management of conservation areas in Nepal. Environmental Conservation, 26, 21–29.
Abstract: The modern era of wildlife and protected area conservation in Nepal began in 1973 with the passage of comprehensive legislation, and has evolved very quickly as new priorities and problems have emerged. Here we explore the legal and managerial development of conservation areas, a recently-defined category of protected area designed to promote conservation through local-level participation and development. A review of the Conservation Area Management Regulations of 1996 shows that there are several potential problems inherent in this designation. As written, the regulations move power from the government to organizations under governmental contract. Thus, management authority largely remains top-down from the standpoint of local users. We also question how well the designation will protect some sensitive wildlife species, since organizations do not have law enforcement authority under Nepalese legislation.
Despite these concerns, there have been several successful conservation area programmes in existence in Nepal since the 1980s and most of the issues addressed are surmountable with the current regulations, providing that several criteria are met. We propose that His Majesty's Government and organizations under contract develop more definitive methods of disbursing funds for local-level projects, and institute social impact assessments. In addition, more attention must be paid to wildlife law enforcement; independent assessments of important wild populations and unique habitats are needed. Finally, we discuss some broader issues that should be better addressed in Nepal and elsewhere, including cross-sectoral coordination within the government.
|
|
|
|
Heinen, J. T., & Mehta, J. (2000). Emerging issues in legal and procedural aspects of buffer zone management with case studies from Nepal. Journal of Environment and Development, , 45–67.
Abstract: Buffer zones have been used as part of larger integrated conservation development programs to provide the benefits of ecological buffering of protected areas and socioeconomic buffering of neighboring communities. The authors explore the legal and managerial development of buffer zones internationally and with the passage of a conservation amendment in Nepal. A review of Nepal's buffer zone policies and several ongoing projects shows that there are several potential inherent problems. As written, regulations tend to expand the authority of the state by imposing restrictions in populated areas formerly not under control of park officials. Some participatory rights are provided to citizens, but management authority largely remains top down from the standpoint of local users. The authors question whether the managerial and research capacities exist to monitor buffer zones for their effectiveness both for conservation and development purposes and make several recommendations to improve implementation.
|
|
|
|
Hillard, D. (1992). Launching a snow leopard study in the Qomolangma Nature Reserve. Snow Line, 10(1), 8–9.
|
|
|
|
Jackson, R. (1991). A wildlife survey of the Qomolangma Nature Preserve, Tibetian Autonomous Region, Peoples Republic of China. Franklin, West Virginia: Woodlands Mountain Institute.
|
|
|
|
Jackson, R. (1992). SSC Plan for Snow Leopard.
|
|
|
|
Jackson, R. (2000). Community Participation: Tools and Examples. (pp. 1–9). Management Planning Workshop for the Trans-Himalayan Protected Areas, 25-29 August, 2000, Leh, Ladak.
Abstract: In response to dwindling wildlife populations and habitat, governments established national parks and protected areas, often with little input from people living in the immediate area. In some cases communities were relocated, but in most they are left to pursue traditional agricultural and pastoral livelihoods under a new set of rules. Important questions of land tenure remained unresolved, with a “fences and fines” approach to protected area management (Stolton and Dudley 1999).
|
|
