Abstract: In 2001 the King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation (KMTNC), Annapurna Conservation Area (ACAP), Snow Leopard Conservancy (SLC) and WWF-Nepal initiated a collaborative project aimed at enhancing ecotourism in the Manang area, in ways that strengthen benefits to local communities while also protecting the environment and the local culture. Manang is known for its relatively dense snow leopard population, along with supporting good numbers of blue sheep, the endangered cat's principal prey through much of the Himalaya. However, snow leopards periodically kill many livestock, leading to retributive killing by herders along with other associated people-wildlife conflict. In order to encourage the local people to better co-exist with snow leopards and other wildlife, SLC, WWF-Nepal and ACAP agreed to explore ways of providing tourism benefits to local communities as an incentive to protect this rare predator and conserve its alpine habitat. Key in this regard is the possibility of developing locally guided nature treks, and accordingly, this survey was conducted in order to assess existing market opportunities and constraints to such ecotourism enterprise.

Abstract: For the past two decades, the Manang or Nyeshang Valley has become one of the most popular
trekking routes in Nepal, attracting over 15,000 trekkers annually (Ale, 2001). The 21-day
circular trek takes the visitor from the lush southern slopes of the Annapurna massif around to
its dry northern slopes more reminiscent of Tibet, through a landscape of spectacular mountain
scenes, interesting villages and diverse cultures. The Manang region also offers prime habitat
for the endangered snow leopard, supporting an estimated 4.8 – 6.7 snow leopards per 100 sq.
km (Oli 1992). This high density has been attributed to the abundance of blue sheep, the snow
leopard's primary large prey species across the Himalayan Mountains and Tibetan Plateau.

Abstract: Bounded by two of the world's highest mountain ranges, the Great Himalaya and the Karakoram, Ladakh is a land of exhilarating mountain landscapes, rocky gorges and a unique cultural heritage. It is also home to distinctive wildlife such as the snow leopard, blue sheep and Tibetan wild ass, all living in a unique high altitude desert ecosystem. Not surprisingly, Ladakh is becoming a sought after tourist destination for international and domestic visitors alike. Over the past two decades tourism has grown substantially, although erratically, with both positive and less positive results for Ladakh's environment and people. People are recognizing that it is important to act now and engage in an informed dialogue in order to conserve the natural and cultural resources on which the future of tourism and related incomes depend. The Snow Leopard Conservancy (SLC) is working in collaboration with local communities and nongovernmental organizations to foster co-existence between people and predators like the endangered snow leopard by reducing livestock depredation losses and improving household incomes in environmentally friendly, socially responsible and economically viable ways. Well-balanced tourism is one income generating option.

Abstract: Applied ecology lies at the intersection of human societies and natural systems. Consequently, applied ecologists are constantly challenged as to how best to use ecological knowledge to influence the management of ecosystems (Habel et al. 2013). As Hulme (2011) has pointed out, to do so effectively we must leave our ivory towers and engage with stakeholders. This engagement is especially important and challenging in areas of the world where poverty, weak institutions and poor governance structures conspire to limit the ability of local communities to contribute to biodiversity conservation. These communities often bear disproportionate costs in the form of curtailed access to natural resources, ecosystem services, and developmental
programmes, and also suffer wildlife-caused damage, including injuries or loss of human life, and economic
and psychological impacts (Madhusudan & Mishra 2003). It is well-recognized that conservation efforts in large parts of the world historically have been perceived to be discriminatory by local people (Mishra 2016). The need for engagement with local communities is therefore embedded in the 2020 Aichi biodiversity targets and is widely thought to be critical to the success of conservation efforts. However, although the need for engagement is clear, as ecologists and practitioners we often have little formal training in how we should engage with local communities and how we can recognize the pitfalls and opportunities provided by developing genuine partnerships. The practical challenges of achieving effective engagement are considerable (Agrawal & Gibson 1999; Waylen et al. 2010, 2013), and such forays are fraught with difficulties and ethical considerations (Chan et al. 2007). When they are done badly, conservation interventions
can damage relationships and trust, and lead to serious injustice to local people and setbacks for ecological
outcomes (Duffy 2010). Much has been written on knowledge exchange and participatory research approaches (e.g. Reed et al. 2014 and references therein). This Practitioner’s Perspective
seeks to focus on the next logical step: the elements that practitioners and researchers need to consider when
engaging with communities to effect conservation. Engagement around the management of protected areas
has been discussed and formalized (e.g. Dudley 2008). Considerable literature has also emerged, particularly
from Africa, on the use and co-management of natural resources, commonly referred to as community-based natural resource management or CBNRM (e.g. Fabricius 2004; Roe, Nelson & Sandbrook 2009; Child & Barnes
2010). There have been attempts to draw general principles for CBNRM (e.g. Thakadu 2005; Gruber 2010). In
the related field of community-based conservation, however, while there have been efforts to draw lessons (e.g. Berkes 2004), little exists in terms of frameworks or guidelines for effectively working with local communities to effect biodiversity conservation in multi-use landscapes
(Mishra 2016). The eight principles for community-based conservation outlined here (Fig. 1) build on ideas developed in fields as diverse as applied ecology, conservation and natural
resource management, community health, social psychology, rural development, negotiation theory, and ethics
(see Mishra 2016). They have been developed, challenged and tested through 20 years of community experience andour own research on the endangered snow leopard Panthera uncia and its mountain ecosystems, in South and Central Asia. We suspect that with contextual adaptations, their relevance for applied ecologists and practitioners may be universal.

Abstract: 1. Community-based conservation, despite being more inclusive than fortress con- servation, has been criticized for being a top-down implementation of external ideas brought to local communities for conservation's benefit. This is particularly true for Changpas, the pastoral people of Changthang in trans-Himalayan India who live alongside unique wildlife.
2. Our main aim was to co-design conservation interventions through participatory action research. We worked with two Changpa communities, to understand the issues faced by them. Subsequently, we co-designed context-sensitive interventions to facilitate positive human–nature interactions. We did so by integrating the PARTNERS (Presence, Aptness, Respect, Transparency, Empathy, Responsiveness, Strategic Support) principles with the Trinity of Voice (Access, Standing and Influence).
3. In Rupsho, we facilitated focus group discussions (FGDs) led by the community. We found livestock depredation by wildlife was primarily facilitated by the weather. This led to co-designing of a new corral design, which was piloted with seven households, safeguarding 2385 pashmina goats and sheep. Approximating the value of each sheep/goat to be USD125, this intervention amounts to a significant economic protection of USD c. 42,500 for each household. This is along with intangible gains of trust, ownership and improved self-esteem.
4. In Tegazong, a restricted area adjoining the Indo-China border with no previous research records, we worked with 43 Changpa people to co-create research questions of mutual interest. Wildlife presence and reasons for livestock loss were identified as areas of mutual interest. The herders suggested they would record data in a form of their choice, for 6 months, while they live in their winter pastures. This participatory community monitoring revealed nutrition and hypothermia to be a key cause of livestock death. Subsequently, we delimited two previously untested interventions: lamb cribs and provisioning of locally sourced barley as a feed supplement. The wildlife monitoring recorded the first record of Tibetan Gazelle Procapra picticuadata, outside of their known distribution, in Tegazong.
5. We aim to highlight the benefits of co-designing projects with local communities that link research and conservation, while also discussing the challenges faced. Ultimately, such projects are needed to ensure ethical knowledge generation and conservation, which aims to be decolonial and inclusive.