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: Heptner’s markhor Capra falconeri heptneri is an Endangered wild goat occurring in disjunct populations in southern Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Surveys to determine the total population in Tajikistan were conducted during February–April 2012. A total of 1,018 animals were observed. In most areas, which include state protected areas and family- and communitybased
conservancies, markhor populations are stable or increasing. Threats include illegal hunting, habitat degradation, competition with livestock and disease transmission. To motivate conservancies economically to protect markhor populations, trophy hunting should be permitted to accommodate the sustainable use of markhor, with revenues distributed in a transparent and equitably shared manner.

Abstract: Twenty-five years ago, the snow leopard Uncia uncia, an endangered large cat, was eliminated from what is now Sagarmatha National Park (SNP). Heavy hunting pressure depleted that area of most medium-large mammals, before it became a park. After three decades of protection, the cessation of hunting and the recovery of wild ungulate populations, snow leopards have recently returned (four individuals). We have documented the effects of the return of the snow leopard on the population of its main wild prey, the Himalayan tahr Hemitragus jemlahicus, a 'near-threatened' caprin. Signs of snow leopard presence were recorded and scats were collected along a fixed trail (130 km) to assess the presence and food habits of the snow leopard in the Park, from 2004 to 2006. Himalayan tahr, the staple of the diet, had a relative occurrence of 48% in summer and 37% in autumn, compared with the next most frequent prey, musk deer Moschus chrysogaster (summer: 20%; autumn: 15%) and cattle (summer: 15%; autumn: 27%). In early summer, the birth rate of tahr (young-to-female ratio: 0.8-0.9) was high. The decrease of this ratio to 0.1-0.2 in autumn implied that summer predation concentrated on young tahr, eventually altering the population by removing the kid cohort. Small populations of wild Caprinae, for example the Himalayan tahr population in SNP, are sensitive to stochastic predation events and may be led to almost local extinction. If predation on livestock keeps growing, together with the decrease of Himalayan tahr, retaliatory killing of snow leopards by local people may be expected, and the snow leopard could again be at risk of local extinction. Restoration of biodiversity through the return of a large predator has to be monitored carefully, especially in areas affected by humans, where the lack of important environmental components, for example key prey species, may make the return of a predator a challenging event.