Abstract: Mankial is a sub-valley of the Swat Kohistan. Temperate ecosystem of the valley is intact to a greater extent, which provides habitat to a variety of species of plants, animals and birds. Snow leopard is reported from the valley. To confirm its occurrence, the HUJRA (Holistic Understanding for Justified Research and Action), conducted the study titled “Snow Leopard Survey in Mankial Valley, district Swat, NWFP”. The author provided technical support, while ISLT (The International Snow Leopard Trust) funded the project under its small grants program. The World Wide Fund for Nature-Pakistan (WWF-Pakistan) and the Mankial Community Organization (MCO) facilitated surveys under the project. Surveys revealed that Snow leopard visits parts of the Mankial valley in winter months. Information from the local community shows that Snow leopard remains in the Serai (an off-shoot of the Mankial Valley) from early winter to early spring. Intensive surveys of the prime snow leopard winter habitat in the valley found several snow leopard signs including pugmarks, feces, and scrapes. The study also found occurrence of prey species through indirect evidence though. However, information from the local community confirmed that in the recent past there was a good population of markhor in the valley, which is now reduced to less than 50, mostly due to hunting and habitat disturbance. Hunting is part of the local culture and lifestyle. During winter months hunting pressure is low, as most of the local community migrates to warmer plain areas than Mankial Valley. However, those who live in the area lop oak branches for feeding their livestock and cut trees for burning, in addition to hunting prey species of snow leopard. This has resulted in stunted oak vegetation in most of the lower reaches of the valley and decline of the markhor population.

Abstract: Livestock depredation by the endangered snow leopard (Panthera uncia) _is an increasingly contentious issue in Himalayan villages, especially in or near protected areas. Mass attacks in which as many as 100 sheep and goats are killed in a single incident inevitably result in retaliation by local villagers. This article describes a community-based conservation initiative to address this problem in Hemis National Park, India. Human-wildlife conflict is alleviated by predator-proofing villagers' nighttime livestock pens and by enhancing household incomes in environmentally sensitive and culturally compatible ways. The authors have found that the highly participatory strategy described here (Appreciative Participatory Planning and Action-APPA) leads to a sense of project ownership by local stakeholders, communal empowerment, self-reliance, and willingness to co-exist with
snow leopards. The most significant conservation outcome of this process is the protection from retaliatory poaching of up to five snow leopards for every village's livestock pens that are made predator-proof._

Abstract: The merits of integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs), which aim to provide development incentives to citizens in return for conservation behaviors, have long been debated in the literature. Some of the most common critiques suggest that conservation activities tend to be strongly overpowered by development activities. We studied this assertion through participant observation and archival analysis of five Conservation Area Management Committees (CAMCs) in the Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA), Nepal. Committee activities were categorized as conservation activities (policy development and conservation implementation), development activities (infrastructure, health care, education, economic development, and sanitation), or activities related to institutional strengthening (administrative development and capacity building activities). Greater longevity of each ICDP was associated with greater conservation activity in relation to development activities. Project life cycles progressed from a focus on development activities in their early stages, through a transitional period of institutional strengthening, and toward a longer-term focus that roughly balanced conservation and development activities. Results suggest that the ICDP concept, as practiced in ACA, has been successful at building capacity for and interest in conservation amongst local communities. However, success has come over a period of nearly a decade, suggesting that prior conclusions about ICDP failures may have been based on unrealistic expectations of the time needed to influence behavioral changes in target populations.

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.