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.

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: Snow leopards and agropastoral communities have co-existed in snow leopard range countries for centuries. The vulnerable snow leopard forms and maintains the entire ecosystem, serving as an indicator species of a healthy alpine ecosystem. However, snow leopards, on the other hand, habitually kill livestock, occasionally killing 100 or more livestock in a single night, resulting in snow leopard retaliation. Thus, the snow leopard is becoming more threatened, so more attention should be paid. Therefore, numerous conservation mitigation strategies have been applied to maintain human-snow leopard coexistence in countries of the snow leopard range. However, such implemented conservation strategies lacked a thorough assessment of their achievements or shortcomings in protecting the snow leopard and enhancing community tolerance. Therefore, we systematically examined and evaluated peer-reviewed articles and book chapters on existing and implemented mitigation measures. We use the software Publish or Perish to achieve this, and we assess using the Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) review approach. We thoroughly analyzed 42 papers and book chapters that were condensed human- snow leopard co-existence-related literature published in English from 2010 to 2023. Almost 90% of the papers were country-specific, with the remaining papers covering regional or snow leopard ranges countries. Nepal had the most papers, followed by China, India, and Mongolia; however, Afghanistan, Bhutan, Pakistan, Russia, and Tajikistan each had<10%, but there was no single document from Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan. Predator-proof corral, improved herding practices, and community-based insurance programs were three of the key recommendations that were more than 10 to 22 times proposed interventions. There are site-specific sociocultural situations and environments that require long-term action-oriented research that is area-specific rather than short-term and generic interventions. We identified a large knowledge gap in snow leopard research, specifically a lack of evidence that demonstrates and quantifies the effects of conservation actions, and strongly advise that it be further researched.

Abstract: Livestock depredation by snow leopard and wolf is widespread across the Himalayan region (Jackson et al. 1996, Jackson and Wangchuk 2001; Mishra 1997, Oli et al 1994). For example, in India's Kibber Wildlife Sanctuary, Mishra (1997) reported losses amounting to 18% of the livestock holdings and valued at about US $138 per household. The villagers claimed predation rates increased after establishment of the sanctuary, but
surveys indicated a dramatic increase in livestock numbers accompanying changes in animal husbandry systems (Mishra 2000).

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).