Abstract: 1. Community-based conservation, despite being more inclusive than fortress conservation, 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: Kyrgyzstan is a land of towering mountains, glaciers, rushing streams, wildflowercovered meadows, forests, snow leopards, soaring eagles, and yurt-dwelling nomads. The entire nation lies astride the Tian Shan1, Chinese for “Heavenly Mountains”, one of the world's highest mountain ranges, which is 7439 m (24,400 ft) in elevation at its highest point. The nation is the second smallest of the former Soviet Central Asian republics. In
spite of Kyrgyzstan's diverse wildlife and stunning natural beauty, the nation remains little known, and, as yet, still on the frontier of international conservation efforts. The following report is the product of 12 months of research into the state of conservation and land-use in Kyrgyzstan. This effort was funded by the Fulbright Commission of the U.S. State Department, and represents the most recent findings of the author's personal environmental journey through Inner Asia, which began in 1999. When I first started my preliminary research for this project, I was extremely surprised to learn that, even though the Tian Shan Range has tremendous ecological significance for conservation efforts in middle Asia, there wasn't a single major international conservation organization with an office in the former Soviet Central Asian republics. Even more surprising was how little awareness there is of conservation issues in the Tian Shan region amongst conservation workers in neighboring areas who are attempting to preserve similar species assemblages and ecosystems to those found in the Tian Shan. Given this lack of awareness, and the great potential for the international community to make a positive contribution towards improving the current state of biodiversity conservation in Kyrgyzstan and Central Asia, I have summarized my findings on protected areas and conservation in Kyrgyzstan and the Tian Shan of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Xinjiang in the chapters below. The report begins with some brief background information on geography and society in the Kyrgyz Republic, followed by an overview of biodiversity and the state of conservation in the nation, which at the present time closely parallels the state of conservation in the other former Soviet Central Asian republics. Part IV of the report provides a catalog of all major protected areas in Kyrgyzstan and the other Tian Shan nations, followed by a list of sites in Kyrgyzstan that are as yet unprotected but merit protection. In the appendices the reader will find fairly comprehensive species lists of flora and fauna found in the Kyrgyz Republic, including lists of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, trees and shrubs, wildflowers, and endemic plants. In addition, a
draft paper on the history and current practice of pastoral nomadism in Kyrgyzstan has been included in Appendix A. While the research emphasis for this study was on eastern Kyrgyzstan, over the course of the study the author did have the opportunity to make brief journeys to southern Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Xinjiang. While falling short of being a definitive survey of protected areas of the Tian Shan, the informational review which
follows is the first attempt at bringing the details of conservation efforts throughout the entire Tian Shan Range together in one place. It is hoped that this summary of biodiversity and conservation in the Tian Shan will generate interest in the region amongst conservationists, and help increase efforts to protect this surprisingly unknown range that forms an island of meadows, rivers, lakes, and forests in the arid heart of Asia.

Abstract: Ladakh lies between the Great Himalayas and the formidable Karakoram mountains.
Its unique landscape and rich cultural heritage have been a great attraction to tourists all over
the world. Apart from its uniqueness it has a rich Trans-Himalayan bio-diversity and is home
to the rare and elusive snow leopard. It opened to tourism in 1974 with a handful of tourists
and has gone up to the present number of about 18,000 visitors annually. Ecotourism started in Ladakh in mid 80s in the form of conservation of traditional
architecture when local communities realized the importance of their rich culture and
traditions being valued by the visiting tourists. However, while tourism became a major
source of income to people in Leh, most of the benefits stayed with outside (Delhi) based
travel agents thus leaving out the rural masses. During the last three years Snow Leopard Conservancy and The Mountain Institute have been
initiating ecotourism activities with local communities in the Hemis National Park as an
alternate livelihood and an indirect way to compensate losses of livestock from predatory
animals. However, local people while venturing into such new initiatives have tended to be
like blind men that are being led by NGO's so that they do not stumble along their paths.

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).