|
Mishra, C., Young, J. C., Fiechter, M., Rutherford, B., Redpath, S. M. (2017). Building partnerships with communities for biodiversity conservation: lessons from Asian mountains. Journal of Applied Ecology, , 1–9.
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.
|
|
|
Burgelo T.B. (1986). Brief information of snow leopard.
Abstract: This article describes the encounters with snow leopard and their traces in various areas of Kazakhstan. In the Aksu Djabagly nature reserve, population of snow leopard does not exceed 10-12 animals. There were found remains of moral, argali, ibex, small birds, red-tailed marmot, hare (Lepus talai), mouse rodents and plants. One encounter with snow leopard is known to have occurred in the Greater Almaty Canyon in 1971-1981. There are no less than 25 snow leopards in the Jungar Ala-Tau. Snow leopard was found in the Aksu river valley, ridge Saur, and South Altai. The following number of snow leopards was kept in Kazakhstan's zoos, as of January 1, 1984: two males in Alma-Ata, one female in Chimkent. In 1976, one cub was born in the Alma-Ata zoo.
|
|
|
Clevenger, S., S. (1979). Breeding snow leopards in the north 40.
|
|
|
Rieger, I. (1982). Breeding ounces, Uncia uncia (Schreber, 1775) in zoological gardens. In L. Blomqvist (Ed.), International Pedigree Book of Snow Leopards, Vol. 3 (Vol. 3, pp. 49–50). Helsinki: Helsinki Zoo.
|
|
|
Freeman, H. (1980). Breeding and behavior of the snow leopard.
|
|
|
Berens K.R. (1972). Bold pathfinders.
Abstract: A hunt for snow leopard in Kyrgyzstan is described in a popular way. The hunters, people of the Issyk-Kul, caught alive five mature snow leopards by means of traps for less than 1.5 month. Such a quantity within such a minimal period of time is a record, since a total number of snow leopards caught per year is no more than 112 animals. All the animals were safely delivered to the Moscow “ZooCenter”.
|
|
|
Marma, B. B., Yunchis, V.V. (1969). Biology of the snow leopard (Panthera uncia uncia). Zoologicheskii Zhurnal, 47(11), 1689–1694.
Abstract: The methods to obtain progeny of the snow-leopard (Panthera uncia uncia) in captivity were being elaborated in the zoological garden of Kaunas, Lithuanian SSR. The blood characteristics for snow-leopards is given and compared to that for African lions and Sumatran tigers. A series of internal, external and clinical indices is established. The rut lasts for 5-7 day, the duration of pregnancy equals 98 days. The duration of lactation varies from 3 to 4 months. Sexual maturity is attained on the 3rd-4th year. From 1960 to 1967 in zoological ghardens of the world abuot 29 snow-leopards were born. 14 of them -- in the Kauna zoological garden.
|
|
|
Zimina R.P. (1964). Biology and biotopical distribution of mammals. Predators. Distribution of mammals by vertical zones.
Abstract: Fauna of the Issyk-Kul depression and the surrounding ridges consists of heterogeneous elements different in their ecologic features and origin. In highlands, more common are species of Central Asia's origin (gray marmot, snow leopard, dhole, ibex, argali, etc.). Snow leopard is met in Terskey-Alatau. Each year hunters catch/shoot one to three snow leopards in the Chon-Kizilsu river basin. In the Djeti-Oguz district, up to five eight snow leopards are caught each winter. Snow leopard is also caught/shot in the river basins Chon-Kizilsu, Karabatkak, Ortok, Archtor, Tekeletor, and Shatly.
|
|
|
(2002). Biological resources.
Abstract: It provides a summary of plant and animal resources in Uzbekistan. Among 15,000 animal species, 664 are vertebrate species including 424 bird, 97 mammal, 83 fish, 59 reptile and three amphibian species. Snow leopard, snow cock, ibex, and other species are typical for highlands.
|
|
|
(1998). Biological diversity conservation. National strategy and action plan of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
Abstract: The National strategy and action plan of the Republic of Uzbekistan was signed on April 1, 1998. Snow leopard was included in the list of rare and endangered animal species and referred to category 2 a rare, not endangered species. It is distributed in highlands of the West Tien Shan and Pamiro-Alay. Its population is 30-50 animals. Snow leopard is protected in the Chatkal, Gissar nature reserve, and Ugam-Chatkal national park.
|
|