Abstract: Context. Livestock depredation is a major conservation challenge around the world, causing considerable economical losses to pastoral communities and often result in retaliatory killing. In Mongolia, livestock depredation rates are thought to be increasing due to changes in pastoral practices and the transformation of wild habitats into pasture lands. Few studies have examined the interactions between humans and carnivores and even fewer have considered how recent changes in pastoral practices may affect depredation rates.
Aim. This study aimed to assess the influence of herding practices on self-reported livestock losses to snow leopards and wolves in two communities in South Gobi, Mongolia. Methods. In total, 144 herder households were interviewed and an information-theoretic approach was used to analyse the factors influencing self-reported livestock losses to snow leopards and wolves. Key results. The majority of self-reported losses to both snow leopards and wolves occurred when herds were left unattended in the pastures. The economic loss associated with livestock losses to snow leopards and wolves amounted to an average loss of US$825 per herder and year. The number of livestock owned by a household and the frequency of shifting campsite had the strongest influence on livestock losses to snow leopards and wolves. Other determinants of livestock losses included frequency of visiting the soum (county) centre. Implications. On the basis of the findings, we make recommendations for mitigating the conflict with large carnivores, with focus on guiding future herding practices.

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: Notice that the Mongolian government will allow the taking of 4 snow leopards in 2011.

Abstract: The high mountain ranges of South and Central Asia are increasingly being exposed to large-scale development
projects. These areas are home to traditional pastoralist communities and internationally important
biodiversity including the endangered snow leopard Panthera uncia. Development projects rely on
economic cost-benefit analysis, but the ecosystem services in the high Himalayas are poorly understood
and are rarely accounted for. As a first step to fill this gap, we identified the main ecosystem services used
by local people in the Trans-Himalayan Spiti Valley (7591 km2), a region important for conservation of
snow leopards and high mountain biodiversity, and undertook an economic valuation. Stakeholders identified
a range of services, though these were dominated by provisioning services identified by 90% of
respondents. Only 5.4% of the respondents recognised regulatory services and 4.8% recognised cultural
services. The mean economic value of provisioning services was estimated at US$ 3622 ± 149 HH
1
yr
1, which was 3.8 times higher than the average annual household income. Our results underscore
the need to account for ecosystem services in the cost-benefit analyses of large-scale development projects
in addition to assessments of their environmental and social impact.