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: Resource exploitation and behavioural interference underlie competition among
carnivores. Competition is reduced by specializing on different prey and/or spatiotemporal
separation, usually leading to different food habits. We predicted that
two closely related species of large cats, the endangered snow leopard and the
near-threatened common leopard, living in sympatry, would coexist through
habitat separation and exploitation of different prey species. In central Himalaya,
we assessed (2006–2010) habitat and diet overlap between these carnivores. The
snow leopard used grassland and shrubland, whereas the common leopard
selected forest. Contrary to our prediction, snow leopard and common leopard
preyed upon similar wild (Himalayan tahr, musk deer) and domestic species (Bos
spp., dogs). Dietary overlap between snow leopard and common leopard was 69%
(yearly), 76% (colder months) and 60% (warmer months). Thus, habitat separation
should be the result of other factors, most likely avoidance of interspecific
aggression. Habitat separation may not always lead to the use of different prey.
Avoidance of interspecific aggression, rather than exploitation of different
resources, could allow the coexistence of potentially competing large predators.

Abstract: Preliminary recommendations for the management of snow leopard and its prey are provided for the Langu Valley segment of the Shey-Pkoksundo National Park. Park-wide and country-wide conservation options and management recommendations await results of the surveys scheduled for 1987. The following management objectives are formulated: 1) Protection and ultimate restoration of all natural communities within the area 2) Special protection measures for snow leopard and musk deer (strict control of hunting and livestock grazing) 3) Secure natural resources around local villages 4) Respect traditional rights of villagers, while controlling high impact human activities 5) Secure cooperation of local people. These objectives are refined and recommendations for concrete conservation actions are made.
Notes: document is a part of the Himalayan Snow Leopard Project: Final Progress Report, Phase I

Abstract: 1. Camera trapping, paired with analytical methods for estimating occupancy, abundance and other ecological parameters, can yield information with direct consequences for wildlife management and conservation. Although ecological information is the primary target of most camera trap studies, detectability influences every aspect from design to interpretation.
2. Concepts and methods of time-toevent analysis are directly applicable to camera trapping, yet this statistical field has thus far been ignored as a way to analyze photographic capture data. to illustrate the use to time-to-event statistics and to better understand how photographic evidence accumulates, we explored patterns in tow related measure of detectability: Detection probability and time to detection. We analyzed camera trap data for three sympatric carnivores ( snow Leopard, red fox and stone marten) in the mountains of northern Pakistan and tested predictions about patterns in detectability across species, sites and time.
3. We found species-specific differences in the magnitude of detectability and the factors influencing it, reinforcing the need to consider determinants of detectability in study design and to account for them during analysis. Photographic detectability of snow leopard was noticeably lower than that of red fox, but comparable to detectability of stone marten. Site-specific attributes such as the presence of carnivore sign ( snow Leopard), terrain ( snow leopard and red fox) and application for lures ( red fox) influenced detectability. For the most part, detection probability was constant over time.
4. Species- specific differences in factors determining detectability make camera trap studies targeting multiple species particularly vulnerable to misinterpretation if the hierarchical origin of the data is ignored. Investigators should consider not only the magnitude of detectability, but also the shape of the curve describing the cumulative process of photographic detection, as this has consequences for both determining survey effort and the election of analytical models. Weighted time-to -event analysis can complement occupancy analysis and other hierarchal methods by providing additional tools for exploring camera trap data and testing hypotheses regarding the temporal aspect of photographic evidence accumulation.