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: This study was undertaken in the Phu valley of Manang district in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal,
Spring, 2004 and 2005. I used the Snow Leopard Management Information System (“second order” survey technique), to determine
the relative abundance of snow leopards in delineated areas in Phu valley. Transects routes were plotted by
randomly selected feasible landforms such as along ridgelines, cliff bases and river bluffs where snow
leopards sign is likely to be found. Altogether, 16 transects (total length of 7.912 km) were laid down (mean
transect length=0.495 km). They revealed, 54 sign sites (both relic and non-relic) and altogether 88 signs (72
scrapes, 11 feces, 3 scent mark, 2 pugmarks and 1 hair) were recorded (6.8 site/km and 11.1 signs/km). There
were 61.1% non-relic and 38.9% relic sites. The density of snow leopards in Phu Valley may be 4-5 snow
leopards/100 kmý.It was found that the Ghyo block had the highest sign density (13.6 mean sign item/km)
and Phu block (9.8 mean sign item/km) and the lowest in Ngoru block (3.9 mean sign item/km.). For blue sheep, direct count method was applied from different appropriate vantage points (fixed-point
count). I counted total individuals in each herd and classified all individuals whenever possible, using 8 X24
binocular and 15-60x spotting scope. A total 37 blue sheep herds and 1209 individuals were observed in
192.25 kmý of the study area (blue sheep density, 6.3 kmý). Average herd size was 32.68. Herd size varied
from 1 to 103 animals (the largest so far recorded). The average sex ratio male to female for the entire survey
area was 0.67. Recruitment rate was 47.13. The ratio of yearlings to adult female was 0.45. In Ghyo block
had total 168 blue sheep (area, 44.08 km2 or 3.8/ km2 i.e. 137.2 kg/ kmý). Blue sheep density in Ngoru block
showed 4.7/km2 (area, 65.47 km2). Highest density of blue sheep among three blocks was recorded in Phu
block, 8.9/km2 (or 320 kg/km2) in its 82.70 km2 area. A standard questionnaire was designed, and interviews conducted for relevant information was collected on
livestock depredation patterns (total household survey). Out of 33 households surveyed, 30 reported that they
had livestock depredation by the snow leopard in 2004. Altogether 58 animals were reportedly lost to snow
leopards (3.1% of the total mortality). Out of the estimated standing available biomass (1, 83,483kg) in the
Phu valley at least 2220 kg or 1.3% of the total livestock biomass was consumed by snow leopards in the
year of our study (2004). It was estimated that in the Phu valley annually 1.8 animals were lost per household
to snow leopards. This means approx. Rs.413560 (US$ 5,908) is lost annually in the valley (US$
179/household/annum). Ghyo block, had the highest animals loss (53.4%), followed by Phu block (36.2%)
and Ngoru block (10.3%) to snow leopards. There is positive correlation among the densities of blue sheep, relative abundance of the snow leopard and
livestock depredation. Blue sheep is the main prey species of the snow leopard in Phu valley and its
conservation therefore matters to reduce livestock depredation. A general patterns appears here that shows
that blue sheep (prey) abundance determine snow leopard (predator) abundance and that livestock
depredation by snow leopards may be minimal where there is good population of blue sheep, and vice versa.

Abstract: The paper summarises the alleged conflict between livestock herders and wild predators in the trans-Himalayan region of Zanskar, NW India. The snow leopard (Uncia uncia) is seriously threatened by this conflict, with at least thirteen killed in the last seven years in 3 of the study villages alone. Results of snow leopard sign surveys are described, revealing significant increases since the last survey (1986) consistent with alleged increases in livestock depredation. Attitudes toward wildlife and opinions on population trends are assessed. Depredation hotspots are identified and the cost of livestock predation is
discussed in terms of recent developments and social changes in the Zanskar region.
Illegal hunting and retaliatory killing are described, and essential programs and
conservation measures are suggested. Even at this early stage, there appears scope for raising rural incomes and lifting the burden of co-existence with snow leopard and other unique mountain fauna.