|
Nowell, K., & Preisser, T. (1997). Saving Their Skins; Pay herders not to hunt snow leopards? Villagers laughed at first.
|
|
|
Poyarkov, A. D., & Subbotin, A. E. (2002). Strategic Priorities and the System of Measures for Snow Leopard Conservation in Russia.. Islt: Islt.
|
|
|
McCarthy, T., & Allen, P. (1999). Knitting for snow leopards. Cat News, 30, 24–25.
Abstract: The authors describe an innovative conservation program for the endangered snow leopard. A program was established in which herding families in Mongolia knit scarves, gloves, and hats from camel, sheep, and cashmere wool for sale as eco-friendly products. The program increases family incomes, brings in revenue for conservation programs, and educates the herders on the leopards. klf.
|
|
|
Jackson, R. (2000). Linking Snow Leopard Conservation and People-Wildlife Conflict Resolution, Summary of a multi-country project aimed at developing grass-roots measures to protect the endangered snow leopard from herder retribution. Cat News, 33, 12–15.
|
|
|
Mishra, C., Allen, P., McCarthy, T., Madhusudan, M. D., Agvaantserengiin, B., & Prins H. (2003). The role of incentive programs in conserving the snow leopard (Vol. 17).
Abstract: Pastoralists and their livestock share much of the habitat of the snow leopard (Uncia uncia) across south and central Asia. The levels of livestock predation by the snow leopard and other carnivores are high, and retaliatory killing by the herders is a direct threat to carnivore populations. Depletion of wild prey by poaching and competition from livestock also poses an indirect threat to the region's carnivores. Conservationists working in these underdeveloped areas that face serious economic damage from livestock losses have turned to incentive programs to motivate local communities to protect carnivores. We describe a pilot incentive program in India that aims to offset losses due to livestock predation and to enhance wild prey density by creating livestock-free areas on common land. We also describe how income generation from handicrafts in Mongolia is helping curtail poaching and retaliatory killing of snow leopards. However, initiatives to offset the costs of living with carnivores and to make conservation beneficial to affected people have thus far been small, isolated, and heavily subsidized. Making these initiatives more comprehensive, expanding their coverage, and internalizing their costs are future challenged for the conservation of large carnivores such as the snow leopard.
|
|
|
Kitchener, S. L., Meritt, & Rosenthal, M. (1975). Observations on the breeding and husbandry of snow leopards, Panthera uncia. Int.Zoo Yearbook, 15, 212–217.
Abstract: Describes adult care and breeding biology, and the care, growth, and mortality factors of young snow leopards in a successful breeding program in the Lincon Park Zoo, Chicago, Illinois.
|
|
|
Blomqvist, L. (2008). The status of the snow leopard in the EEP – program in 2007. In L. Blomqvist (Ed.), International Pedigree Book of Snow Leopards (Vol. 9, pp. 20–24). Helsinki: Helsinki Zoo.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
International Snow Leopard Trust. (1999). Snow Leopard News. Seattle, WA: Islt.
|
|
|
International Snow Leopard Trust. (2000). Snow Leopard News Spring 2000. Seattle, Wa: Islt.
|
|