Living with snow leopards: a pluralistic approach to ...

7 downloads 0 Views 2MB Size Report
protected for wildlife, or whether the snow leopard overstepped this invisible boundary and entered land that ..... Although these societies have lived alongside ...
Living with snow leopards: a pluralistic approach to wildlife conservation Kulbhushansingh Suryawanshi and Radhika Timbadia

In a remote Trans-Himalayan hamlet in the Lingti Valley in Himachal Pradesh, Sonam Takpa awoke on a bright sunny morning to an eerie silence from the livestock corral that held his 47 goats1. He was in for a rude shock – peeping in, he found 35 of his goats killed, and a content snow leopard, the perpetrator. In a fit of anger, he killed the snow leopard. In government circles and in informal discussions, the key question was whether Sonam Takpa lived with his goats within an area protected for wildlife, or whether the snow leopard overstepped this invisible boundary and entered land that humans had demarcated for their own use. This is not an unusual or isolated story. Sonam Takpa's experience exemplifies a conservation conundrum in the Trans-Himalayan landscape; it is a conundrum that brings together a three millennium old pastoralist culture (Handa 1994) and modern-day wildlife conservation.

The snow leopard is distributed across 12 countries in the mountainous regions of Central and South Asia. The Himalaya, the Karakoram, the Altai mountains and the Tibet-Qinghai plateau are the strong holds for this Species. In India, snow leopards occur in the five Himalayan states – Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh. Photograph: Kulbhushansingh Suryawanshi.

The Himalayas are relatively young, “just” 55 million years old, in comparison with older ranges such as the Appalachian Mountains in North America (1.2 billion years old) and the Makhonjwa Mountains in southern Africa (3.2 billion years old). The Trans-Himalayas lie beyond the loftiest peaks of the Himalayas, and are bound by the Tibetan Plateau in the north and mountain chains such as the Karakoram, Hindu Kush and the Pamir in the north-west. This is a vast region of roughly 1.5 lakh km2 covering 5.5 per cent of India's land area (Rogers, et al. 2000), from the extremely rugged Zanskar to the vast flatlands of the Changthang Plateau, over elevations ranging from 3500 to 5500 m above sea level. The Trans-Himalaya is often called a cold desert – winter temperatures can drop to 40° Celsius below zero, while summer temperatures rarely rise beyond 25°

Celsius. Winters in Kibber village in Himachal Pradesh, at an altitude of 4270 m, are truly spectacular. By January snow covers the treeless landscape, creating a dazzling blue and white panorama. Anything kept outside the warm south-facing bukhari (burning room) is frozen solid. The Trans-Himalayan region lies in the rain-shadow of the Himalayas, and is home to dry alpine steppe vegetation (Champion and Seth 1968). Although these high-altitude grassland ecosystems are dry, with relatively little rainfall, the region teems with large animals. This is surprising, because the Trans-Himalaya is amongst the least productive grass-dominated ecosystems of the world (Mishra 2001). As many as 20 wild herbivore species and 13 carnivore species live here, in addition to seven domestic livestock species. One plausible reason for such wild herbivore diversity is the different land features: from rugged gorges, to rolling hills and flatlands (Namgail 2009). For example, ibex (Capra sibirica) live in the most rugged lands, while blue sheep (Pseudois nayaur) and argali (Ovis ammon) prefer living in the rolling hills. The kiang (Equus kiang), Tibetan gazelle (Procapra picticaudata) and Tibetan antelope (Pantholops hodgsonii), on the other hand, inhabit flat areas. With diverse prey species, the Trans-Himalaya also has an enviable carnivore assemblage. The snow leopard (Panthera uncia) is one of the most important carnivores of the region and an important flagship species for conservation. The other large carnivores include brown bear (Ursus arctos), grey wolf (Canis lupus), Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), wild dog (Cuon alpinus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and the Tibetan fox (Vulpes ferrilata). But it is the seven livestock species that are economically important for the people of this region.

People and pastoralism In this cold and rugged landscape, pastoralism is one of the most important sources of livelihood. Traditionally, barley and black peas were cultivated for local consumption. However, in the recent past, agricultural cash crops such as green peas and apples have also become an important source of income. The people living here are mainly Buddhists of Mongoloid origin. They manage livestock in different ways, ranging from sedentary grazing (supplemented by agricultural

production) to nomadic pastoralism. In sedentary grazing, livestock is usually either privately owned or family owned, while rangelands on which livestock are grazed are communally owned and regulated. Rotational grazing is a common practice in these communal rangelands, irrespective of whether people herd their livestock individually or jointly by the village. The main livestock species are goat, sheep, cow, donkey, horse and yak. Many villages also breed the hardy dzos (a hybrid between a yak and a cow)., In sedentary grazing, the diversity in livestock herding practices can be extreme. For instance, in Tarchit, a village in Rong Valley of Ladakh, herders migrate annually between an upper summer village and a lower winter village, which are within a few kilometers of each other and in the same valley. Livestock are herded to seasonal pastures daily and brought back to corrals every night. Livestock-owning families take turns to herd the village livestock. In Gya, a village that lies in the gorge of the Gya River in Ladakh, of the 154 agro-pastoral families present there, 14 are traditional herders. These traditional herders hold three pastures in which they herd their livestock during different seasons. The remaining families have no or small livestock holdings that go up to 25 goats, sheep or cattle. Unlike in Tarchit, the herders of Gya, camp in the pastures for months together, bringing their livestock near the village only during the month of August. In early spring (January to March) these pastures overlap with the winter habitat of the Tibetan argali; these same pastures also have snow leopards and blue sheep. Nomadic pastoralists, on the other hand, practice two very different forms of livestock grazing. Tibetan herders use a few yak, horses and donkeys to move across large areas to graze their cashmere goats and sheep. These herders rotate between grazing areas in different seasons, moving between pastures that are just a few tens of kilometers to a few hundred kilometers apart depending on herd size. This allows their cashmere goats and sheep to graze adequately. Herd sizes vary from a handful of individuals to a few hundreds. The exceptional herd can be over a thousand-strong. The other form of nomadic pastoralism is more “vertical” and usually happens during summers, from April to October. For example, herders from the lower elevations of the Himalayas fill up the

surrounding pastures of Lossar village in Spiti Valley of Himachal Pradesh. The rights to pastures are held by sedentary pastoralists who are usually village residents. Migratory herders either pay the residents a small grazing fee, or repay them with livestock manure for use as fertilizers in agricultural fields2.

People and wildlife Despite low human population densities, pastoralism is extensive in the Trans-Himalaya. Here, large human settlements and agricultural land holdings are restricted to moist areas in river valleys, while the rest of this landscape is used for pastoralism. This inevitably brings pastoralists in contact with the wildlife. Wildlife in the Trans-Himalaya occupies every part of the landscape, and the continuity of wildlife habitat is only broken by rivers and the highest of mountain ranges. And just like humans and their livestock, animals in the Trans-Himalaya also wander large distances. The protected area network in the Trans-Himalayan landscape is considerable; however, species such as the argali and snow leopard are not confined by these boundaries and naturally need to range over much larger distances3. In this unique landscape, a traditional protected area (PA) is not an adequate conservation measure, given that wildlife moves extensively, people use these lands ubiquitously, and because the landscape is uninterrupted with low productivity. PAs in the Trans-Himalaya are used extensively by humans (Mishra, et al. 1997, 2010). Pastoralists who depend largely on livestock produce, marginal agriculture and local resources have lived within these PAs for generations. Willow and caragana (a small leguminous shrub) are extracted and used as building material to support the mud roofs of houses. They are also used to make farming equipment such as plows for sowing, and baskets to collect livestock dung, that is used as manure. PAs are an important source of fodder. For example, species such as fescue (Festuca spp.) are harvested and stocked for the winter to feed livestock. While livestock grazing in PAs reduces their potential to support wild ungulate populations, large carnivores that kill livestock erode the tolerance of residents towards wildlife conservation. There is an inherent duality of

wildlife occurrences outside PAs and traditional local use within them. The setting aside of land for wildlife and creation of ‘inviolate’ protected areas has been the predominant conservation paradigm of the past hundred years (Wilshusen, et al. 2002). This has been successful in many situations, especially when there has been a need to conserve specific species (Brooks, et al. 2009). However in this landscape, a rethink is required because wildlife does not have natural borders like forest edges and agricultural fields, and has coexisted with the village residents for over millennia (The Project Snow Leopard 2008). While the movement of many species is constrained by habitat barriers or hard boundaries such as forest edges and rivers, this is not the case for wide-ranging species such as the snow leopard. Although a fairly large area – 8.2 per cent of the Indian Trans-Himalaya – has been notified as PAs, significant numbers of argali are found outside PAs (Singh, et al. 2009). Blue sheep and Tibetan gazelle densities are also higher outside PAs (Bhatnagar, et al. 2006; Suryawanshi, et al. 2012). The average size of a TransHimalayan PA in India is 250 km2, and usually does not encompass the home range of even a single snow leopard, which can range anywhere between 150 to 938 km2 (McCarthy, et al. 2005). This is also true in the global range distribution of the snow leopard, where 40per cent of PAs are smaller than the home range of a single male snow leopard. Further, only 14per cent of these PAs can hold a population of 15 adult female snow leopards (Johansson, et al. n.d.). The low productivity of the region is one of the main reasons why humans and animals range widely and occur at inherently low densities. Pastoral communities occur at extremely low densities of roughly one person per km2 (Mishra, et al. 2010). Similarly, even relatively common ungulate species such as blue sheep and ibex occur at densities of one to five animals per km2 (Suryawanshi, et al. 2012; Berger, et al. 2013). Flagship carnivores such as snow leopards are even rarer, occurring at mind-boggling densities of less than one animal per 100 km2 (Sharma, et al. 2014; Jackson, et al. 2005). In comparison, tigers in Nagarhole Tiger Reserve in south India, occur at densities as high as 10 animals per 100 km2 (Karanth, et al. 2004)4. Despite low human population densities, many areas in the Trans-Himalaya are overgrazed

by livestock (Mishra 2001). Livestock can affect wild herbivores in two ways. Livestock compete with wild herbivores directly, through grazing-induced disturbances such as chasing by herders and their dogs, pushing the wild ungulates in to marginal habitats. Livestock also compete with wild herbivores indirectly for forage; a limited resource (Mishra, et al. 2004; Suryawanshi, et al. 2010). This is especially important since the Trans-Himalaya is a very low productivity system. Overgrazing by livestock has a direct impact on the populations of wild herbivores. The fecundity and infant survival rate of blue sheep was suppressed by 75 per cent in areas with high livestock grazing pressure compared with areas without livestock (Suryawanshi, et al. 2010). In pastures that are intensively grazed by livestock, female blue sheep may not gain adequate weight and thus fail to conceive, or may give birth to a weak infant that fails to survive. Also, blue sheep numbers were suppressed to one-third in areas with intensive livestock grazing compared to areas with moderate grazing levels (Mishra, et al. 2004). The biomass of wild herbivores is now only about 5 per cent of the total livestock biomass in the region, indicating that their numbers are seriously suppressed (Berger, et al. 2013). Living with wildlife is not cheap for pastoralists, especially when livestock outnumber wild herbivores by such great margins, making them an attractive prey for wild carnivores. Snow leopards sometimes are able to enter poorly constructed corrals and cause extensive livestock losses (Jackson, et al. 2010). For a single pastoralist family, snow leopards, wolves and lynx can cause economic losses ranging from 3 to 12 per cent of their total annual income (Mishra 1997; Ikeda 2004; Namgail, et al. 2007). Tenzin, a small-holder farmer and pastoralist from Spiti, lost two young yaks to snow leopards, a loss of Rs. 30,000 ($452)5. This is almost 10 per cent of his annual income from the green peas that he cultivates; perhaps more importantly, he was banking on these two yaks to plough his fields the next year. Such losses are difficult to quantify, and are rarely accounted for in any sort of economic analyses. A majority of snow leopard attacks on livestock are on straggling members of the herd and usually take place in pastures (Suryawanshi, et al. 2013; Johansson, et al. 2015). Like Sonam, killing the snow leopard in retaliation to the loss of his goats is

one of the major threats to snow leopards (Snow Leopard Network 2014). An important intervention to minimise retaliatory killings is the state compensation for livestock losses. However, compensation is known to be fraught with delay, misreporting by claimants and corruption by officials (Mishra 1997; Jackson and Wangchuk 2004; Ogra and Badola 2008). Further, livestock owners have to often travel long distances to claim compensation, making on-site verification difficult. During winter, many villages in Spiti are more than a five-day foot-march from the administrative headquarters at Kaza. The final nail in the compensation coffin is that the compensation value is 35 per cent or less than the market value of the livestock. The effort and the wait for many long months is usually more trouble than it is worth6. In the past winters too, Sonam almost always lost a few livestock to snow leopards in the grazing pastures. But he lived too far away from the administrative headquarters, and traveling for the small compensation that the government offered was not worth it.

Attitudes towards wildlife: social carrying capacity Negative interactions between people and wildlife have critical implications for large carnivore conservation outside PAs, as such interactions directly impact the attitudes of the residents towards wildlife. There is a noticeable variation in the attitudes of Trans-Himalayan pastoralists towards the wildlife of the region, particularly towards large carnivores. Although these societies have lived alongside large carnivores for generations, the attitudes of individual local herders depend upon their age, number of livestock they own, education and agricultural production. However, the collective attitudes at village levels depend upon both the number of livestock killed by carnivores in the village, as well as the size of the village (Suryawanshi, et al. 2014). In Sonam’s case, he wasn’t angry for long, although the two snow leopards that entered the corral had killed three quarters of the goats he owned. One snow leopard escaped but the other could not go out through the narrow window. It was trapped inside the corral and killed. Even then, on hindsight, he was not angry with the snow leopard, and told us, “the snow leopard also has to

eat, I’m sure it also has babies to feed”. There was sadness in his voice, and he said he firmly believes in ‘living and letting live’. It was only a momentary fit of anger that drove him to kill the snow leopard. Although Sonam's world is in flux, with changing values and priorities, it is at the same time still shaped by Buddhism that emphasises on compassion for wild animals. The Buddhist monastery in Spiti had once famously asked the local people to not over harvest seabuckthorn (Hippophae spp.) berries so that the birds would have enough to eat!7 While attitudes might improve further with higher levels of education, increasing linkages between local and market economies makes local attitudes towards wildlife uncertain. On one hand, a higher economic dependence on tourism (including wildlife tourism) is expected to improve the way in which people view the snow leopard. On the other hand, the increasing international demand for livestock products such as cashmere8 (especially from Europe and North America) can heighten negative attitudes towards predatory carnivores (Berger, et al. 2013). The exact ramifications in the Indian context are currently being explored. Even tolerance towards wild herbivores is expected to decline as people have started to increasingly depend on cash crops such as green peas and apples. Herbivores such as blue sheep often damage apple saplings and eat mature green pea crops (Anon. 2011). In such a context, any successful wildlife conservation programme has a dual role – to minimise the economic costs for pastoralists (and agriculturists) who live with wildlife, and vice versa. An effective management of the situation requires a suite of initiatives that (i) reduce livestock losses to large carnivores, (ii) share or offset losses caused by large carnivores, (iii) improve tolerance towards large carnivores (Mishra and Suryawanshi 2014), and (iv) facilitate the recovery of wild herbivores.

Mitigating the economic costs of living with wildlife Improving herding and guarding practices is the first step towards reducing livestock losses to wild carnivores. Lapses in vigilance in pastures during the day are the primary cause of livestock

depredation; at night however, the poor construction of stocking pens is the primary reason for livestock killing in the corrals. Corrals are usually constructed with low stone walls and a temporary roof and door. Villagers from Tarchit reported losing about 70 goats and sheep in their corrals to snow leopards in 2012 alone – almost 20 per cent of the village’s total livestock holdings. As part of a broader conservation initiative, a system of rewarding herders for losing the least livestock to carnivores can reduce livestock depredation to about half previous levels (Mishra and Suryawanshi 2014). Also, predator attacks are not evenly distributed in the landscape. Snow leopards prefer areas with broken, rocky, terrain where they can ambush their prey while wolves need wide open rolling hills and plains where they can chase down their prey. Avoiding pastures with high risk of carnivore attacks, or exercising greater care while herding can help cut down livestock losses to large carnivores (Mishra and Suryawanshi 2014). The losses that take place inside corrals can be curtailed through predator proofing. Most traditional livestock pens are only effective in corralling the stock inside but not very effective in keeping predators out. They often lack doors and roofs or the windows are just holes in the wall. Predator proofing of these corrals includes adding a chain-linked roof, solid wooden doors and iron bars on the windows. Improved corrals have been constructed in several snow leopard habitats to protect livestock. In a village in Skidmang in Ladakh's Rong Valley, two large corrals were constructed by community members in partnership with Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in both their summer and winter pastures. Here, snow leopard conservation NGOs paid for the material expenses of the corral, while residents contributed work-hours for its construction. Herders in Skidmang had reported hearing and seeing a snow leopard on top of their now strong wire mesh roof. They were delighted that the snow leopard was unable to get into the corral. “I was sleeping in the shelter by the corrals when I heard some commotion, when I came out I saw a dark shape on top of the corral. I got scared but I made a noise and went toward the corrals. When I saw that it was a snow leopard I was so happy that it didn’t get inside”, said Tashi Namgail from Skidmang9. Sonam Takpa has taken to housing his livestock under his house, covering all open windows with a secure grill. Since then, he has not

lost a goat to the snow leopards inside his corral. Small losses in the pastures continue, but he is quick to add that snow leopards need to eat too! Offsetting livestock losses to carnivores through state sponsored compensation programmes is often mired in bureaucratic hurdles, but direct participation and management by residents can ensure policing over fake claims and timely disbursement. This has been done through communitybased livestock insurance programmes. These programmes have had widespread success in mitigating the cost of livestock depredation by carnivores (Hussain 2000; Mishra, et al. 2003; Jackson 2012). Under such schemes, funding support from conservation agencies is required for the first five years. Over the years, as the corpus of funding grows from external donors and from premiums paid by residents, such insurance programmes require fewer inputs. This has been achieved in some of the long running programmes, such as in Kibber in Himachal Pradesh (David 2016). One of the earliest such programmes, the Kibber project was started with the aim of offsetting 50 to100 per cent of the livestock value lost to wild carnivores. Until 2014, this program had insured 2,540 head of livestock and compensated for 184 livestock killed by wild carnivores, with Rs. 10,45,347 ($15,741) paid in claims.

Kibber is a remote village located at the high altitude of 4,200m in the Himalaya. Kibber has been the pioneer of many of the community-based conservation initiatives such as the livestock insurance program, village grazing reserve and snow leopard enterprises. Photograph: Kulbhushansingh Suryawanshi.

Makkhan, one of the founding members of the insurance scheme in Kibber village, has benefited from the insurance program on two occasions, when he lost a young yak and then a donkey to snow leopards. Initially, Makkhan was not sure if this initiative could really pay him and even if it did, if it could be sustained in the long run. Today, he proudly says “I had my doubts when Charu started the program, but I am very happy to see us benefiting from it for over a decade”10. However, this financial model needs to be updated in a timely manner because of wider economic factors such as inflation, changes in the relative prices of goods and services, and occasionally, unusually high depredation years. The compensation received by any individual depends on the premium paid, at the rate decided by residents themselves. In certain villages, the people receive a

viable amount on loss of livestock so that they can replace them outright; in other villages, the compensation rate may start off being much lower than the market value. Since the programme is run by residents, there is a sense of ownership and increasing the premium is a decision not made lightly. Income generation from snow leopard tourism is another way of mitigating the costs of living with carnivores. In Hemis National Park, Ladakh, snow leopard tourism through home-stays supplements the income of pastoralists (Jackson and Wangchuk 2001, 2004). Roughly 17 households in and around Hemis National Park are involved in hosting tourists at home-stay arrangements. In all of Ladakh, over 100 families are now benefiting from this programme. On average, each family earns Rs. 50,000 ($753) during the four-month tourist season (Jackson, et al. 2010), almost 60% of the national average annual per capita income (Ministry of Finance 2015). Thus, multi-pronged community-based conservation programmes have indirectly improved perceptions and attitudes towards local wildlife, especially towards carnivores. Pastoralists in areas with long-term conservation programs tend to view carnivores more positively in Spiti (Suryawanshi, et al. 2014). In a recent interview survey, when people were asked about what to do when a snow leopard kills a herd animal, people from villages with a conservation program were more likely to say that snow leopards also needed to eat (Suryawanshi, et al. 2014).

Minimising the impact of pastoralists Mitigating economic costs does not facilitate wildlife recovery or persistence in the landscape. It is necessary to have active measures such as creating areas free from livestock. These livestock-free refuges for wild ungulates can be created by working with pastoralists to set aside pastures. Setting aside such areas involves a clear demarcation of certain pastures where pastoralists will not graze their livestock for the contract period between the conservation agency and the resident community. The support and encouragements of residents led to the first livestock-free reserve in Kibber village (Mishra, et al. 2003). In 1998 it started off with a small area of 5 km2 and was later expanded to

about 20 km2 in 2004. Kibber village had traditionally rented out their pastures to nomadic pastoralists who migrated annually from lower elevations. Instead, the village formed a partnership with a NGO (the Nature Conservation Foundation) to rent out pastures to create a livestock-free area for wild herbivores. The livestock-free reserve in Kibber village supports a large population of blue sheep. Since then, four other villages in the Spiti Valley have chosen to create similar refuges. The same model was adopted to set up a reserve for the conservation of the Tibetan gazelle, argali and urial in the Changthang region of Ladakh, India. This was a welcome relief to near-threatened species such as the Tibetan gazelle, along with unique species such as the kiang. Changthang is a high elevation plateau (4000-5500 m), approximately 50,000 km2 in size, contiguous with western Tibet. While the kiang population has cautiously recovered post the Sino-Indo war of 1962, the Tibetan gazelle rapidly declined in India, and a last population of fewer than 100 individuals is left in a small area near the village of Hanle, close to the Tibetan border. Hunting by the army and the local people during the war and the hardships after the war was a major reason for the decline of gazelles (see Chapter 4). But now, this population faces further risks because of overgrazing by livestock. There is likely to be an increase in livestock population because of the increased global demand for cashmere. The problem of overgrazing has further increased due to closure of the India-China border since the war. Even though the reserve is relatively small (~2 km2), such islands of refuge could be the last strongholds for populations on the verge of extinction. Over time, such reserves improve pasture quality and also benefit resident herders. They are also important buffers in case of drought, or years when fodder is in short supply. Minimizing conflict, mitigating economic costs and facilitating recovery of wild herbivores using a range of locally relevant activities in partnership with resident communities can boost snow leopard conservation. The tolerance of herders towards wild carnivores keeps snow leopards protected. A more holistic form of community-based conservation is possible by building on this tolerance and cultivating a sense of pride and ownership (through the measures we have covered so

far, in addition to nature education programmes). Such measures have reaped dividends for conservation in other snow leopard range countries such as Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan and Pakistan. These solutions were modified to fit local challenges and opportunities. Conservationists like Dr Ali Nawz11 and his group in Pakistan came up with alternative solutions, as the implementation of livestock insurance programs was difficult because people were too poor to pay premiums. Dr Ali Nawaz realised that livestock killed by diseases such as foot-and-mouth, outnumbered those that were preyed upon by snow leopards. He started a snow leopard friendly livestock vaccination programme where they helped local communities reduce livestock mortality to disease, but in return the community stopped all retaliatory and preventive killing of wild carnivores (Jackson, et al. 2010). The snow leopard friendly livestock vaccination scheme also stipulates that herd size be kept constant so as to not increase competition for wild-herbivores.

An insight into the intricacies Community based conservation is necessary, but complex. Developing a strong relationship with the community to achieve biodiversity conservation in a just and equitable way with respect, transparency and empathy is vital. In Tarchit, snow leopards mainly killed livestock because corrals had frail roofs. It was necessary to work with residents to build stronger individual corrals. In Skidmang, though, livestock is housed together in two large corrals. Each village requires a different approach given that they manage livestock in different ways. In some cases corrals may not help when there is severe livestock depredation in pastures – an insurance programme with better herding practices is likely to yield better results. In yet other contexts, none of these might be necessary or even appropriate in dealing with the same issue of livestock depredation. At times a poor understanding of the economic model of the programme among community leaders could results in economic failure of the project. When the corpus of the wildlife friendly insurance programme in Gya village had been built-up to a substantial amount, the village committee raised the compensation disproportionate to the premium, leading to the collapse of corpus. The program

had to be reviewed after correcting the imbalance in the premium and compensation claims with external support from Nature Conservation Foundation that had initiated this program. Similarly, the livestock insurance program of Hikkim village suffered when they failed to collect the premium amounts on time and were unable to disburse claims. In the end, participants who did not suffer losses were reluctant to make payments towards the premium. The program has been stopped until a resolution is found. For conservation initiatives to be accepted and internalised, the perceptions and willingness of the community, their understanding of the conservation model and the cultural appropriateness of the model often plays an important role. The other challenge is the limited scale at which community based conservation programmes can be applied. The most common scale of a conservation programme in the TransHimalaya is a panchayat (local self government and part of India’s political system) or a cluster of panchayats. A panchayat typically includes one to five small villages, with a total of 100-500 households, in an area of a few tens of km2. This scale is often much too small, especially when compared with the home ranges of wolves and snow leopards, which can be over a few hundred to a few thousand sq km. The village reserve created by Hanle village for the conservation of the Tibetan gazelle is a good example. The community, with external support, has set aside a 2 km2 reserve to buffer the gazelle from livestock that graze in the surrounding landscape. However, a new road built by the army has fragmented the larger landscape of the gazelle (about 30 km2) in to two parts, posing another large challenge. Community based conservation programmes in the Trans-Himalaya have been attempted in isolation. But they are likely to be most effective when multiple programmes are implemented together in coordination with all the stakeholders (Suryawanshi, et al. 2013). There needs to be simultaneous implementation of multiple conservation initiatives such as an insurance programmes that monetarily compensate herders, livestock-free reserves that help increase wild-ungulate populations in villages. At the same time, corral proofing that safeguards livestock from carnivores and conservation education programmes that cultivate a sense of pride in the local ecology will

increase conservation effectiveness. Such a multi-pronged approach is likely to have a greater impact in sustaining conservation in landscapes used by humans. The other criticism for community based conservation approaches is their long-terms economic viability or sustainability. Given that money is raised externally from charity and philanthropy, this makes funding intrinsically variable. Further, there are questions about sustainability when their founders have moved on. But there are growing examples of how industry, global markets and forest administrations can sustain these programmes. Two well-known examples are the home-stay ecotourism project in Ladakh (Jackson and Wangchuk 2004) and the Snow leopard Enterprise project from Mongolia (Mishra, et al. 2003). This enterprise aims at improving the tolerance of herders towards large carnivores by encouraging them to produce handicrafts that are marketed with an incentive. The incentive is provided against a promise from the community to practice conservation friendly practices, such as assuring that no wildlife is poached or otherwise hunted in their village. The communities are awarded a 20 per cent bonus when all the conservation friendly practices enumerated in their contract are followed. The bonus is withheld in case of clear violation of conservation contract. Violations include cases where non-participating residents have hunted within the community area, or non-locals have hunted within community rangelands. The prices for the handicraft produced by the community are, however, always assured. The Snow Leopard Enterprises project has been running successfully in over 30 communities for over 10 years in Mongolia (David 2016). The spread of this programme to 30 villages, and continued operation for over decade is a good indicator of the success of this model. More recently it has been expanded to snow leopard range areas in Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan and is currently being launched in two villages of Himachal Pradesh on an experimental basis.

Epilogue It is not important whether Sonam Takpa from the Lingti valley lives inside the park or whether the snow leopard strayed outside. The challenge for carnivore conservation in the Trans-Himalaya and

perhaps in many other places in the world is to find ways of how people can live alongside wildlife. With the changing socio-economics in the region (Mishra 2000), conservation will have to adapt to the changing interactions between people, their livestock and wild animals. Flexibility in approaches to conservation is especially necessary in today’s world where distant markets have remarkable impacts on seemingly remote and isolated systems (Madhusudan 2004; Berger, et al. 2013). A multi-pronged approach to improve social tolerance of wildlife, mitigate economic damage caused by wildlife, and minimise the negative interactions between people and wildlife is needed for long-term conservation success. Along with traditional measures of animal population and habitat recovery, there is also a growing call for the currency of conservation success to be extended to welfare, justice and inclusive development (Berkes 2010). The distinctness of the TransHimalaya and a shift towards a larger pluralistic approach to nature conservation, maybe an alternate way for conservation and management.

Glossary of non-English words Bukhari: A traditional fireplace in the house. Dzo: A hybrid of a cow and a yak. Panchayat: Local self government which is part of India's political system.

References Anonymous, Management plan for Upper Spiti Landscape including Kibber Wildlife Sanctuary. Himachal Pradesh and Mysore: Himachal Pradesh Forest Department , Spiti Youth Groups and Nature Conservation Foundation, 2011. Berger, J., B. Buuveibaatar, and C. Mishra, ‘Globalization of the cashmere market and the decline of large mammals in central Asia’ Conservation Biology 27(2013), 679-689. Berkes, F., ‘Devolution of environment and resources governance: trends and future’, Environmental Conservation 37(2010), 489-500.

Bhatnagar, Y. V., R. Wangchuk, H.H. Prins, S.E. Van Wieren, and C. Mishra. ‘Perceived conflicts between pastoralism and conservation of the kiang (Equus kiang) in the Ladakh Trans-Himalaya, India’, Environmental Management 38(2006), 934-941. Bhatnagar, Y. V., R. Wangchuk, and C. Mishra, ‘Decline of the Tibetan gazelle Procapra picticaudata in Ladakh, India’, Oryx 40 (2006), 229-232. Brooks, T. M., S.J. Wright, and D. Sheil, ‘Evaluating the success of conservation actions in safeguarding tropical forest biodiversity’, Conservation Biology 23(2009), 1448-1457. Champion, H.G. and S.K. Seth, ‘A Revised Survey of the Forest Types of India’. Delhi: Manager of Publications 1968. Ministry of Finance, ‘Economic Survey of India 2014-15’, 2015. Available at http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2014-15/echapter-vol1.pdf/http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2014-15/echaptervol1.pdf (Accessed on 01 May 2015). Hussain, S., ‘Protecting the snow leopard and enhancing farmers' livelihoods: a pilot insurance scheme in Baltistan’, Mountain research and development 20(2000), 226-231. Ikeda, N., ‘Economic impacts of livestock depredation by snow leopard Uncia uncia in the Kanchenjunga Conservation Area, Nepal Himalaya’, Environmental Conservation 31(2004), 322330. Jackson R. M., and R. Wangchuk, ‘A community-based approach to mitigating livestock depredation by snow leopards’, Human dimensions of wildlife 9(2004), 1-16. Jackson, R. M., J.D. Roe, and D.O. Hunter, ‘Camera-trapping of snow leopards’, Cat News 42 (2005), 19-21. Jackson, R. M., C. Mishra, T.M. McCarthy, and S.B. Ale, ‘Snow leopards: conflict and conservation’, The Biology and Conservation of Wild Felids (2010), 417-430. Jackson, R., ‘Fostering community-based stewardship of wildlife in Central Asia: Transforming snow leopards from pests into valued assets’, in name1 and name2 (eds), Rangeland Stewardship in Central Asia Netherlands: Springer, 2012, pp 357-380.

Johansson, O., T. McCarthy, G. Samelius, H. Andrén, L. Tumursukh, and C. Mishra, ‘Snow leopard predation in a livestock dominated landscape in Mongolia’, Biological Conservation 184(2015), 251-258. Karanth, K. U., J.D. Nichols, N.S. Kumar, W.A. Link, and J.E. Hines, ‘Tigers and their prey: predicting carnivore densities from prey abundance’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101(2004), 4854-4858. Madhusudan, M. D., ‘The global village: linkages between international coffee markets and grazing by livestock in a south Indian wildlife reserve’, Conservation Biology19(2004):,411-420. Matthiessen, P., The Snow Leopard. New York: Penguin:New, 1978. Mishra, C., ‘Livestock depredation by large carnivores in the Indian Trans-Himalaya: conflict perceptions and conservation prospects’, Environmental conservation 24(1997), 338-343. Mishra, C., ‘High altitude survival: conflicts between pastoralism and wildlife in the TransHimalaya’ PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, The Netherlands. Mishra, C., P. Allen, T. McCarthy, M.D. Madhusudan, A. Bayarjargal, and H.H. Prins ‘The role of incentive programs in conserving the snow leopard’, Conservation Biology 17(2003), 1512-1520. Mishra, C., S.E. Van Wieren, P. Ketner, I. Heitkönig, and H.H. Prins, ‘Competition between domestic livestock and wild bharal Pseudois nayaur in the Indian Trans-Himalaya’, Journal of Applied Ecology 41(2004), 344-354. Mishra C., S. Bagchi, T. Namgail, and Y.V. Bhatnagar,’Multiple Use of Trans-Himalayan Rangelands: Reconciling Human Livelihoods with Wildlife Conservation’, in J. T. Toit, R. Kock and J. C. Deutsch (eds), Wild Rangelands: Conserving Wildlife While Maintaining Livestock in Semi-Arid Ecosystem, New Delhi: Blackwell Publishers, 2010, 291-311. Mishra C., and K.R. Suryawanshi, ‘Managing conflicts over livestock depredation by large carnivores’, in Human-Wildlife Conflict in the Mountains of SAARC Region’ - Compilation of Successful Management Strategies and Practices, SAARC Forestry Centre Office Thimphu, Bhutan, 2014.

Namgail, T., ‘Geography of Mammalian Herbivores in the Indian Trans-Himalaya: Patterns and Processes’, PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, Netherlands. Ogra, M., and R. Badola. ‘Compensating human–wildlife conflict in protected area communities: ground-level perspectives from Uttarakhand, India’, Human Ecology 36(2008), 717-729. Project Snow Leopard, ‘The Project Snow Leopard’-. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, New Delhi, 2008. Reading, R. P., S. Amgalanbaatar, G.J. Wingard, D. Kenny, and A. DeNicola. ‘Ecology of argali in Ikh Nartiin Chuluu, Dornogobi Aymag’, Erforschung Biologischer Ressourcen der Mongolei 9(2005), 77-89. Sharma, K., R. Bayrakcismith, L. Tumursukh, O. Johansson, P. Sevger, T. McCarthy, and C. Mishra, ‘Vigorous Dynamics Underlie a Stable Population of the Endangered Snow Leopard Panthera uncia in Tost Mountains, South Gobi, Mongolia’ Snow Leopard Network. Singh, N. J., N.G. Yoccoz, Y.V. Bhatnagar, and J.L. Fox, ‘Using habitat suitability models to sample rare species in high-altitude ecosystems: A case study with Tibetan argali’, Biodiversity and Conservation 18(2009), 2893-2908. Snow Leopard Network, ‘Snow Leopard Survival Strategy’- Seattle, Washington, USA, 2014, 1145. Suryawanshi, K. R., Y.V. Bhatnagar, and C. Mishra, ‘Why should a grazer browse? Livestock impact on winter resource use by bharal Pseudois nayaur’, Oecologia 162(2010), 453-462. Suryawanshi, K. R., Y.V. Bhatnagar, and C. Mishra, ‘Standardizing the double-observer survey method for estimating mountain ungulate prey of the endangered snow leopard’, Oecologia 169 (2012), 581-590. Suryawanshi, K. R., Y.V. Bhatnagar, S. Redpath, and C. Mishra, ‘People, predators and perceptions: patterns of livestock depredation by snow leopards and wolves’, Journal of Applied Ecology 50 (2013), 550-560. Suryawanshi, K. R., S. Bhatia, Y.V. Bhatnagar, S. Redpath, and C. Mishra. ‘Multiscale factors

affecting human attitudes toward snow leopards and wolves’, Conservation Biology28 (2014), 1657-1666. Wilshusen, P. R., S.R. Brechin, C.L. Fortwangler, and P.C. West, ‘Reinventing a square wheel: Critique of a resurgent" protection paradigm" in international biodiversity conservation’, Society and Natural Resources 15 (2002), 17-40.

End notes 1

The incident occurred in 2010 in small hamlet called Salung in Lingti Valley, Spiti. The name of

the herder has been changed for anonymity. This is a village with only two houses. The slope of the mountain almost extends onto the roofs of the two houses. It seems to be like an excellent snow leopard habitat. Number of livestock: 57 (47 goat, 3 sheep, 3 donkeys, 4 cows. All the livestock with the exception of 7 goats belong to the man who killed the snow leopard). 2

Information based on the collective experience of the authors after spending 10 years in Spiti,

Himachal Pradesh and Ladakh. Kulbhushansingh Suryawanshi and Radhika Timbadia have been working in Spiti and Ladakh since 2008 and 2013 respectively. 3

The home-range of a snow leopard extends from 150 to over 900 km2 (McCarthy, et al. 2005);

Argali home-range extends from 50 – 100 km2 with seasonal movements (Reading, et al. 2005). 4

We still do not have information on the densities of other carnivores such as the Tibetan fox,

Eurasian lynx and the wolf. 5

The incident occurred in 2012 in Kibber village, Spiti Valley. Name has been changed for

anonymity. 6

Kulbhushansingh Suryawanshi, pers. comm. 2010.

7

Seabuckthorn harvest was stopped in 2008.

8

Cashmere also known as pashm or pashmina is produced in Ladakh from a local breed of goat

called the changra. For the people in the Changthang region of Ladakh it is the most important economic activity. It has a high international demand as it is strong, light, warm and fine-textured.

India produces less than 1% of globally produced cashmere. 9

Radhika Timbadia, pers. comm. in the winter of 2014.

10

In Skidmang village the livestock are kept collectively by 11 traditional herders in two large

corrals. In 2013, the two corrals in the winter pasture were improved and in 2014 the two corrals in the summer pasture were made predator-proof. These corrals protect 390 livestock belonging to 17 households. 11

Dr. Charudutt Mishra is one of the Founder Trustees of the Nature Conservation Foundation,

Mysore who started the wildlife insurance programs at Spiti Valley. 12

Dr Ali Nawaz is a professor at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan. The program was

initiated in Kuju in 2003 and replicated in Parsan in 2005.