DOCSLIB.ORG

Terminal Evaluation Report-SLT-Regionalsnowleopard

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Terminal Evaluation Report-SLT-Regionalsnowleopard © Courtesy of UNDP Archive: Photo taken by Vlad Ushakov in Issyk-Kul Rehabilitation Center Terminal Evaluation Report of the UNDP-GEF-Snow Leopard Trust (SLT) Project: “Transboundary Cooperation for Snow Leopard and Ecosystem Conservation” GEF Agency: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Implementing Partner: Snow Leopard Trust (SLT) Funding: GEF-5 UNDP Atlas Award ID: 00099684 GEF Project ID: 5886 Project Timeline: Feb. 2017 – Dec. 2020 Central Asia: Kyrgyzstan, Region & Country: Uzbekistan Kazakhstan, Evaluation Timeline: May to August 2020 Tajikistan UNDP PIMS: 5413 Submitted by: Jean-Joseph Bellamy Submitted on September 7, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................................................. II LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................... III ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................... IV 1. MAIN CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND LESSONS .................................................................... 1 1.1. BACKGROUND - INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 3 1.3. RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 5 1.4. LESSONS LEARNT ........................................................................................................................................... 7 1.5. TE RATINGS AND ACHIEVEMENT SUMMARY TABLE ..................................................................................... 7 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT ........................................................................... 8 3. EVALUATION FRAMEWORK.............................................................................................................................. 9 3.1. OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................................................. 10 3.2. SCOPE ........................................................................................................................................................... 10 3.3. METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................................................ 11 3.3.1. Overall Approach ....................................................................................................................... 11 3.3.2. Evaluation Instruments .............................................................................................................. 12 3.4. LIMITATIONS AND CONSTRAINTS ................................................................................................................. 13 4. EVALUATION FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................... 14 4.1. PROJECT FORMULATION ............................................................................................................................... 14 4.1.1. Analysis of Project Results Framework .................................................................................. 14 4.1.2. Assumptions and Risks ............................................................................................................. 16 4.1.3. Linkages between the Project and Other Interventions ....................................................... 18 4.1.4. Lessons from other Relevant Projects/Initiatives .................................................................. 19 4.1.5. Planned Stakeholder Participation .......................................................................................... 19 4.1.6. Planned Replication Approach................................................................................................. 20 4.1.7. UNDP Comparative Advantage ............................................................................................... 20 4.1.8. Management Arrangements ..................................................................................................... 21 4.2. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION.......................................................................................................................... 22 4.2.1. Adaptive Management .............................................................................................................. 22 4.2.2. Partnership Arrangements ........................................................................................................ 24 4.2.3. Project Finance........................................................................................................................... 24 4.2.4. Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) Approach ............................................................................. 27 4.2.5. Contribution of UNDP and Implementing Partners ............................................................... 30 4.3. PROJECT RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 31 4.3.1. Overall Achievements/Results ................................................................................................. 31 4.3.2. Attainment of Project Objective / Impact ................................................................................ 40 4.3.3. Relevance ................................................................................................................................... 42 4.3.4. Efficiency ..................................................................................................................................... 43 4.3.5. Country Ownership .................................................................................................................... 44 4.3.6. Mainstreaming ............................................................................................................................ 45 4.3.7. Sustainability ............................................................................................................................... 46 4.3.8. Catalytic Role .............................................................................................................................. 48 ANNEX 1: PROJECT EXPECTED RESULTS AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES ........................................................... 49 ANNEX 2: TERMS OF REFERENCE ............................................................................................................................ 53 ANNEX 3: EVALUATION MATRIX ............................................................................................................................. 63 ANNEX 4: UNEG CODE OF CONDUCT FOR EVALUATION CONSULTANTS..................................................... 70 ANNEX 5: LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED ......................................................................................................... 71 ANNEX 6: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ........................................................................................................................... 75 ANNEX 7: LIST OF PEOPLE INTERVIEWED ............................................................................................................. 77 ANNEX 8: STAKEHOLDERS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ........................................................................................ 79 ANNEX 9: REMARKS ABOUT CONDUCTING EVALUATIONS ONLINE UNDER COVID-19 ........................... 86 ANNEX 10: RATING SCALES ....................................................................................................................................... 87 ANNEX 11: AUDIT TRAIL.............................................................................................................................................. 88 ANNEX 12: EVALUATION REPORT CLEARANCE FORM ....................................................................................... 89 TE of the UNDP-GEF--Snow Leopard Trust (SLT) Project: “Transboundary Cooperation for Snow Leopard and Ecosystem Conservation” i List of Tables Table 1: Project Information Table .................................................................................................................... 1 Table 2: TE Ratings and Achievement Summary Table ................................................................................... 7 Table 3: Steps Used to Conduct the Evaluation ............................................................................................. 12 Table 4: Project Logic Model ........................................................................................................................... 14 Table 5: List of Risks and Mitigation Measures Identified at the Formulation Phase ..................................... 16 Table 6: Disbursement Status of GEF Grant (in USD) ................................................................................... 25 Table 7: Annual Work Plans versus Actual Expenditures (GEF grant)..........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • International Snow Leopard and Ecosystem Forum Science Symposium and Exposition Presentation Abstracts
    International Snow Leopard and Ecosystem Forum Science Symposium and Exposition Presentation Abstracts Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic August 23-24, 2017 54 International Snow Leopard and Ecosystem Forum Science Symposium and Exposition Presentation Abstracts Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic August 23-24, 2017 Published in September 2017 by the WWF Conservation and Adaptation in Asia’s High Mountain Landscapes and Communities Project and Snow Leopard Trust in support of the Global Snow Leopard and Ecosystem Protection Program Secretariat. Preface and Back Cover Photos: © WWF This publication is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. 2 Preface The International Snow Leopard and Ecosystem Forum was held from August 24-25, 2017 in Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic as part of the 12-nation Global Snow Leopard and Ecosystem Protection Program (GSLEP). This forum was itself a follow up to the earlier Global Snow Leopard Conservation Forum held from October 22-23, 2013 in Bishkek which launched the GSLEP Program. As a companion event to the 2017 forum, from August 23-24, 2017 the GSLEP Science Symposium and Exposition was held at the Hyatt Regency and Jannat Regency Hotels in Bishkek. This symposium brought together leading researchers and conservationists working on snow leopard-related issues for a broad discussion covering a wide range of topics, including the present and future impacts of climate change on snow leopard range, climate change adaption strategies for communities and ecosystems in snow leopard range areas, current topics in snow leopard field research, community conservation initiatives, poaching and trafficking of snow leopards, and sustainable financing of snow leopard conservation efforts.
    [Show full text]
  • Snow Leopard Monitoring Methodology Field Report June 6Th, 2005
    Snow Leopard Monitoring Methodology Field Report June 6th, 2005 Base Camp- Hello from Koilu Valley of the Tien Shan Mountains in Kyr- gyzstan. I am excited to inform you that our research team has arrived intact along with all necessary field equipment in the Sary Chat Ertash Zapovednick (protected area). We have made camp at approximately 10,000 feet and are well acclimated for our daily climbs to 12,000 feet and above. Our river valley is nestled within rugged snow capped mountains. It is perfect snow leopard habitat. The Team- We are fortunate to have two Kyrgyz Graduate students working with us throughout the field season. Kubanych and Vassily are excellent biologists whose interest and knowledge in the flora and fauna of their native country is immeasurable. Dr. Tom McCarthy of the International Snow Leopard Trust (ISLT) and Dr. Alexander Vereshagin of Issyk Kul University in Karakol have kindly joined us for eleven days in the field, bringing with them a wealth of knowledge and ex- pertise. Several Park Rangers have aided in transporting equipment to our study site, showing amazing stamina and horse- manship over an 8 hour ride from the nearest road. One ranger, Bakit has stayed with us to help in the camera placement. The camp manager and cook, Indira, continues to provide excellent food and warm firesides. Finally my wife, Jenni, and I, graduate students of the University of Massachusetts Amherst round out our team. Progress- We have successfully placed 22 pairs of cameras throughout our study area. Camera sites range in elevation from 10,000 to 12,000 feet.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact Report 2018
    Snow Leopard Trust Impact Report 2018 Only 3,500-7,000 snow leopards are left in the wild. With your support, we are protecting snow leopards and their mountain ecosystem through a balanced approach that addresses the needs of local people and the environment. Thank you. What We Do Snow Leopard Trust supports over 60 staff worldwide in five of the top snow leopard range countries: China, Mongolia, Pakistan, India, and Kyrgyzstan. In 2018, your donations allowed us to remain nimble, launch new programs, and respond quickly to snow leopard threats. Our Programs: -Community-Based Conservation -Combating Illegal Wildlife Trade -Science & Monitoring -Co-Managed Protected Areas -Outreach & Education -Policy & Advocacy Made with Still Zero 4 Years in a row The close of 2018 marks four full years in which no snow leopards have been killed in communities where the Snow Leopard Trust is active. By comparison, 1 snow leopard is killed each day in the areas where the Snow Leopard Trust is not working. Made with Safe at Last Tost Nature Reserve officially 'mining-free.' Tost Mountains are some of the richest snow leopard habitat in the world. Ten years ago, Tost was literally blanketed with mining licenses. It’s been a long hard road to try 37 to change that, and our donors and supporters have been with us every step of the way, Mining through small successes and big setbacks. In 2016, thanks to your support and our licenses Mongolia team’s incredible grassroots work, over 1.8 million acres of habitat in Tost cancelled was declared a state Nature Reserve.
    [Show full text]
  • Recipient's Name
    PHOTO OPPORTUNITY For immediate release | September 15, 2017 Media contact: Gigi Allianic, Alissa Wolken 206.548.2550 | [email protected] Sneak peek of zoo’s 2½-month-old snow leopard cub Cub introductions to outdoor exhibit begin September 19 WHAT: Aibek (EYE-beck), a 2½-month-old male snow leopard cub born at Woodland Park Zoo, is getting bigger and feistier, so it’s time for his close-up! The press is invited behind the scenes to meet the beautiful cub during a weigh-in. Following the sneak peek, animal care staff will open the door for Aibek to take his first steps into the public outdoor exhibit. Over the next few weeks, Aibek is scheduled to have access to the outdoor exhibit from noon to 3:00 p.m. daily. Visibility will largely depend on where the cub chooses to be in the exhibit, so viewing may be initially limited as he adjusts to his new surroundings. Helen and Aibek have been living in an off-view maternity den for bonding and proper nursing in a quieter setting. During the past few weeks, Aibek has been spending time in the den’s outdoor area and has recently begun sampling solid foods. Stay tuned for updates by visiting the zoo’s blog and checking out Facebook. WHEN: Tuesday, September 19 Weigh-in and sneak peek: 11:30 a.m.–noon Introduction to outdoor exhibit: noon WHERE: Behind the scenes at Woodland Park Zoo’s snow leopard exhibit. Meet PR staff at the West Entrance on Phinney Ave. N. between N.
    [Show full text]
  • Silent Roar | UNDP and GEF in the Snow Leopard Landscape
    25years Empowered lives. Resilient nations. Silent Roar UNDP AND GEF IN THE SNOW LEOPARD LANDSCAPE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CONTENTS Managing Editors: Midori Paxton, Tim Scott, Yoko Watanabe Compilation and Editing: Erin Charles INTRODUCTION 2 CO-MANAGEMENT ON THE ROOF 21 CONCLUSION 44 OF THE WORLD—CHINA Core Writing Team: Erin Charles, Midori Paxton, Tim Scott, Doley Tshering, Inela Weeks SNOW LEOPARD RANGE MAP 4 PARTNER SPOTLIGHT: 23 We wish to acknowledge the UNDP and GEF staff, consultants, and partners who contributed to this publication: GOVERNMENTS AND GOVERNANCE Tehmina Akhtar, Ana Maria Currea, Adriana Dinu, Lisa Farroway, Gustavo Fonseca, Uyanga Gankhuyag, Christian LESSONS LEARNED: RUSSIA, 23 ART AND CULTURE Hofer, Daniar Ibragimov, Kyle Kaufman, Khurshed Kholov, Fan Longqing, Cathy Maize, Ruchi Pant, Pakamon MONGOLIA, AND KAZAKHSTAN Pinprayoon, Evgeniia Postnova, Ajiniyaz Reimov, Olga Romanova, Nadisha Sidhu, Nargizakhon Usmanova, SNOW LEOPARDS IN LITERATURE 19 SECTION 1: WHY SNOW LEOPARDS? 6 STRENGTHENING AND EXPANDING 24 Maxim Vergeichik, Katerina Yushenko, Yuqiong Zhou, with special thanks to Marc Foggin and John MacKinnon WHY PROTECT THE HIGH 8 PROTECTED AREAS—KAZAKHSTAN SNOW LEOPARDS AND 21 for generously permitting the extensive use of their photographs. TIBETAN BUDDHISM MOUNTAIN LANDSCAPES? PARTNER SPOTLIGHT: TRAINING 25 We wish to acknowledge the central role of the GSLEP Secretariat: Hamid Zahid (Chair), Abdykalyk Rustamov CULTURAL-POLITICAL SYMBOLS 37 UNIQUE BIODIVERSITY 8 OF TRAINERS (Co-chair), Kyial Alygulova, Yash Veer Bhatnagar, Chyngyz Kochorov, Andrey Kushlin, Keshav Varma, with special LAND USE PLANNING & BIOLOGICAL 26 SACRED BELIEFS, MYTHS 40 ASIA'S WATER TOWER 9 thanks to Koustubh Sharma and Matthias Fiechter for their technical review of this document, contributions CORRIDORS— KYRGYZSTAN AND LEGENDS of text, photographs, maps and invaluable feedback on all aspects of the publication; and the Permanent CULTURAL HERITAGE 9 LESSONS LEARNED: BHUTAN 27 Mission of the Kyrgyz Republic to the UN in New York: Madina Karabaeva.
    [Show full text]
  • What You Don't Know About Snow Leopards in China and Kyrgyzstan
    What you don’t know about snow leopards in China and Kyrgyzstan New observation from Kyrgyzstan, January 1st, 2020 In The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, actor Sean Penn plays a photographer waiting for snow leopard to appear between the mountain ridges. He called snow leopards “ghost cats” and also noted that “beautiful things don't ask for attention.” It is hoped that with renewed efforts to protect the snow leopard, these spirits of the snow mountains can have an enlarged living space in the world. Snow leopards are listed in the Kyrgyzstan Red List of Wildlife Species. Additionally, it is clearly stipulated that anyone who poaches an animal in the Red List will incur a fine of 1.5 million Kyrgyz som (around 150, 000 CNY or $21,500 USD). Snow leopard is a rare species worldwide, listed as ‘Vulnerable’ In Kyrgyzstan, the snow leopard is regarded as a patron of warriors, standing for beauty, strength and freedom. In Bishkek, snow leopards are printed on its city flag and emblem. There are also many decorations with snow leopards in the local market. In 2013, the Global Snow Leopard Conservation Forum was held in the capital city of Kyrgyzstan. At the forum, the 12 Asian countries where snow leopards are distributed signed the Bishkek Declaration on snow leopard conservation and established October 23 as the annual International Snow Leopard Day. According to research, less than 7,000 snow leopards exist worldwide, with 60 percent of them in China, and they are thus listed as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles and Recommendations for Tourism Within Snow Leopard Habitats
    PRINCIPLES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TOURISM WITHIN SNOW LEOPARD HABITATS PRINCIPLES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TOURISM WITHIN SNOW LEOPARD HABITATS ‘Have you seen the snow leopard? No! Isn’t that wonderful?’ (Matthiessen, 1978) Written by Justine Shanti Alexander, Ranjini Murali, Ajay Bijoor, Li Yuhan and Charudutt Mishra. Contributions from Terry Townshend, Matthias Fiechter, Koustubh Sharma and Julian Matthews. Supported by GEF, UNDP, Snow Leopard Trust, Nature Conservation Foundation, Whitley Fund for Nature and Travel Operators for Tigers. We thank Tenzin Thinley, Kalzang Gurmet, Karma Sonam, Rinchen Togbe, Tenzin Thukten, Tandup Cherring, Kesang Chunnit, Rigzen Dorjay, and Sherab Lobzang from the Nature Conservation Foundation for insights into tourism in Ladakh and Spiti, and Shan Shui Conservation Center for insights on tourism in Qinghai. We thank Kulbhushansingh Suryawanshi and Suri Venkatachalam for support in the development of this document. 1. Introduction This document aims to provide a practical guide to ecologically and socially conscious tourism practices within snow leopard habitats. It is designed primarily for operators in the tourist industry but also has a potential wider audience of policy makers in conservation and economic development fields. It covers information that has been made available to us at this point. It is however work in progress; we welcome comments, suggestions and best practices from the field which we will use in regularly updated versions of the document. Tourism in snow leopard habitats has increased considerably as the extreme mountainous areas where these cats exist become more accessible to visitors. Snow leopard habitats are cold, often alpine systems. They span 12 countries (Afghanistan, Bhutan, China, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan) in Central and South Asia.
    [Show full text]
  • The Snow Leopard Cub Has a Name! Woodland Park Zoo Announces Winning Name for Snow Leopard Cub
    PRESS RELEASE For immediate release | August 22, 2017 Media contact: Gigi Allianic, Alissa Wolken 206.548.2550 | [email protected] The snow leopard cub has a name! Woodland Park Zoo announces winning name for snow leopard cub SEATTLE—Nearly 2,500 community members weighed in to name Woodland Park Zoo’s snow leopard cub. Now, the 7-week-old male snow leopard cub has a name: Aibek (EYE–beck), which means long living (will live for many moons). The name was chosen through online and guest polls and beat out the other two name options: Azat (Ah–zAAt), which means free, and Jakshy (‘Zh’ock–She), which means good. In addition to the online poll, members of the community were invited to attend Wild Asia: Asian Wildlife Conservation Day, on August 12, where they could vote in person and be entered to win a prize (only people who voted on grounds during Wild Asia were eligible to win the prize). The lucky prize winner—Chris Melton of Shoreline, Wash.— will have the opportunity to join a snow leopard staff member for a private, exclusive meet and greet once Aibek is a few months old. Aibek is the first offspring between mom Helen and dad Dhirin (Did-in), both 12 years old. Helen has had two previous litters with a different mate. Helen and Aibek remain in an off-view maternity den to ensure continual bonding and proper nursing in a quieter setting while staff watch the new family on a closed-circuit monitoring system. Aibek is more mobile and spends most days outside of the den in the indoor bedroom playing with mom.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Annual Report on Conservation and Science
    Annual Report on Conservation and Science INTRODUCTION 2 2018 Annual Report on Conservation and Science The Association of Zoos and Aquariums and its member facilities envision a world where, as a result of their work, all people respect, value, and conserve wildlife and wild places. The 2018 Annual Report on Conservation and Science (ARCS) celebrates the conservation efforts, education programs, green (sustainable) business practices, and research projects of AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums and certified related facilities. Content in ARCS reflects submissions made to annual surveys available through AZA’s website. Each survey topic has been carefully defined to maximize consistency of reporting throughout the AZA community. AZA’s Wildlife Conservation Committee and Research and Technology Committee review all of the relevant submissions by members to promote even greater consistency. Field conservation focuses on efforts having a direct impact on animals and habitats in the wild. Education programming includes those with specific goals and delivery methods, defined content, and a clear primary discipline and target audience. Mission-focused research projects involve application of the scientific method, are hypothesis (or question)-driven, involve systematic data collection, and analysis of those data and draw conclusions from the research process. Green business practices focus on the annual documentation and usage of key resources: energy, fuel for transportation, waste, and water – as well as identification of specific green practices being implemented. AZA is grateful to each member that responded to these surveys. The response rate for each 2018 survey was as follows: » field conservation – 92% » education programming – 59% » green business practices – 65% » mission-focused research – 65% While the 2018 ARCS focuses on individual activities undertaken that year, download the 2018 Highlights (available at: aza.org/annual-report-on-conservation-and-science) to learn more about what the AZA community accomplished together.
    [Show full text]
  • Over 100 Years of Snow Leopard Research a Spatially Explicit Review of the State of Knowledge in the Snow Leopard Range
    OVER 100 YEARS OF SNOW LEOPARD RESEARCH A SPATIALLY EXPLICIT REVIEW OF THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE IN THE SNOW LEOPARD RANGE OVER 100 YEARS OF SNOW LEOPARD RESEARCH A SPATIALLY EXPLICIT REVIEW OF THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE IN THE SNOW LEOPARD RANGE RISHI KUMAR SHARMA & RASHMI SINGH CONTENTS Acknowledgements 7 Executive Summary 11 Introduction 12 Methods 14 Results 17 Discussion 25 Conclusions 30 Limitations 31 References 32 Appendix I 35 Appendix II 37 Citation Sharma R. K. and Singh R. 2020. Over 100 Years of Snow Leopard Research: A Spatially Explicit Review of the State of Knowledge in the Snow Leopard Range. WWF, Gland, Switzerland. © MUHAMMAD OSAMA / WWF-PAKISTAN A snow leopard examining a camera trap © RISHI KUMAR SHARMA/NCF/HPFD in the Upper Spiti Landscape, Western Himalaya ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are grateful for the inputs of the following colleagues: Ravi Singh, Sana Ahmed, Byron Weckworth, Secretary General & CEO, WWF-India WWF-Pakistan Panthera Sejal Worah, Babar Khan, Rodney Jackson, WWF-India WWF-Pakistan Snow Leopard Conservancy Dipankar Ghose, Bing He, Justine Shanti Alexander, WWF-India WWF-China Snow Leopard Network and Snow Leopard Trust Wendy Elliot, Nilanga Jayasinghe, WWF-International, WWF-US Koustubh Sharma, Global Snow Leopard & Ecosystem Ghana Gurung, Margaret Kinnaird, Protection Program (GSLEP) and WWF-Nepal WWF-International Snow Leopard Trust Alexander Karnaukhov, Aditi Singh, Yash Veer Bhatnagar, WWF-Russia Programme Researcher, WWF-India Senior Scientist, Nature Conservation Foundation Chimeddorj Buyanaa, Meenal Pahuja, WWF-Mongolia Programme Researcher, WWF-India OVER 100 YEARS OF SNOW LEOPARD RESEARCH | 7 A Himalayan Ibex, one of the important prey species for snow leopard.
    [Show full text]
  • The Status of the Snow Leopard in Pakistan and Its Conflict with Local
    Oryx Vol 37 No 1 January 2003 The status of the snow leopard in Pakistan and its conflict with local farmers Shafqat Hussain Abstract Between 1998 and 2001 I carried out surveys This is mainly due to retaliatory killings by farmers, in four areas in the Baltistan district of the Northern and poaching for pelts and other body parts. Species- Areas of Pakistan to estimate the population of the snow focused conservation policies, particularly those targeting leopard and to examine the threats to its future con- ungulates for the promotion of trophy hunting, may con- servation. I estimate that a total of 36–50 snow leopards are stitute an additional threat to snow leopard conservation present in the areas surveyed. Based on the availability in the region. However, all forms of threats to the snow of suitable snow leopard habitat and of its prey species, leopard in Baltistan appear to emanate from the relatively I estimate that 90–120 snow leopards are potentially poor economic conditions of the local people. present in Baltistan and 300–420 throughout its range within Pakistan’s borders. Although this estimate is Keywords Central Karakorum, farmer-wildlife con- higher than extrapolations based on earlier surveys, the flict, livestock predation, snow leopard, Uncia uncia, long-term future of the snow leopard is under threat. Western Himalayas. which c. 40,000 km2 is considered to be prime habitat Introduction (Fox, 1989). Schaller (1976) estimated that the number The snow leopard Uncia uncia is widely but thinly of snow leopard in Pakistan could be 100–250. Malik distributed throughout its range in the mountains of (1997) reported that the number could be c.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of the Mountain Ungulate Prey of the Endangered Snow Leopard Panthera Uncia in the Tost Local Protected Area, South Gobi, Mongolia
    Status of the mountain ungulate prey of the Endangered snow leopard Panthera uncia in the Tost Local Protected Area, South Gobi, Mongolia L KHAGVASUMBEREL T UMURSUKH,KULBHUSHANSINGH R. SURYAWANSHI C HARUDUTT M ISHRA,THOMAS M. MC C ARTHY and B AZARTSEREN B OLDGIV Abstract The availability of wild prey is a critical predictor of snow leopard Panthera uncia (Schaller, , ). carnivore density. However, few conservation programmes Relatively little information is available on the abundance have focused on the estimation and monitoring of wild ungu- and population trends of these mountain ungulates, how- late populations and their trends, especially in the remote ever, because of the remoteness of their habitats and a mountains of Central Asia. We conducted double-observer lack of robust scientific studies (Singh & Milner-Gulland, surveys to estimate the populations of ibex Capra sibirica ). Changing livestock husbandry practices (Berger and argali Ovis ammon in the mountainous regions of Tost et al., ), mining and associated development Local Protected Area, South Gobi province, Mongolia, which (Farrington, ; Kaczensky et al., ), and poaching is being considered for designation as a Nature Reserve. We (Pratt et al., ) threaten the survival of many of these un- also conducted demographic surveys of the more abundant gulate species and the predators that depend on them. ibex to examine their sex-ratio and the survival of young dur- The availability of wild-ungulate prey is a critical deter- ing –. The estimated ibex population remained minant of carnivore density (Karanth et al., ). However, stable in and and the estimated argali population in the mountains of Asia the rugged habitat and lack of suf- increased from in to in .
    [Show full text]