CDEP Occasional Paper 03

Moving the MountainsUp in the

Global Environmental Agenda

Modified version of a paper presented at the Conference on Mountains and the Environment: ten years after Rio

Aosta (Italy) 08-09 November 2002

byJayanta Bandyopadhyay and Shama Perveen

Centre for Development and Environment PolicyIndian Institute of Management Calcutta

March, 2004

The CDEP Occasional Paper Series is based on research undertaken in and lecturesdelivered by distinguished visitors to the Centre for Development and Environment Policy(CDEP) at the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta.

Series Editor: Jayanta BandyopadhyayCopyright ©: Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, 2004

ISBN: 81-8134-002-7

Cover designed by Typographics, 25 A Park Street, Kolkata 700016. Printed at Gupta Quick Printers, 4D/28Dharmatala Road, Kolkata 700039……………………………………………………………………………..

Contents

Editorial…………………………………………………………………………

Abstract………………………………………………………………………….

1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………

2. Mountains: Provider of Critical Material Resource and Cultural Services..

2.1 ‘Water Towers’ of the World………………………………………...2.2 Diverse Importance of Mountain Forests…………………………….2.3 Storehouse of Biological Diversity………………………………….2.4 Abode of Ethnic, Linguistic and Cultural Diversity…………………

3. Emergence of the Special Chapter on the Mountains in Agenda-21……...

3.1 The Mountains Remained Marginalised Till the Rio Earth Summit….3.2 Events Leading to the Final Inclusion of Chapter 13 in Agenda-21…3.3 Formation of the Mountain Agenda Collective………………………

4. From Rio to Johannesburg: Two Decades of Achievements…………………

4.1 Designation of FAO as the Task Manager for Chapter 13 and the CSDReview………………………………………………………………….

4.2 Mountain Forum Network Established………………………………...4.3 World Summit 2002 and International Year of the Mountains.…………

5. The New Paradigm of the Mountain Perspective…..…………………………..

5.1 The Mountain Charactersitics…………………………………………..5.1.1 The Environmental Characteristics……………………………5.1.2 The Socio-Economic Characteristics of Mountains…………………….

6. New Beginnings for Sustainable Mountain Development

References………………………………………………………………………….

Editorial

The uplands and the mountains of the world cover more than a quarter of the continental areaof the Earth and provide direct life-support to every tenth human being in the planet. Naturalresources of the mountains, especially water and biodiversity are also crucial for thewellbeing of a large part of the humanity, living in the plains.

For the last several centuries, the uplands and the mountains had remained quite isolated fromthe relatively rapid pace of socio-economic change sweeping the plains of the world. With theextension of mechanized transportation in the mountain areas and the beginning of theglobalization process, their physical isolation has started to wither. This has initiated a processof greater socio-economic interaction between the plains and the mountains. Trade hasflourished while tourism into the mountains has grown almost exponentially. While all thishas brought economic advancement in the mountains, the result of all this has been feltthrough rapid environmental changes in these fragile areas. Consequently, it is being clearlyfelt that wise and sustainable use of the natural resources in the uplands and the mountains, inparticular in the developing countries, presents one of the greatest challenges to humanity.

Concerns for sustainable development of mountain areas have been expressed by many invarious forms and at various times. In the last thirty years or so, the professional perception ofthe uplands and the mountains has evolved from being rugged, indestructible, andinaccessible to fragile regions opening up to rapid changes through the improved access andarrival of globalisation. The importance of addressing the question of mountain developmentas a global priority has been recognised by the international community after a systematic anddevoted campaign by a small group of mountain professionals.

During the earlier part of the last Century, initiatives to put the mountains higher in the globalagenda were largely limited to circles of mountain enthusiasts and wilderness tourists. In theinter-governmental platforms there was very little direct recognition to the particular needs forsustainable development of the mountain areas. It was at this juncture that that a collective ofprofessionals and academics deeply concerned with the future of the people and theenvironment of the world's mountains emerged in the scene with the name 'MountainAgenda'. This paper is an attempt to describe the process through which the mountains werepushed higher in the global environmental agenda after the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.

Though in the initial design of the Rio process there were no plans for focusing any specialattention to the mountains, it was the devoted initiative taken by the Mountain Agendacollective that an independent Chapter (13) dedicated entirely to promoting sustainabledevelopment in the world’s mountains got finally included in Agenda-21, the globalenvironmental agenda for the 21st Century.

To put these initial movements and the Rio Earth Summit into proper perspective, it may beinteresting to turn back the pages to the events, which were the initial stages of the now well-known global campaign for the mountains. The declaration of the year 2002 by the UN as theInternational Year of Mountains was a great achievement that recognized the work done onChapter 13 after the Rio Earth Summit. The paper records the developments that have takenplace, starting from the early 1970s till the recently concluded World Summit on SustainableDevelopment (WSSD) held at Johannesburg in 2002.

The paper also presents the very important analytical work on the mountains that have beenundertaken in the last two decades, which has been recognized as the mountain perspective. Itprovides a critical first step in the formulation of policies and action priorities capable ofbringing real and sustainable benefits to mountain regions. It is with the objective of furtherhelping the mountains of the world receive the long overdue attention, that this paper is beingpublished.

The description presented in this paper is by no means exhaustive. Any mistake or omission isdue to the incompleteness of the available information on the activities of the various actors,for which apology is extended in advance. The wider readership of this paper, however, willsurely benefit from knowing the behind the scene details of one of the most successful globalcampaigns for sustainable development.

19 March 2004 Jayanta BandyopadhyayProfessor and Head

CDEP-IIMC

Abstract

The mountains of the world hold a very important place in human history through thenumerous provisioning, regulating and cultural services they have been providing. In spite ofthat, however, the world’s mountains had so far remained quite distant from the rapid socialand economic transformations taking place in the plains surrounding them. In the last one ortwo decades, with the advancement of the process of globalisation and their enhancedaccessibility, the pace of social and economic change in the mountain areas worldwide havealso picked up. While social and economic development is welcome in all places, the nature ofthe transition and the environmental damage and risks that they may engender, need a veryclose examination. The mountains being ecologically fragile, the degradation of their naturalenvironment occurs with a rapid pace. This creates the situation favourable for irreversiblechanges towards unsustainability.

These concerns were at the root of a campaign for moving the mountains up in the globalenvironmental agenda. The inclusion of a separate chapter on sustainable mountaindevelopment in the global environmental agenda for the 21st century, or Agenda-21, was theculmination of a systematic mobilisation of the global opinion by a small group ofprofessionals and journalists. The 1992 Earth Summit at Rio was, thus, instrumental inchanging the way people have traditionally looked at the mountain areas.

Starting from the 1970s to the declaration of year 2002 as the ‘International Year of theMountains’, there have been quite an advancement in the mobilisation of the concerns for theworld’s mountains. This paper traces background of the initiatives in favour of the mountainsand the profile of some of the important events related to this global campaign. However, thetheoretical and empirical analyses reveal that there is a considerable gap between what isdone and what needs to be done. This gap becomes more significant in the case of thedeveloping countries, where mountain regions suffer from the additional factor ofunderdevelopment. As the home for about 10 percent of humanity and sources of vital naturalresources, like freshwater, there is an urgent need to push the mountains up in the globalenvironmental agenda to ensure their sustainable development. After describing thebreakthrough at the global diplomatic level, the paper presents the elements of a new way oflooking at the mountains, through the mountain perspective. It describes the emergence andfurther development of the concept of mountain perspective.

1. Introduction

Distinguished by their three-dimensional structure, mountains are the most conspicuous

landforms on Earth. They occur on all continents, in all latitude zones and within all the

world’s principal biome types. And despite their common basic physical conditions of altitude

and slope, there is an immense variation in the natural environment of the mountains. The

geophysical factors of latitude, longitude and altitude, as a result, are unique for each location,

though certain geological and climatic situations may create similar physical settings (Jenik,

1997).

Though ‘strength and endurance’ are commonly used metaphors to describe the mountains, in

reality, they are very fragile due to their high geomorphic energy, steepness, and the

seismicity associated with their existence. The presence of a thin, young, and highly erosion

prone soil, so characteristic of the mountains, foster the quick emergence of scenarios of

environmental imbalance from their non-sustainable use (Koch-Weser and Mills, 2002). It is

understood that, if there is any fragile ecosystem that is most severely threatened by the

challenges of economic and cultural survival, it is the mountains (Banskota, 1994).

Constituting an assemblage of diverse ecosystem types, mountains and uplands are important

because they cover a large part of the terrestrial surface of the Earth. Depending on the lower

cut-off altitude for an area to be recognised as a mountain (it varies from 1000 m to 500 m),

the area covered by them varies from 27 percent to 46 percent of the earth’s surface. The

mountains provide a range of linked resources and ecosystem services (Hamilton, 1995) upon

which millions of people in mountains and plains depend for sustenance and economic

growth. The arrival of globalisation at the doorsteps of the mountains will surely elevate the

category and speed of economic activities in these areas to a much higher scale. At the same

time, it will also activate the concerns about the fragility of the mountain ecosystems as

expressed in Chapter 13 of Agenda 21. Many countries have sectoral laws on particular

subjects such as forestry, land, water etc. These, while applicable to mountains, have a

broader geographic scope, and hence are not usually tailored to the special needs and

conditions of mountain areas (Villeneuve, Castelein and Mekouar, 2002). Also, in the current

world scenario, mountain people and economies are marginalised and mountain natural

resources are increasingly being exploited to the advantage of the plains (Bandyopadhyay and

Perveen, 2004). For these reasons, over the last few decades, mountain scholars have argued

that researchers, planners and development specialists need to adopt a ‘mountain perspective’

as a corrective to the practice of viewing the mountains with a ‘plains bias’ (Jodha, 1990;

Bandyopadhyay, 1991). Such an effort led Jodha (1990) to concentrate understanding on a

separate ‘Mountain perspective’ to make a pioneering approach in viewing the mountains in

the context of economic development.

Regardless of the emerging recognition of the ‘mountain perspective’, a proper definition of

the mountain still remains evasive. Either for want of region-specific descriptions or the

complexity associated with diverse characteristics of the mountains (Bandyopadhyay, 1992),

there has been no conclusive outcome regarding their universal definition. The presence of

other topographic considerations, like the nature and ruggedness of the terrain and the degree

of the slope etc., has acted as limitations for geographers to produce a rigorous definition, that

has universal application and acceptance. This has often led to time-consuming debates with

no satisfactory result. Some of the areas that may more suitably be called highlands

demonstrate characteristics like of the mountains. But uniformity is not to be established. For

instance, the highlands of Africa show population densities higher than the surrounding

lowlands whilst the mountains of the Eastern Pamir, the Tibesti and Hoggar of Sahara, etc.

have neither any trace of forest cover nor is there any conclusive evidence of landforms

created by glaciation (Messerli and Ives, 1997).

As debates mount on a widely acceptable definition, mountains as regions of marked relief is

now recognised as a juxtaposition of steep slopes, characterised by geomorphologically high-

energy environments, and altitude, characterised by low temperatures and/or aridity, and high

level of biological diversity. The first such definition and global map of mountain regions was

developed by UNEP-WCMC with the support of the Swiss Development Cooporation. Using

the global Digital Elevation Model (DEM) and utilising the criteria of altitude and slope in

combination in order to represent the environmental gradients that are key components of

mountain environments (Kapos et al. 2000), six empirically defined mountain definitions

were arrived at. In its latest revision in 2002 however, one more class has been added to the

existing six. In this classification (based on 7 classes), the total area classified as mountainous

comes to 39.3 million km2. In a similar study by Meybeck et al. (2001) and using the same

DEM and a combination of ‘relief roughness’ and elevation, the entire land surface was

partitioned into 15 classes of relief typology. In this system, Tibet and the Altiplano are

classed as ‘very high plateau’ rather than mountains, and the area covered by the world’s

mountains is estimated to be 33.5 million km2. This classification process to define mountains

greatly improves the possibility for integrated research and management in mountain areas.

The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio had been a watershed in the history of global recognition for

the sustainable development of the mountains. This was achieved as a result of efforts made

by a number of concerned individuals, known as the Mountain Agenda collective. In the

global plan of action for sustainable development as adopted in the Rio Summit in 1992, and

better known as Agenda-21, an independent chapter (No. 13) was devoted to address the steps

to be taken for sustainable development in the mountains of the world. Entitled as, “Managing

Fragile Ecosystems: Sustainable Mountain Development”, this chapter was an endorsement at

the highest political level, of the special needs and considerations of the mountain regions the

world over.

In many ways this was a long overdue recognition, as the world's mountains are the reservoirs

of biological and cultural diversity, that need to be understood, protected from degradation

and developed with due caution (Villeneuve, Castelein and Mekouar, 2002). The present

paper is an attempt to describe the series of crucial efforts and events, which led of the

recognition of the world’s mountains in Agenda-21. Particular reference is made to the

contributions made by the ‘Mountain Agenda’ collective, who successfully catalysed this

important outcome in the Rio process. The paper further presents an account of the

achievements and shortcomings of the process that got started in Rio in 1992, and continued

to the Johannesburg Summit, completing a 10 year long journey. This account is an

exploratory one and is in no way comprehensive. Many events and discussions took place in

various parts of the world in which all the members of the ‘Mountain Agenda” were not

necessarily present. The authors apologise for any mistakes or omissions in this description,

which should be taken as a result of the gap in knowledge on their part.

2. Mountains: Provider of Critical Material Resource and Cultural Services

Occurring in 75 per cent of the world’s countries, mountains are the home for an estimated

one-tenth of the human population who derive their life-support base directly from it. In

addition, the mountains support with supplies of vital natural resources, millions of people

living in the foothills and the plains. Historically, the mountains have been repositories of

water, minerals, timber, hydropower, human resources, etc. in addition to being the

storehouse for wilderness, natural beauty and peace - all of which are in high demand and

short supply among people from the plains (Neustadtl, 1986). Of particular interest is the fact

that some specific characteristics of the mountains, in particular their inaccessibility, had

helped these landscapes remaining largely excluded from the wider economic transformations

taking place in the plains. Since time immemorial, the mountain communities have used the

natural resources of the mountains, in particular biodiversity and water, for their sustenance

and development. With the growing accessibility to the mountains, in many ways, the whole

world today is critically dependent on this rich biodiversity and water resources. This lays the

background for the need to push the mountains up in the global environmental agenda, so that

their rich resources are not extracted or used unsustainably, causing irreversible damage to the

fragile mountain ecosystems.

2.1 ‘Water Towers’ of the World

Mountains play a crucial role in storing the precipitation and releasing the water later in the

form of streams and rivers. Much of the water used by the humanity originates in the

mountains and hence the connotation of these landscapes as the ‘water towers’ of the world

(Bandyopadhyay, 1996). Therefore, as sources of the world's major rivers and many smaller

ones, mountains play an extremely important and distinctive role in the hydrological

processes of the planet and in the regional hydrology of all continents (Mountain Agenda,

1998). All the major rivers in the world, from the Amazon to the Nile have their headwaters in

the mountains. Almost 90 percent of the lowland flow of the Indus River for instance,

originates in the mountains of the Karakorum and the Western Himalaya.

Flowing from the mountain slopes, the rivers and streams act as life-sustaining linkages

connecting the communities living on the uplands with those living in the plains. As a

consequence, more than half the world’s people rely on mountain water to grow food, to

produce electricity, to sustain industries and, most importantly, to satisfy domestic water

needs. Official statistics reveal that one billion Chinese, Indians and Bangladeshis, 250

million people in Africa and the entire population of California are among the 3 billion people

who rely on continuous flow of water from the mountains (http://www.mountains2002.org/

issues/i-water.html). Freshwater originating from the mountains accounts for nearly 30 to 60

percent of the downstream availabilities in humid areas and about 70-95 percent in the semi-

arid and arid environments (FAO, 2000a). Some runoff from the mountain areas at higher

locations also result from glacier melts where the configuration of the topography allows this

type of storage. This hydrological heterogeneity endows mountain regions with a variety,

which other physiographic regions lack (Bandyopadhyay et al., 1997).

Unfortunately, scientific knowledge on the rich water resources of the mountains is quite

poor. Rodda (1994) clearly expresses the challenge when he mentions that “From the

hydrological point of view, mountain regions present a paradox. Although they provide the

bulk of the world's water resources, knowledge of these resources is generally much less

extensive, reliable and precise than for other physiographic regions.” So much so, that in

practical terms the lacunae in information ‘represents the blackest of black boxes in the

hydrological cycle’ (Klemes, 1988).

2.2 Diverse Importance of Mountain Forests

Relative inaccessibility of the mountains has also been the reason for better preservation of

their natural forests. Stretching over 9 million square kilometres and representing 28 per cent

of the world's closed forest areas (www.mountains2002.org/issues/i-forests.html), the vast

tree cover on the mountains provides stability to the fragile landscape of the mountains by

intercepting the precipitation, thus reducing soil erosion and upgrading water quality

(Johnson, White and Perrot-Maître, 2001). There is a common but incorrect perception that

mountain forests prevent the occurrence of landslides. Hamilton et al. (1997) clarify that, “It

is important to recognise that forests will not prevent avalanches, floods, rockfalls, landslides

(and other kinds of mass movement, such as debris flow, soil creep) or even surface erosion.

Nevertheless, under forest cover, the incidence and magnitude of these events is less than any

other land cover or land use, and hence the frequent designation of ‘protection forest’ where

there is a high probability of such hazards”.

However, with the growing accessibility observed in the mountains lately and the growing

anthropogenic interventions, the mountain societies and environments are undergoing

transformations at a fairly rapid pace. Pressure of population and unemployment, uncertain

land tenure, inequitable land distribution, absence of non-farm livelihood opportunities, etc.

(www.mountains2002.org/ issues/i-forests.html) are leading to uncontrolled natural resource

use and consequent environmental degradation. With FAO (1993) indicating that upland

forests are disappearing at an annual rate of 1.1 percent – 30 per cent higher than elsewhere in

the tropics, the resulting destabilisation of these forests has the potential of unleashing an

ever-escalating spiral of ecological instability.

The recent compilation by UNEP-WCMC (2002) is the first map-based assessment of

environmental change in the mountain areas as a whole. The Report revealed the areas

experiencing multiple pressures on biodiversity. Areas with exceptionally rich biodiversity

facing particularly severe pressure include the forest ecosystems of the Northwest Andes,

California and the Caucasus region. The report also concludes that while traditional

agricultural systems, such as terracing can help to stabilize soils, it is leading to significant

losses of forest and land cover. Moreover, multiple pressures on Africa's mountain regions,

such as fire, conversion of mountain forests for grazing, violent human conflicts etc. are

proving to be very heavy.

In many countries, expansion of agricultural and urban areas has occurred at the expense of

the forests. Once found in all the five continents, the coastal rain forests - one of the most

productive ecosystems on Earth, today survive on only two. In others they have been

destroyed by urban development and expansion of farming. For this reason, only about 30 to

40 million hectare of coastal temperate rain forest remain today, mostly along 8000 km of

coastline in Chile and the Pacific Northwest of North America (Messerli and Ives, 1997).

Many have even suggested that there is a biodiversity crisis in forests of both tropical

(Wilson, 1992; Myers, 1988) and temperate regions (Dudley, 1992). Despite this fact, in some

areas like Nepal, where mountain forests at one time achieved worldwide notoriety over the

alleged rate of deforestation (Eckholm, 1976), notable changes towards forest conservation

can be observed.

2.3 Storehouse of Biological Diversity

The verticality of the mountains provides the basis for micro-climatic variability, which in

turn provides the niche for biological diversity. The inaccessibility factor had acted as a

measure of protection for this richness. The dense juxtaposition of ecological communities

present in the mountains harbours a rich assembly of plants and animal species. The greatest

diversity of vascular plant species occurs in mountains: Costa Rica, the tropical eastern

Andes, the Atlantic forest of Brazil, the eastern Himalaya-Yunnan region, northern Borneo

and Papua New Guinea (Barthlott, Lauer and Placke, 1996). The richness of vascular flora of

the Kashmir Himalaya is especially remarkable, considering that 1610 species have been

identified in the ‘alpine/subalpine’ region alone (Dhar and Kachroo, 1983). Mayr (1988) says,

‘Each species is a biological experiment’ and mountains are remarkable experimental sites.

The presence of a particular species is a result of past and/or ongoing speciation, migration

and the existence of positive factors for survival.

One can therefore find certain species of flora and fauna not found elsewhere on the plains,

which has invariably attracted several biodiversity projects in mountainous areas. The small

area of Mount Kinabalu in Sabah, Malaysia for instance, is estimated to have some 4000-4500

species, more than one-quarter of all plant species in the USA (Stone, 1992). Isolated

mountain blocks also rank high in endemism - the distinctive characteristic of some flora or

fauna to occur in restricted habitats, particularly montane forests. Of the world's 247 endemic

bird areas, 131 occur in tropical mountains (Denniston, 1996). In reality, endemic, relict and

forerunner populations are the most valuable treasure of mountain biodiversity (Jenik, 1997).

Such bio-diversity rich areas, providing an extensive dimension and heterogeneity of flora and

fauna, has laid the grounds for the development of protected areas, including Biosphere

Reserves, National Forests, National and International Parks and World Heritage Sites.

Estimates made for the Andes (Thorsell and Paine, 1995) indicated that 11.4 per cent of the

total range is under protected status and in Africa the assessment reveals that it covers 4 per

cent of the range (Thorsell, 1997). In recent years, significant changes have been recorded and

monitored in the mountain ecosystems of every continent (Stone, 1992; Denniston, 1995;

IUCN, 1995). Additionally, Jenik (1997) is of the opinion that the status of mountain

biodiversity must be flexibly assessed in relation to the objectives of nature conservation at

the global level and with regard to the cultural needs of resident people and their lowland

neighbours. The Guidelines for Mountain Protected Areas (Poore, 1992) is one such source of

constructive ideas to promote better-managed mountain protected areas.

Mountains are also home to certain indigenous varieties of food crops. In the Andes, for

example, farmers know of as many as 200 different varieties of indigenous potatoes and in the

Himalaya people had approximately 2000 varieties of rice (www.mountains2002.org/issues/i-

bio.html). Mountain ranges also shelter some traditional/wild varieties of commercial crops

widely cultivated in the plains today. It is known that farmers in mountains of Burundi and

Rwanda traditionally plant between 6 and 30 different varieties of beans for adaptation to

varying differences in elevation, climate and soil; such activities ensure continuous genetic

adaptation and change, an important criterion for resistance against pests, diseases and

climatic extremes (www.mountains2002.org/issues/i-bio.html).

Of the 20 species of plants supplying 80 percent of the world’s food needs, 6 occur in the

mountains (http://www.mountains2002.org/issues/i-bio.html). The narrowly defined

productive niches also offer great sites for medicinal, utilitarian and other edible plants, with

experts stating that almost 80 per cent of the global population rely on traditional medicines

from plants growing in these biomes. The Indian Himalayan region itself supports over 1748

plant species (angiosperms-1685, gymnosperms-12 and pteridophytes-51) of known

medicinal value (Samant et al., 1998). On these have been based a number of world-famous

medical systems such as the Ayurveda in the Hindu tradition or the Tibetan medicine in the

Buddhist tradition or the Yunnani medicine adopted in the Islamic tradition (Stone, 1992).

In the mountains and uplands, many natural factors such as sloping terrain, harsh climates and

shallow soil has made it difficult for mountain people to grow sufficient quantities and

varieties of food. In short, the limited arable land is inadequate to produce enough food for the

increasing population. This has led to cultivation of marginal and forestlands, making food-

crop based farming unsustainable, both economically and ecologically (Papola, 1999). Food

insecurity then, has various ramifications in the form of increased infant mortality rates, in the

migration of people from the mountains to the plains, in the increase in unemployment rates

and in the numerous instances of disease outbreaks due to insufficient nutrition. Huddleston,

Chief of Food Security and Agricultural Projects Analysis Service at FAO, however,

cautioned that, “For many the solution to this vulnerability will not be found in agriculture".

Only through development of the economic potential of water and forest resources, as well as

the natural capital of pristine environment, the development of the mountain people is

foreseen.

In addition, armed conflicts, unsustainable population growth and environmental degradation

have reduced the efficiency in food production in these areas further. According to Newton, a

lead author of Mountain Watch, "globally approximately 41 per cent of mountain land has

fallen within the radius of a high intensity human conflict between 1946 and 2001, compared

with 26 per cent of non-mountain land". The fragile condition of the mountain biomes and the

rampant environmental degradation resulted by conflicts thus, further destabilises the situation

(Bandyopadhyay and Perveen, 2002).

2.4 Abode of Ethnic, Linguistic and Cultural Diversity

Like the varied biodiversity of the mountain areas, but due to factors very different, people

living in the mountains are also of diverse race, tribe and origin, distinguishable by ethnic,

linguistic and religious criteria. A common cultural characteristic of the mountains is that

major peaks are considered sacred and are frequently used for the construction of places of

worship. A poem from the earliest collections of Japanese Poetry refers to Mount Fuji as ‘a

god mysterious’ (The Manyoshu, 1969: 215). Mountains such as the Ausangate in Peru,

Tlaloc in Mexico, the Himalayan peaks, the San Francisco in Arizona are revered as abodes of

weather dieties, places of spring and sacred reservoirs of waters on which societies depend for

their very existence (Reinhard, 1985). Appreciation for mountains in Japan, China, Tibet, and

India can be traced back to 2000 BC. Whether it is Mount Kailash in Tibet (China) or Mount

Ararat in Turkey or Mount Sinai in Egypt or Mount Cook in New Zealand or Mount Fuji in

Japan and many more, humanity has traditionally accepted the mountains as an object of great

respect. By the mid-1800s, the modern period of "mountain adoration" had begun, and today

mountains are widely recognised for their global importance as natural, cultural, and spiritual

resources” (TMI and NCSS, 1999).

In the words of Toepfer (UNEP, 2002), “Mountains have been a source of wonder and

inspiration for human societies and cultures since time immemorial. From Mount Fuji in

Japan to Mount Olympus in Greece, mountains play key roles in many religions. Indeed they

have often been seen as the abode of the Gods. Legends abound, from the fabled Yeti of the

Himalaya, to Big Foot in the United States”. It is probably as a recognition of these vital

linkages, that the mountains have traditionally been the objects of reverence and fear to all

human beings, attributing to them sacredness and a divine status.

As with biodiversity, cultural diversity is also a global resource. Isolation, protection,

migration patterns and diverse ecosystems - all contribute to the rich cultural diversity of the

mountain peoples. In a single village district in remote eastern Nepal, for instance, six hamlets

with six separate languages and religions occupy slightly different ecological zones along the

rising slope of a ridge (Byers, 1995). Diversity in social systems and gender roles thus, offer

insights to the human experience which may be of unique value as societies move toward a

more integrated global community. Some experts nonetheless fear that the traditional cultures

of indigenous groups in the mountains may be equally, or even more threatened than

biological diversity (Poore, 1992).

Grotzbach and Stadel (1997) have pointed out, “One attribute ascribed to mountain peoples

and societies is their inclination to cling to their cultural heritage. This is usually explained by

continuous isolation and seclusion from outside world as a consequence of difficult access.”

However, some authors interpret ethnic and cultural diversity in high mountains as the

product more of social marginality than of absolute distance and environment (Kreutzmann,

1996). Now, enhanced accessibility and consequent transformation, communication, mass

tourism etc. have resulted in rather rapid social, economic and cultural transformations in the

mountains. This, in turn, has increased their dependence on the world outside.

3.0 Emergence of the Special Chapter on the Mountains in Agenda-21

3.1 The Mountains Remained Marginalised Till the Rio Earth Summit

The 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm, was a

landmark event where for the first time discussions on the political, social and economic

problems of the global environment in an intergovernmental platform took place. This was

hosted by the Scandinavian countries, mainly to focus global attention to the problem of long

distance transboundary air pollution that was bothering them. The issue of sustainable

development of the mountains was not even mentioned in the agenda. Notwithstanding this,

the most important outcome of the Conference was the emergence of a new engagement

between economic development and the environment.

Subsequently in September 1983, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution calling for

the creation of a new independent commission to address this question of the relationship

between environment and development. Soon after, World Commission on Environment and

Development (WCED) came into being and held its first meeting in Geneva in October 1984,

chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland, the former Prime Minister of Norway. The Commission

selected eight key issues for discussion and the report got published in 1987 as Our Common

Future (WCED, 1987). It can be said that the Brundtland Commission gave the first, though a

limited, recognition to the problem of the highlands and the mountains of the world. One of

the present authors approached the WCED Secretariat with the suggestion of focusing

attention to the environmental degradation in the uplands and the mountains of the world. The

WCED (1987:145) did accept the request. However, it did not give a very high priority to

these problems.

During the 1990s, issues of rapid environmental degradation at the global level got further

attention with the fears of the perceived impacts of the Ozone layer depletion and the Green

House effect. This prompted the UN General Assembly to take a more serious view of the

global environment and it called for a UN Conference on Environment and Development to

be organized in Rio in 1992. In 1990, with the initiation of the preparatory stages of the Rio

process, it was expected that the global recognition of the problem of the mountains, that had

a small beginning with the WCED, would reach a higher level of visibility in the Rio process.

However, that was not the case to start with. In the initial design of the Rio process, there

were no plans for focusing any special attention to the mountains.

It was at this juncture, that a collective of professionals and academics, deeply concerned with

the future of the people and the environment of the world's mountains, emerged in the scene

with the name ‘Mountain Agenda’ (for the list of the initiating members of this collective see

below). The single point objective of the Mountain Agenda collective was to push the

mountains higher up in the Rio process. During 1991-92, this collective has made the most

important contributions to this process through systematic and professionally informed

campaigns. At the end of this campaign emerged the Chapter 13 in Agenda-21 on ‘Managing

Fragile Ecosystems: Sustainable Mountain Development’. In the years following the Rio

summit, further recognition was given to the world’s mountains with the UN declaring 2002

to be observed as the International Year of the Mountains (IYM).

3.2 Events Leading to the Final Inclusion of Chapter 13 in Agenda-21

However, prior to this historic recognition in the Rio process, the global campaign for the

mountains was fraught with a lot of difficulties. It was the determination, wit and dedication

of a number of concerned individuals and organisations interested in pushing the mountains

up in the global environmental agenda that was at the root of this success. A systematic record

of this will prove to be an important document in the promotion of sustainable development.

Several major organisations like the Man and Biosphere Programme No. 6 (MAB-6) of the

UNESCO, the United Nations University (UNU), the International Geographical Union

(IGU), the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), the Swiss

Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), etc worked together to achieve this. The

steering role however was that of the ‘Mountain Agenda’ collective, which catalysed the

whole process prior to and during the Rio Earth Summit.

It was in the early 1930s, that mountain professionals, especially in Germany, France and the

USSR, had established a correlation between mountain ecosystems and the people inhabiting

them. As a result, an interdisciplinary program was launched in 1972 to develop the basis for

the rational use and conservation of the resources of the biosphere and for the improvement of

the global relationship between people and the environment. The programme entitled, Man

and the Biosphere (MAB) – 6, discussed the “Impact of human activities on mountain and

tundra ecosystems”. The panel thereafter recommended the study of the following four topics

(UNESCO-MAB, 1973; Schaaf, 1995):

- Human settlements at high altitudes;

- Effects of land-use alternatives on mountain ecosystems;

- Impact of large-scale technology on mountain ecosystems;

- Effects of tourism and recreation on mountain ecosystems.

Being the first international interdisciplinary research programme on mountain regions, with

projects in the Andes, the Himalaya, many Alpine countries and the Spanish Pyrenees (Price,

1995), MAB-6 may be identified as an early form of what later became known as the

‘Mountain Agenda’ collective. The underlying concepts and notions identified by the MAB-6

have further been developed and promoted through a number of initiatives and institutions.

For example, the Commission on Mountain Geoecology and Sustainable Development of the

International Geographical Union (IGU), the United Nations University (UNU) project on

Highland-Lowland Interactive Systems in 1977 (now Mountain Ecology and Sustainable

Development) established in 1968; International Potato Center (CIP) in Lima, Peru, founded

in 1971; International Mountain Society (IMS), founded in 1981 and the International Centre

for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) in Kathmandu, Nepal, founded in 1981.

In 1974, the significant threats facing Alps was discussed in an important conference

organised by the IUCN and supported by the International Mountaineering and Climbing

Federation (UIAA), WorldWide Fund for Nature (WWF) and the Italian Alpine Club. The

“The Future of the Alps” so discussed also sounded an alarm on the environmental threats

faced by all other mountains as well. It was already becoming evident that the problems of

resource depletion, agricultural decline, colonisation by people from the plains, poverty,

technological interventions like dams, motor roads and other projects were common

afflictions and would sooner or later show themselves in other mountain areas. This united the

concerned individuals, earlier focussing on ‘their’ mountain ranges to shift focus to the

general problems afflicting ‘our’ global mountains.

Later on, a Conference in Munich, with active support from the MAB-6 programme saw

discussions on the degradation in the Himalaya. Around the same time Eric Eckholm’s book

Losing Ground (1976) drew great public attention for its reported interpretation linking

Himalayan deforestation with the floods in Bangladesh. These events gave a significant push

in highlighting the Himalayan degradation, though the scientific basis of Eckholm’s analysis

has been questioned (Bandyopadhyay and Gyawali, 1994).

Around the same time, the idea of a regional institution focussing on documentation, research

and training and technical advisory services on integrated mountain development was

formulated at the regional meeting of UNESCO’s MAB-6 programme. This led to the

formation of an autonomous International Centre for Integrated Mountain Research and

Development (ICIMOD) in the year 1981. International Mountain Society (IMS) was also

established at around the same time in Berne, Switzerland, for the purpose of advancing

information through improved communication among institutions and individuals about

sustainable mountain research and development throughout the world. IMS along with UNU

embarked on the publication of Mountain Research and Development (MRD), a journal

dedicated specifically to world’s mountains. Mountains started receiving the desired attention

and ‘came into being’ in discussions related to environment, degradation of ecosystems and

sustainable development. The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC)

pioneered in providing funds for pegging mountains on the global agenda and to launch key

projects in this context. Although, all these diverse initiatives and events made an impact on

the professional platforms, but in the diplomatic platforms the global campaign for the

mountains remained quite weak (Bandyopadhay and Perveen, 2002).

3.3 Formation of the Mountain Agenda Collective

The announcement of the planning for the United Nations Conference on Environment and

Development (UNCED) provided another important opportunity for raising the issue of

environment and development in the mountains at the highest global platform. With this in

mind, a small informal group of individuals, deciding to make a serious attempt at pushing the

mountains up in the agenda of the UNCED, formed into a collective campaign group. Their

first meeting took place in December 1990 in the hamlet of Appenberg in the Bernese

Oberland. This meeting led to the ‘Appenberg initiative’ and set in motion the process of the

formation of the ‘Mountain Agenda’ Collective. The list of the initiating members of the

Mountain Agenda group include:

i. Yuri Badenkovii. Jayanta Bandyopadhyayiii. Larry S. Hamiltoniv. Rueddi Hoeggerv. Jack D. Ivesvi. Bruno Messerlivii. Martin Priceviii. Peter B. Stone

[As provided in An Appeal for the Mountains (Mountain Agenda, 1992)]

The name “Mountain Agenda” was used to express the idea of urgent action in addressing the

“mountain problematique” and has subsequently been formally adopted world-wide. The

group consisting of an open network of professional workers in the field of academia,

environment and international affairs were chiefly interested in putting mountains on the

world’s environmental agenda. Their main activity was to bring out documentary evidence

depicting the state of the world’s mountains and in “preparing the ground” for carrying across

their message. A more detailed meeting was held at Aeschi, also in the Bernese Oberland, in

early 1991. In the Aeschi meeting, the name of the collective as ‘Mountain Agenda’ was

formally agreed upon and the details of the work to be undertaken was formally decided by

the members of the collective. The basic decisions taken at Aeschi included the publication of

a professionally written book on the state of the environment of the world’s mountains – The

State of the World’s Mountains (Stone, 1992) and a shorter version - An Appeal for the

Mountains (Mountain Agenda, 1992) to attract the attention of the diplomats and the policy

makers.

Since the proposal for including a special chapter on the mountains was not made by any of

the governments or through a Specialized Agency of the UN, its entry into the preparatory

stages of the Rio Summit was not easy. Four meetings of the Preparatory Committee

(PrepCom) held during 1991 and 1992 supervised the organization of the UNCED. It was at

the 2nd PrepCom meeting in August ’91 that An Appeal for the Mountains, a 44-page

brochure was prepared for wider distribution to the international community. The illustrated

‘Appeal’ touched all the themes like erosion, mountain agriculture, climate change,

sacredness of the mountains etc. The ‘appeal’ dwelt on the pressures on the mountain

ecosystems and unavoidable changes imposed on the lives of mountain dwellers and their

growing insecurities that were getting stronger by the day.

Later, with the active support of Maurice Strong and Nitin Desai, who were at the helm of the

preparatory process of the UNCED, item 3b of the provisional agenda of the third PrepCom

meeting held in Geneva was drafted with a mention of the mountain problems and ‘Mountain

Agenda’ itself under the heading “Fragile Ecosystems”. Subsequently, the item on mountains

was formally accepted by the PrepCom and was formally put on the agenda for debate.

Following the decision of including a separate Chapter on mountains in Agenda 21, one of the

present authors, Bandyopadhyay, was commissioned by the UNCED to prepare the first draft

of the chapter to be placed for consideration at the final PrepCom meeting in New York.

The task of preparing the chapter was challenging from various angles. It had to be drafted

within a limited timeframe of two weeks to meet the deadline for inclusion in the PrepCom

agenda. It was to be written in a manner that would enjoy the support of the delegations of a

large number of mountain countries. Thus, the text of the chapter had to reflect the joint

interests of diverse mountain ranges globally. This was a difficult task, needing high degree of

professional capabilities and diplomatic competences. To start with, the mountain countries

had no clear views on the priority issues to be included in the chapter. Subsequently, in

October 1991, after several rounds of discussions in Geneva and persistent efforts,

Bandyopadhyay was able to complete the chapter text and handed it over to the UNCED

Secretariat in Geneva.

By the end of the PrepCom meeting held in New York in early 1992, it became clear that a

new chapter on the mountains would be included in Agenda - 21. The hard work and

perseverance of the Mountain Agenda collective paid off when the world’s mountains finally

received the attention of the highest order after the official recognition and formal inclusion as

Chapter 13 - “Managing Fragile Ecosystems: Sustainable Mountain Development” in the Rio

Summit. It implied a change from the fragmented sectoral approach to one that provided an

integrated approach to development of the mountains, as unique fragile ecosystems.

4. From Rio to Johannesburg: Two Decades of Achievements

4.1 Designation of FAO as the Task Manager for Chapter 13 and the CSD Review

The inclusion of the independent chapter on the mountains in Agenda 21 provided a wider

platform for the UN to work on sustainable mountain development. The UN Commission on

Sustainable Development (CSD) got established for reviewing the progress in the

implementation of the Agenda-21. Further, in September 1993, the UN Inter-agency

Committee on Sustainable Development appointed the UN Food and Agricultural

Organisation (FAO) as the ‘Task Manager’ for Chapter 13. The responsibilities of the FAO as

the Task Manager included its making close alliance with other international organisations,

non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and governments to help implement Chapter 13

through regular meetings, updates and effective communication system. Strengthening

information exchange, synergising collaborative activities, developing mutual strategies and

ensuring co-operation also fell in its working agenda.

Since then, FAO has helped in spreading awareness of the importance of mountain

ecosystems by implementing a global communications programme and supporting more than

60 multistakeholder national committees for the development of strategic plans, policies and

laws for sustainable mountain development. However, one of the most important

responsibilities of FAO was to report on implementation of Agenda 21 through task manager

reports - the working documents which subsequently become reports of the UN Secretary

General to the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). FAO has also taken concrete

steps to promote the objectives defined under Agenda 21. A number of regional inter-

governmental consultations on the implementation of Chapter 13 have also been organised, in

particular the convening and chairing of the ad hoc Inter-Agency Group on Mountains.

At the third session of the CSD in April 1995, a review of the implementation of Agenda 21

and its individual chapters was carried out. In its Report, the Commission recognised that,

“Mountain ecosystems and environments are of crucial importance as rich and unique centres

of biological and cultural diversity, water stores and sources of minerals” (CSD, 1995).

Additionally, it recognised the need for an interdisciplinary approach towards mountain

management and advocated effective participation and involvement of mountain people, such

that they have greater control over their local resources. Moreover, the protection of women’s

rights and those of indigenous people and their unique knowledge base was conceived. The

commission also commented on the “need to examine the relationship of Chapter 13 with

other chapters of Agenda 21 and with the global conventions and to analyse the extent to

which concerns of mountain areas can be better integrated into their follow-up”.

In June 1997, the world’s attention once again focussed on the issue of sustainable

development, when governments met in New York for the special session of the UN General

Assembly (UNGASS) to review the achievements and failures in the implementation of

Agenda 21. Defining the priorities for post-97 period, the final document mentioned about the

continued deterioration of mountain ecosystems, the need for an ecosystem approach to

combat soil degradation, to implement policies for integrated watershed management and of

sustainable consumption and production patterns in tourism.

4.2 Mountain Forum Network Established

In March 1994, FAO convened in Rome the first meeting of an ad hoc interagency network

on follow-up to Chapter 13. Attended by representatives from both the UN organisations and

CIP, ICIMOD, IMS, IUFRO and The Mountain Institute (TMI), it observed that though the

involvement of the NGOs were not possible in the preparation of Chapter 13, they would

nonetheless play a substantial role in its implementation.

Recognising the need for coordination between various cross-cultural researches, the second

interagency meeting of FAO in Lima (1995) led to an international collaboration of Non-

Governmental organisations (NGOs), universities, governments and multilateral agencies.

This gathering endorsed an idea of establishing an electronic network linking all those

interested and concerned with the development of world’s mountains. Known as ‘Mountain

Forum’, this “federation of networks” provided a global connectivity of people working on

sustainable mountain development. With financial support from the Swiss Government, over

the last few years, the structure of the Mountain Forum has developed to include a global

node at TMI for coordinating international organizations and entities; and regional nodes for

the Asia-Pacific, Latin American and European regions, hosted by ICIMOD, CIP and IUCN,

respectively. Such diversified fields of activities have enabled the Mountain Forum Network

to have a global spread.

4.3 World Summit 2002 and International Year of the Mountains

The Rio Earth Summit in 1992 had given a succinct start to a long-term process that shifted

global attention to the mountains as a separate distinct entity. It gave an official status to the

mountains at the UNCED and guaranteed further political, institutional and economic support.

The progress made in promoting the mountains in the global environmental agenda has been

satisfactory. The idea of proposing “mountains as the theme for an international year was first

put forward by the President of the Kyrgyzstan Republic at an international conference

entitled ‘Mountain Research: Challenges for the 21st Century’ convened in Bishkek, 1996.

Subsequently, the idea received strong support in the Economic and Social Council after it

was officially presented to the Secretary General of the UN. The General Assembly adopted

the Resolution 53/24 in its 53rd Session in 1998 in which it proclaimed that the year 2002

would be observed as the ‘International Year of the Mountains’. It was further decided that

FAO would act as the lead agency in collaboration with UNEP, UNDP and UNESCO, other

relevant organisation of the UN systems and the NGOs. The mission statement of the

International Year of Mountains (IYM) promoting “the conservation and sustainable

development of mountain regions, thereby ensuring the well-being of mountain and lowland

communities” provided a platform to reinforce the long-term process started at UNCED for

ensuring concrete action for sustainable mountain development.

The resolution in effect encouraged Governments, the United Nations system and all other

actors to take advantage of the Year to increase awareness of the importance of sustainable

mountain development. This was reason enough for the global mountain community to

rejoice, since this came as an endorsement of years of hard work that has gone into projecting

mountains as areas in need of urgent global attention. Activities on Chapter 13 shifted to a

new and decisive path with the launch of the IYM.

However, IYM should not be considered merely a period of isolated events, but rather as an

important step within the long-term process that begun at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.

Issues of sustainability of mountains were taken up in the Johannesburg Summit in 2002 and

concrete steps were identified to help alleviate poverty and environmental degradation. An

‘International Partnership for Sustainable Development of Mountain Regions’ was also

launched by FAO, UNEP and the Government of Switzerland on behalf of the 15 member

countries of the International Year of Mountain Focus Group at the Summit. The declaration

reinforced the Focus Group's support for an emerging International Partnership for the

Sustainable Development of Mountain Regions. In the declaration, the Focus Group agreed to

develop and strengthen existing communication networks to increase awareness of mountain

problems, to promote exchange of knowledge and to encourage the establishment of long-

term institutional and policy frameworks for sustainable development.

Further, the World Summit on Sustainable Development in August 2002, was the precursor to

another important event held two months later - the Bishkek Global Mountain Summit

(BGMS). This event, described as the culmination of the observation of the International Year

of the Mountains, held in October 2002 in Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan, enshrined the

active participation for sustainable development through creation of partnerships and

decentralized development. Speculating that additional efforts are needed for concrete actions

to enhance the sustenance of mountain inhabitants and communities, it was proposed that

local community be involved in the development and management of the natural resources.

The main outcome of the Summit was the ‘Bishkek Mountain Platform’ to provide guidance

and framework for all stakeholders to act together towards sustainable mountain development

at all scales. Seeing it as an important platform for achieving the Millennium Development

Goals – the main objective of the Platform is to continue with existing initiatives and to

develop substantive efforts by mobilising resources, giving orientation and guidance, and

promoting synergies. Recognising the challenges that mountains as a fragile ecosystem and its

inhabitants face, the declaration also embodies a commitment to protecting the Earth's

mountain ecosystems, eliminating poverty and food insecurity in mountain areas, promoting

peace and economic equity, and providing support for current and future generations of

mountain people- in short, to create the conditions in which they can shape their own goals

and aspirations.

5. The New Paradigm of the Mountain Perspective

During the period the UN system was giving the much overdue recognition to the world’s

mountains, some significant contributions were also emerging in the conceptualisation of the

practical challenges in the mountains. The understanding of sustainable mountain

development was going through something like a paradigm shift. While there are opinions

that each mountain is an entity by itself, several analysts have tried to find the general features

of these three dimensional landscapes. Price and Kim (1999) observed that, “Given the very

different characteristics of the world’s diverse mountain regions, even on one continent, it is

probably best not to propose a precise definition of sustainable mountain development, but to

recognize that it is a regionally specific process of sustainable development that concerns both

mountain regions and populations living downstream or otherwise dependent on these regions

in various ways”.

On the other hand, especially in the last two decades, many mountain scholars have focussed

their attention on the specific nature of the relationship between ecology and economy in the

mountains, as exemplified by an article by Aldo Leopold (1949) entitled 'Thinking like a

Mountain'. Analysts like Jodha have tried to look at the mountains from a viewpoint of their

similarities. With frequent non-performance of designs and development projects meant for

the mountains, the efforts to identify the unique features of the mountains became more

intense in the 1970s. Since then, mountain scholars have argued that researchers, planners and

development specialists need to adopt a mountain perspective as a corrective to flatland,

lowland assumptions and programming which do not match mountain needs (Guillet, 1983;

Rhoades and Thompson, 1975; Rhoades, 1989). This has been identified as a 'plains' bias' by

Bandyopadhyay (1991).

The 'plains' bias' is not necessarily a viewpoint held by the people living in the plains. By

virtue of the cultural domination of the economically more advanced plains over the less

developed mountains, the biased perspectives on the mountains have also established itself in

the minds of many educated people in the mountains. This bias has successfully spread

through the educational materials in the mountains, which are largely designed in and

imported from institutions in the plains. Thus, even the educated elite of the mountain

population frequently suffers from such one-sided views and remains quite unaware of the

real economic potentials of the mountain areas.

Work towards the making of a 'mountain perspective' has reached a stage that it is now

possible to hope that in the next few years, an effective analytical tool will be available for

providing such a perspective. In this process, Jodha (1995) has made pioneering contributions.

In his description and elaboration of the mountain perspective, Jodha (2000:547) has used five

'mountain specificities' to identify the specific features of the mountain environment and

economies as opposed to the plains. Three of them, inaccessibility, fragility and marginality

have been seen by Jodha as constraining biophysical features, while the other two, diversity

and niche, are taken as provider of positive opportunities for mountain development.

Insensitivity to, or lack of recognition of these specificities are identified as the reasons for

development projects or economic activities having the plains' bias and not being successful

in delivering the projected results to the mountains (Jodha and Shrestha, 1994).

Inspired by and diversifying from the original analysis of Jodha (1990), a little different

approach to evolving a mountain perspective has been used by Bandyopadhyay (1992). He

has described the important environmental and socio-economic features of the mountains with

the help of several 'mountain characteristics'. This identification of the mountain

characteristics is a bit different from the five mountain specificities described by Jodha. In

addition, Bandyopadhyay presents these mountain characteristics in an inter-related

framework, as a result of which, they are shown to have a causal link with each other.

5.1 The Mountain Characteristics

The mountain perspective is seen to be standing on the understanding of several mountain

characteristics. The various mountain characteristics are presented below and their

interlinkages described. The mountain characteristics are divided in three categories. Those

related to the natural environment will first be described, followed by those related to the

socio-economic spheres. The environmental characteristics of the mountains exist naturally

and have functioned independent of human presence or interventions in the mountains. The

socio-economic characteristics are obviously related to and based on the presence of humans

in the mountains and their interaction with their natural environment. The analysis presented

below should be seen as an evolving analysis and at this stage these characteristics and their

implications should be taken as indicative. In the future years, further refinement of this

analysis is sure to take place.

.

5.1.1 The Environmental Characteristics

The absolutely common minimum identification of all the mountains in the world is their

three dimensional landscape. This is described as vertical formation or verticality (Figure 1).

In addition, slope is included as part of this mountain characteristic. In this analysis these two

features are considered to be the most fundamental and distinctive feature of the mountains.

As a result, these are jointly identified as the primary that is the fundamental, environmental

characteristics of the mountains. The vertical formation and slope express themselves further

in the form of several other environmental characteristics of the mountains, which will be

described below.

Due to their vertical formation and slope, the mountains are also structurally fragile. The very

tectonic movements that contribute to their vertical growth also contribute to the fragility of

the mountain through regular seismic activities. Accordingly, structural fragility is identified

as the first and foremost among the various environmental characteristics of the mountains.

The operational aspects of this characteristic needs to be separately examined in the context of

individual mountain areas and be given due importance in the designing of engineering

interventions, like construction of roads or dams, land development, location of recreational

parks, etc.

The interaction of verticality, atmospheric circulation, aspect, incident solar radiation, etc.

creates the condition for the existence of a great mosaic of climatic diversity within the

mountains. These various parameters operate to change the factors like precipitation, soil

moisture, temperature, period of daylight availability, ground cover, physical characteristics

of the soil, etc. over short spatial distances. Strong variations in the climate also occur during

different parts of the year. All this, in turn, provides the conditions for the emergence of the

rich biological diversity in the mountains This richness of climatic and biological diversity

together is identified as an environmental characteristic of the mountains.

Primary Characteristics

Environmental Characteristics

Figu

By virtue of the prim

barriers to the atmo

with the global atmo

the atmosphere on t

and rain on the win

receive very little p

ample precipitation

the mountains.

The fourth and the l

their ecological com

Vertical Formationand Slope

RelativeInaccessibility

Climatic andBiological Diversity

High Level ofPrecipitation

EcologicalComplexity

StructuralFragility

Socio-Economic Implications of EnvironmentalCharacteristics

re 1: The various 'mountain characteristics' and their implications

ary characteristic of vertical formation, the mountains stand as effective

spheric circulation. With this capacity, they make important interactions

spheric circulations and extract very large amounts of precipitation from

heir windward slopes. This results in a much larger precipitation of snow

dward mountain slopes. In contrast, the leeward faces of the mountains

recipitation. With this role of hydrological influence imparted by them,

on the windward side is taken as another environmental characteristic of

ast environmental characteristic of the mountains proposed in this paper is

plexity. The factors like vertical formation, slope, structural fragility,

Storage Sitesand Hydro-

potential

MarginalityCostEnhancementfrom Fragility

ClimaticAdvantagesand Hazards

climatic diversity etc. attribute a great amount of complexity in the ecological processes

operating in the mountains. Much of the ecological linkages are still not systematically

studied and understood. This is what Thompson and Warburton (1985) have described as

‘uncertainty’ in the case of the Himalaya, which is a reflection on the lack of a comprehensive

knowledge on the ecological complexity of the mountains.

5.1.2 The Socio-Economic Characteristics

The environmental characteristics exert important influence on the opportunities and risks

associated with economic activities in the mountains. By informed selection, the humans can

obtain crucial support from the environmental characteristics for their economic activities.

Mountain communities have developed the art of making use of the favourable elements of

the natural environment, and protecting themselves from the hazardous ones. For example,

heavy snowfall becomes a hazard, when movement of vehicles is affected by blockades to

road transportation. The same climatic characteristic has proved to be an important niche, if

the snowfall is used in running a skiing facility.

On a superficial reading, the socio-economic implications can be interpreted as a product of

environmental determinism. However, the reality of the close linkages between the natural

environment, economy and culture of the mountain communities and the crucial dependence

of the traditional mountain economies on the local natural resources can not be wished away.

The socio-economic implications of the environmental characteristics of the mountains are

identified as their 'socio-economic characteristics'. Unlike the environmental characteristics,

these characteristics become operational only when the human beings are present in the

mountains or are undertaking some economic activities therein.

When a particular socio-economic characteristic can be used to promote some economic

activity, it becomes a mountain niche. When an environmental characteristic puts an obstacle

for any economic activity, it becomes a mountain hazard. In the presentation of mountain

specificities, Jodha identified 'niche' itself as a specificity of the mountains. In this

presentation, the view is taken that there are some niche or the other in all types of

ecosystems. The task is to correctly identify them. For example, the deltaic ecosystems have a

niche that favours aquaculture and the people living in these ecosystems have been practicing

a profitable fishing economy.

Relative Inaccessibility

The foremost among the socio-economic characteristics of the mountains is their relative

inaccessibility. The primary mountain characteristic of vertical formation and slope make the

movement of humans or goods in the mountains very energy intensive, hazardous, and thus,

costly in terms of both time and energy. The relative inaccessibility and the high energy needs

for transportation have played a key role in determining the distribution of human settlements

and limiting the size of the local economies in the mountains. It has also stood as a decisive

obstacle to the growth of large human settlements in the mountains. The structural fragility of

the mountains, as expressed through the frequent occurrence of earthquakes, cloud bursts,

landslides, avalanches, etc., induce further restrictions on transportation and adds to the

degree of inaccessibility.

Humans have challenged this inaccessibility with their own muscle power and of their

animals of burden. In recent decades, with the extension of mechanised transportation

systems, like roadways, ropeways, railways, etc. and in particular, the beginning of air

transportation, there has been a drastic reduction in the level of inaccessibility in and to

selected mountain areas. Time required for the movement of humans or goods has thus been

reduced by orders of magnitude. This has enhanced the scale of movement of people and

goods between the plains and the mountains.

Jodha has identified inaccessibility as mountain specificity and seen it as a limiting factor to

mountain development. While it is generally true, improved accessibility may not always be

economically positive in the mountains. With rapid increase in physical accessibility to the

mountains provided by the spreading of the mechanical transportation systems, there has been

an upsurge in adventure tourism, eco-tourism and wilderness trips in the mountains. For many

mountain countries, like Nepal, Peru, Switzerland, tourism has emerged as an important

industry providing a large part of the national income. Tourists from the plains come to the

mountains to reach areas with difficult access, serene environment, tough treks or rafting

down the unpolluted rapids. They come to scale the mountains where physical accessibility is

very limited and hazardous. In short, they come to pay for getting a chance to overcome the

mountain inaccessibility.

As areas with inaccessibility become scarce and in short supply, its demand will grow and it

will fetch a better price. After all, the challenge of reaching the most inaccessible point in all

the mountains, Mount Everest (8848 masl), fetches a very high revenue. Inaccessibility, thus

can be both a mountain hazard, as much a niche. In making the economic strategy for the

mountains, the potentials of inaccessibility as a natural capital need to be kept in mind. In

making a comprehensive plan for tourism, an intelligent mix of accessibility and

inaccessibility could provide the basis of a flourishing tourist economy.

Cost Enhancement from Fragility

After inaccessibility, one other environmental characteristic of the mountains, structural

fragility has an equally strong influence on the socio-economic scenario in the mountains.

Fragility is a clear obstacle to all forms of human economic activities. Earthquakes over large

areas in many mountain areas have devastated human settlements and caused loss of lives.

Location of villages and architectural design of traditional houses reflect serious observations

of the risks from mudflows or landslides. Examples of choice of location and design for a

construction activity made without adequate considerations of the fragility of the mountains

are not difficult to come by. The case of the Sunkosi Power House in Central Nepal may be

cited as an example in this respect (Pokharel, 2001).

In more recent times, with the availability of better knowledge on the causes of fragility,

design of more stable roads, bridges, dams, buildings etc. have become possible. However,

there is a cost associated with this overcoming environmental characteristic of fragility, which

will continues to impose a high cost for construction and maintenance of buildings and

structures. Since the socio-economic implications of fragility are widespread and important,

cost enhancement from fragility is identified as a significant socio-economic characteristic of

the mountains. However, it will be a grave mistake to ignore this characteristic, to make

construction projects cheaper.

Climatic Advantages and Hazards

Climatic diversity in the mountains has a large expanse and can change significantly within

small altitudinal changes. Somewhere it can take a hazardous form, like snowstorms and act

as obstacles for economic activities. At some other locations, it can perform as an effective

niche, providing salubrious climate while the surrounding plains below are much warmer

during the summer. Traditional economic practices in all the mountain areas have evolved

with due caution towards the hazardous aspects of climatic diversity. New economic activities

in the mountains can be sustainable if they are chosen after adequate examination of climatic

diversity, both as a niche and also as a hazard. For example, location of orchards should not

only consider the availability of chill and sunshine, but it should also explore whether the

areas are prone to hailstorms. Ski slopes should not only be set up on the basis of favourable

snowfall data, but also after examining whether the areas are prone to avalanches. One of the

most successful identification and use of the climatic advantages is exemplified in the case of

the growth of tea cultivation in the Darjeeling area in the Indian Himalaya. Tea plants were

brought from Tibet to Darjeeling by the British and this area has now been transformed to be

a world leader in the production of high quality fragrant tea, leading to economic development

in a mountain region spread over hundreds of sq kms. Another example is the use of the

cleaner mountain environment for the commercial production of seeds. In tropical mountains,

the availability of cooler weather conditions at higher altitudes offer a niche for growing

winter vegetables to be exported to the plains, where the summer temperatures act as a serious

constraint for their production.

Biodiversity is considered in this analysis as an exclusive mountain niche, with no hazard

associated. At the smaller scale of ecosystems, biodiversity of the mountains, in conjunction

with modern biotechnology, holds the promise of making revolutionary contributions to the

production of both food and medicines. The economic potentials of innovative, profitable and

sustainable use of climatic and biological diversity in the mountains is really very large. The

identification of ways for making it, however, is not easy and also not very clear. The

biodiversity of many mountain areas and the economic potentials latent in it, have not yet

been well explored. Much of the basic work on the inventory of biodiversity has not yet been

undertaken, even at the level of species (Heywood and Baste, 1995). Advantages (including

those expressed through biodiversity) and hazards posed by the mountain climate are

considered as socio-economic characteristics of all mountain areas.

Storage Sites and Hydro-potential

There is one more socio-economic characteristic of the mountains, which, in the recent past,

has become quite significant. The mountain areas create rich water resources, the demand for

which is growing very rapidly in the densely populated plains. This growing demand is

generated by the needs from irrigation, industrial supplies and domestic water supplies in the

plains. The primary mountain characteristic of vertical formation or three dimensional

landscape offers a niche, that makes available very suitable natural sites for the construction

of large storage dams that could regulate the flow of water downstream and also generate

hydro-power. This is why the mountains have been identified as the water towers of the world

(Bandyopadhyay, 1996). This easy possibility of storing more water in the uplands has led to

the construction of many storage dams in the mountains. Today, storage and economic use of

their rich water resources have become integral parts of the economic development activities

of almost all mountain areas. Industrially advanced mountain countries, like Switzerland,

generate a very large part of their electricity supplies from hydroelectric plants on mountain

rivers. On this basis, storage sites and hydro-potential are described as another socio-

economic characteristic. It is a possible mountain niche of great potential. However, it can

turn out to be a mountain hazard. The environmental characteristic of fragility pose important

technological challenges, as has developed in relation to the seismic risks and safety of dam

structures on the Himalayan rivers. In another way, this availability of storage sites and

hydro-potential has turned to be a mountain hazard. However, in the event of the mountain

characteristic of marginality (described below) being operational in a mountain area, it has

been observed that the mountain communities are systematically forced to make a lot of social

and economic sacrifices for the construction of dams. In contrast, most of the benefits from

these projects accrue to the economies in the near and distant plains. This makes the

availability of storage sites emerge as a hazard, as exemplified by the numerous movements

of mountain communities against dams in their homelands (Bandyopadhyay, 2002).

Marginality

Due to difficult access and inhospitable environment, mountain communities frequently

acquire another socio-economic characteristic, marginality. 'Governments tend to perceive

mountains as unfavourable places for regional development. In self-fulfilling prophecies,

mountains become even more marginalised regions' (Libiszewski and Baechler, 1997:123).

The economic linkages between the plains and the mountains are often found to be similar to

that between the economic core and the periphery, which is bound to accentuate over-

exploitation of the mountain communities and environment without adequate compensation

(Banskota and Sharma, 1999). Instances of mountain communities being culturally

marginalised are available the world over and derogatory implications of their ethnic

identities are frequently apparent (Groetzbach and Stadel, 1997:18). Examples of their

political and economic marginalisation are also available widely in their economic dealings

with the plains in natural resources or other products. Such relationships are characterised by

structural and operational inequities, resulting in selective overexploitation of some raw

materials (Mahat, 1985).

This marginalisation is particularly apparent today in the mountains of the countries of the

South, like the Himalaya and the Andes. Conditions of marginality provide the basis for the

heavy concentration of military conflicts in these areas (Libiszewski and Baechler, 1997:104-

5). There are, however, instances in history of mountain areas not being marginalised all the

time. The case of the Inca Empire in Peru provides an important example. Also, in many

industrially advanced countries, with the drastic reduction in inaccessibility and with

increased access to higher education leading to capacity building in business management, the

marginalisation of the mountainous areas is getting removed quite fast. The cases of more

recent socio-economic transformations in the Swiss Alps (Brugger et al. 1984) indicates that

political-economic marginality can be overcome with better management of the natural

resources and an informed policy framework.

6. New Beginnings for Sustainable Mountain Development

Thus, with the enhancement of accessibility and with better education in the mountains, this

political and cultural marginalisation may soon get reduced. Nevertheless, one category of

marginality will remain permanently with the mountains, and that is physical marginality, like

in terms of land capability. While the political and cultural forms of marginality in the

mountains can be eliminated with appropriate social mobilisation and policies, it is this

physical marginality that will remain permanently in the mountains as an obstacle to

economic development and deserves serious considerations in decisions related to land use

and farming. The global recognitions received from the various international platforms and

the intellectual attention in relation to conceptualising sustainable mountain development has

provided the people in the mountains and all mountain lovers an important tool for moving

the mountains upwards in the global environmental agenda. Information on this process of the

mobilisation of the global opinion in favour of the mountains need to be recorded and spread.

Further, it is hoped that this will lead to a permanent end to the marginalisation of the

mountain areas with the mountain people having a new and more informed beginning that

will enable them to face the process of globalisation from a position of confidence and

strength.

References

Bandyopadhyay, J. (1991) ‘Mountain Development: Plains Bias’, Himal Magazine,Kathmandu, 4(1): 34

Bandyopadhyay, J. (1992) ‘From Environmental Conflicts to Sustainable MountainTransformations’ in D. Ghai, and J. Vivian (eds) Grassroots Environmental Action:People’s Participation in Sustainable Development (London: Routledge)

Bandyopadhyay, J. (1996) ‘Water Towers of the World’, People & the Planet, Vol. 5(1)

Bandyopadhyay, J. et al., (1997) ‘Highland waters-a resource of global significance’ inMountains of the World-A Global Priority (New York: Parthenon Publishing Group)p.131-56

Bandyopadhyay, J. and D. Gyawali (1994) 'Himalayan Water Resources: Ecological andPolitical Aspects of Management’ Mountain Research and Development 14 (1):1-24

Bandyopadhyay, J. and S. Perveen (2002) ‘Advent of Chapter-13 in Agenda-21 and theFuture Directions of the Global Campaign for Sustainable Mountain Development’

Paper presented at the National Workshop on Sustainable Mountain Development, GBPant Institute for Himalayan Environment and Development, Kosi-Katarmal, Almora,Uttaranchal, 09-10 December

Bandyopadhyay, J. and S. Perveen (2004) ‘Emergence of and Future Steps for SustainableMountain Development in the Global Environmental Agenda’ in Treves T., L.Pineschi and A. Fodella (Eds.) (2004) Protection of Mountain Areas in InternationalLaw: Rio, Johannesburg and Beyond (Milan: Giuffrè) forthcoming

Banskota, M. (1994) ‘Sustainable Development of Mountain Areas: Restoring theEnvironment and Combating Poverty’ Regional Conference Report on SustainableDevelopment of Mountain Fragile Areas (Nepal, ICIMOD)

Banskota, K. and B. Sharma (1999) Traded Resource Flows from Highland to Lowland:Understanding Economic Linkages (Kathmandu, ICIMOD).

Barthlott, W., W. Lauer and A. Placke (1996) ‘Global distribution of species diversity onvascular plants: towards a world map of phytodiversity’ Erdkunde, 50: 317-327

Brugger E. A., G. Furrer, B. Messerli and P. Messerli (Eds) (1984) The Transformation of Swiss Mountain Regions (Bern, Verlag Paul Haupt)

Byers, E. (1995) ‘Mountain Agenda: Environmentally Sustainable and EquitableDevelopment Opportunities’, The Mountain Institute, USA(www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/byere95a.htm)

CSD (1995) Mountains - Decisions of the General Assembly and the Commission onSustainable Development, United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development,3rd Session New York, 11-28 April 1995

(http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/sdissues/mountain/mount1.htm)

Denniston, D. (1995) ‘High Priorities: Conserving Mountain Ecosystems and Culture’,Worldwatch Paper No. 123, Worldwatch Institute, Washington DC

Denniston, D. (1996) ‘People and Mountains: Pinnacles of Diversity’, People & the Planet,Vol.5 (1)

Dhar, U. and P. Kachroo (1983) Alpine Flora of Kashmir Himalaya (Jodhpur:ScientificPublishers)

Dudley, N. (1992) Forests in Trouble: A Review of the Status of Temperate ForestsWorldwide (Gland: WWF International)

Eckholm, E. (1976) Losing Ground, World Watch Institute (New York: W.W.Norton)

FAO (1993) ‘Forest Resources Assessment 1990-Tropical Countries’ Forestry Paper No. 112(Rome: Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations)

FAO (2000) FAO Announces International Year of Mountains in 2002: Sounds Alarm onDegradation of Mountain Environments, Mountain Forum Bulletin, 3(2) September

Grotzbach, E. and C. Stadel (1997) ‘Mountain Peoples and Cultures’ in Mountains of theWorld-A Global Priority (New York: Parthenon Publishing Group)

Guillet, D. G. (1983) ‘Towards a Cultural Ecology of the Mountains: the Central Andes andthe Himalayas Compared’ Current Anthropology 24:561-74

Hamilton, L.S. (1995) ‘The productive role of mountain forests’ In N.J.R. Allan (Eds.)Mountains at Risk (New Delhi, Manohar) pp.49-69

Hamilton, L. S., D. A. Gilmour and D. S. Cassells (1997) ‘Montane Forests and Forestry’ inMountains of the World-A Global Priority (New York: Parthenon Publishing Group)

Heywood, V. H. and I. Baste (1995) Global Biodiversity Assessment (Cambridge, CambridgeUniversity Press)

International Year of Mountains (IYM) 2002 official website: (www.mountains2002.org/issues/i-bio.html) (www.mountains2002.org/issues/i-forests.html) (http://www.mountains2002.org/issues/i-water.html)

IUCN (1995) Mountains of Central and Eastern Europe (Gland: IUCN)

Jenik, J. (1997) ‘The Diversity of Mountain Life’ in Mountains of the World-A GlobalPriority (New York: Parthenon Publishing Group)

Jodha, N. S. (1990) ‘Mountain Perspective and Sustainability: A Framework for DevelopmentStrategies’ (Kathmandu, ICIMOD)

Jodha, N. S. (1995) Transition to Sustainability in the Next Century: Hopes and Dismays inMountain Regions WRI 2050 Project (Washington DC: World Resources Institute)

Jodha, N. S. (2000) 'Poverty alleviation and sustainable development in mountain areas: roleof highland-lowland links in the context of rapid globalisation' in M. Banskota, T. S.Papola and J. Richter (Eds.) Growth, Poverty Alleviation and Sustainable ResourceManagement in the Mountain Areas of South Asia (Feldafing, Deutsche Stiftung furinternationale Entwicklung)

Jodha, N. S. and S. Shrestha (1994) 'Sustainable and More Productive Mountain Agriculture:Problems and Prospects' Proceedings of the International Symposium on MountainEnvironnment and Development (Kathmandu: ICIMOD).

Johnson, N., A. White, Perrot-Maitre D. (2001) ‘Developing Markets for Water Services fromForests: Issues and Lessons for Innovators’ Forest Trends, World Resources Institute,The Katoomba Group Washington, DC

Kapos, V., J. Rhind, M. Edwards, M.F. Price and C. Ravilious (2000) ‘Developing a map ofthe world’s mountain forests’ In M.F. Price and N. Butt (Eds.) Forests in sustainablemountain development: A state-of-knowledge report for 2000 (Wallingford: CABInternational) p.4-9

Klemes, V (1988) Foreword in L. Molnar (ed.) Hydrology of mountainous areas, IAHSPublication No. 90

Koch-Weser, M. and L. Mills (2002) ‘Legal, economic, and compensation mechanisms insupport of sustainable mountain development’ Draft background paper for BishkekGlobal Mountain Summit 2002

Kreutzmann, H. (1996) Ethnizität im Entwicklungsprozeβ, Die Wakhis, In Hochasien,(Berlin:Dietrich Reimer Verlag) pp.488

Leopold, A. (1949) 'Thinking Like a Mountain' in A. Leopold A Sand Country Almanac -Essays on Conservation from Round River (New York and Oxford, Oxford UniversityPress):137-41.

Libiszewski, S. and G. Baechler (1997) 'Conflicts in mountain areas - a predicament forsustainable development' in B. Messerli and J. D. Ives (Eds) Mountains of the World:A Global Priority (Carnforth, Parthenon).

Mahat, T. B. S. (1985) Human Impacts on Forests in the Middle Hills of Nepal Ph. D. thesisin Forestry, Australian National University (Canberra).

Mayr, E. (1988) Toward a New Philosophy of Biology (Cambridge:Harvard University Press)

Messerli, B. and J.D. Ives (Ed.) (1997) Mountains of the World: A Global Priority (NewYork: Parthenon Publishing Group)

Meybeck, M., P. Green, and C. Vörösmarty (2001) ‘A New Typology for Mountains andOther Relief Classes: An Application to Global Continental Water Resources andPopulation Distribution’ Mountain Research and Development Vol. 21(1): 34-45.

Mountain Agenda (1998) Mountains of the world: water towers for the twenty-firstcentury’ (Bern, Mountain Agenda)

Mountain Agenda (1992) An Appeal for the Mountains, Bern, Mountain Agenda

Myers, N. (1988) ‘Tropical forests much more than stocks of wood’ Journal of TropicalEcology 4:1-13

Neustadtl, S. (1986) ‘Mountain People-A Searcher’s Guide’ In Mountain Peoples, CulturalSurvival Quarterly, 10(3):1-7, Cambridge, MA

Papola, T.S. (1999) ‘Mountain Enterprises for Sustainable Livelihoods’ in ICIMODNewsletter (No. 33, Spring), Kathmandu, Nepal

Pokharel, G. S. (2001) 'Geotechnical study of unstable slopes: a case study at Sunkoshipower-house site, Central Nepal' in Li Tianchi, S. R. Chalise and B. N. Upreti (Eds)Landslide Hazard Mitigation in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas (Kathmandu, ICIMOD).

Poore, D. (Eds.) (1992) ‘Guidelines for Mountain Protected Areas’, IUCN Protected AreaProgramme Series No. 2, Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas (Gland:IUCN)

Price, M.F. (1995) Mountain research in Europe: an overview of MAB research from thePyrenees to Siberia (Carnforth: Parthenon Publishing Group)

Price, M.F. and E. Kim (1999) ‘Priorities for sustainable mountain development in Europe’ inInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 6: 203-219

Reinhard, J. (1985) ‘Sacred Mountains: An Ethno-archaeological Study of High AndeanRuins’, Mountain Research and Development, 5(4):299-317

Rhoades, R. E. (1989) 'Thinking like a Mountain' ILEIA Newsletter 491: 3-5

Rhoades, R. E. and S. I. Thompson (1975) 'Adaptive Strategies in Alpine Environments:Beyond Ecological Particularism American Ethnologist 2:535-51

Rodda, J. C (1994) ‘Mountains - a hydrological paradox or paradise?’ Beiträge zurHydrologie der Schweiz (Bern and Birmensdorf) 35:41-51

Samant, S. S., U. Dhar and L. M. S. Palni (1998) ‘Medicinal Plants of Indian Himalaya’Himavikas, No. 13 (Almora: GBPIHED)

Schaaf, T. (1995) ‘UNESCO-MAB: integrated mountain research and environmentalconservation’ in A. Breymeyer (Eds.) Conference Paper No. 21 of EuroMAB IVSymposium on Mountain Zonality Pacing Global Change, p. 9-16. Institute ofGeography and Spatial Organisation, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw

Stone, P.B., (Eds.) (1992) The state of the World's Mountains: A Global Report (London: ZedBooks)

The Manyoshu: The Nippon Gakujutsu Shinkokai Translation of One Thousand Poems (1969)(New York: Columbia University Press)

Thompson M. and M. Warburton (1985) 'Uncertainty on a Himalayan Scale MountainResearch and Development 5(2): 115-35.

Thorsell, J. and J. Paine (1995) 'Mountain Parks and Reserves in the Andes' paper presented atII International Symposium on Sustainable Mountain Development, Bolivia, April

Thorsell, J. (1997) ‘Africa’s Mountain Parks and Reserves’ in F. Ojany, (Eds.) AfricanMountains and Highlands, Workshop Proceedings, Kenya (in press)

TMI and NCSS (1999) ‘Mountains: A Global Resource’ A special supplement prepared byThe Mountain Institute in partnership with National Council for the Social Studies,Maryland (www.socialstudies.org/resources/mountains/lessons.shtml)

UNEP (2002) Mountain Wildernesses: Increasingly Threatened by Farms, Roads, Fires andWars (London/Nairobi: GLOBIO) October

UNEP-WCMC (2002) Mountain Watch: the first global assessment of mountain ecosystems(http://www.unep-wcmc.org/mw_bishkek_presspack)

UNESCO-MAB (1973) Expert Panel on Project 6 - Impact of Human Activities on MountainEcosystems, Final Report, MAB Report Series No. 8, Paris, UNESCO

Villeneuve, A. A. Castelein and M. A. Mekouar (2002) Mountains and the Law - EmergingTrends, FAO Legislative Study - 75 (Rome, FAO)

WCED (1987) Our Common Future, World Commission on Environment and Development,(New York: Oxford University Press)

Wilson, E.O. (1992) The Diversity of Life (Cambridge: Harvard University Press)

Acknowledgement

The publication of the CDEP Occasional Paper Series has been made possible through theactive support of Prof. Amitava Bose, Ex-Director of IIM Calcutta and the continuedencouragement of the present Director, Prof. Shekhar Choudhuri. It is also the valuableinvolvement of Prof. Annapurna Shaw, Professor-in-charge of Publications at IIMC, thatworked as a very positive factor in the publication of this series. The CDEP expresses itssincere thanks to all of them.

About the Authors

Jayanta Bandyopadhyay, 56, is an engineering physicist by education. After completing hisPh. D. from IIT Kanpur, he shifted his professional interests towards the interdiscipline ofscience and public policy. After spending a brief period at MIT in Cambridge as a VisitingPost Doctoral Fellow, he had successively worked as faculty member in IIM Bangalore,ICIMOD Kathmandu and IAE Geneva. In 1997 he joined IIM Calcutta and took up thechallenging task of establishing the Centre for Development and Environment Policy (CDEP).His professional links with the mountains started with his field research on the naturalresource dynamics in the Uttaranchal area. After he joined ICIMOD, his research firstextended over the whole Hindu Kush-Himalayan region. Then, he started to take keen interestin critical issues related to the development of the mountains of the world. As a member ofthe initiating group of Mountain Agenda he carried the mantle of the Himalaya in the globalplatform of UNCED-1992. When he was asked by the UNCED Secretariat to draft the nowfamous Chapter 13 on Sustainable Mountain Development in Agenda-21, he viewed the taskas an opportunity to make a valuable gift from South Asia to the mountains of the world.

Contact: Jayanta Bandyopadhyay, Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, E-207, NewTeaching Block, Joka, D. H. Road, Kolkata – 700 104, India. Email: <jayanta@iimcal.ac.in>

Shama Perveen is a Junior Research Fellow at the Centre for Development and EnvironmentPolicy, Indian Institute of Management Calcutta. It was during her dissertation at the NationalThermal Power Corporation, for her Post Graduation in Environment Management, that shewas witness to the impoverishment risks entailed in any developmental project intervention atthe field level. Later she joined the Sunderban Biosphere Reserve Wing of the Department ofForests of the state of West Bengal. Whilst working on a UNDP project, on the BiodiversityManagement in the Sundarbans in India and Bangladesh, she got interested in issues related tothe conservation and sustainable development of natural ecosystems. Also a qualified leadauditor for ISO14000: Environmental Management Systems, she is keen on finding out thestrategies and tools for reconciling economic growth alongwith the maintenance of theecological equilibrium.

Contact: Shama Perveen, Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, E-107, New TeachingBlock, Joka, D. H. Road, Kolkata – 700 104, India. Email: <sperveen@iimcal.ac.in>