Mountain Laws and Peoples: Moving Towards Sustainable

1Michael Mills and Shivani Chaudhry of CIEL, Matthew Easton, an independent consultant, and especially Elizabeth Byers of TheMountain Institute, provided consistent and invaluable assistance in the preparation of this report. The information and constructive criti-cisms provided by the following external reviewers also greatly enhanced the final product: Andri Bisaz, Thomas Kohler, Yuri Badenkov,Martijn van Beek, El Hadji Sène, Harka Gurung, Bruno Messerli, Laurence Moss, Egbert Pelinck, Mahesh Banskota, Martin Price, PeterBlignaut, and Michael Wiehen. The authors are grateful to all of the above but take full responsibility for any errors or omissions.

Mountain Laws and Peoples:Moving Towards SustainableDevelopment and Recognitionof Community-Based Property RightsA General Overview of Mountain Laws and Policieswith Insights from the Mountain Forum’s Electronic Conferenceon Mountain Policy and Law

Owen J. Lynch and Gregory F. MaggioCenter for International Environmental LawWashington, DC, USA1

The Mountain Institute

Center for International Environmental Law

Mountain Forum

—2

—

Mountain Ranges of the World

MATHEW SHERALD, TMI GIS LAB, 1998

—3

—

Number Mountain Range1 Hindu Kush2 Himalayas3 Kunlun Mountains4 Tien Shan5 Altai Mountains6 Qilian Shan7 Ural8 Pyrenees9 Alps

10 Apennines11 Atlas Mountains12 Dinaric Alps13 Carpathians14 Balkan Mountains15 Caucasus Mountains16 Ethiopian Highlands17 Mitumbar Mountains18 Mutchinga Mountains19 Kjollen Range20 Brooks Range21 Alaska Range22 Coast Mountains23 Cascade Range24 Sierra Nevada Range25 Rocky Mountains26 Sierra Madre Occidental27 Vancouver Island28 Sierral Madre Del Sur29 Appalachian Mountains30 Ozarks31 Dry Andes (Antiplano)32 Jura Mountains33 Guiana Highlands

Number Mountain Range34 Brazilian Highlands35 Great Dividing Range36 Dawna Range37 Truong Son Range38 Pegunungan Barisan39 Pegunungan Iran40 Central Cordillera41 Kyushu-sanchi42 Aravalli Range43 Sierra de Gredos44 Sudetes45 Rhodope46 Wicklow Mountains47 Cambrian Mountains48 Northwest Highlands49 Grampian Mountains50 Karakoram51 Macdonnell Ranges52 Southern Alps53 Baffin Island54 Pegunungan Maoke55 Japan Alps56 Madagascar57 Massif Central58 Laurentides59 Drakensberg60 Sayan61 Chang-pai Shan62 Novaya Zemlya63 Iceland64 San Bernandino Mountains65 Kamchatka66 Chersky Range

Number Mountain Range67 Koryak Range68 Jabal Akhdar69 Jamaica70 Eastern African Highlands71 Taurus Mountains72 Asir73 San Gabriel Mountains74 Pontic Mountains75 Sierra Madre76 Adamawa Mountains77 Sardinia78 Western Ghats79 Eastern Ghats80 Wuyi Shan81 Tasmania82 Cordillera Central83 Pennine Chain84 Khrebet Dussye Alin85 Yablonovyy Khrebet86 Great Khingan Range87 Sierra Maestra88 Pinar Del Rio89 Arakan Yoma Range90 Khasi Naga Hills91 Sicily92 Cordillera de Talmanca93 Taiwan94 Pamirs95 Corsica96 Mindanao97 Maya Mountains98 Jebel Marra

100 Otway Ranges

Number Mountain Range101 Flinders Ranges102 Gory Putorana103 Sikote-Alin Range104 Cameron Highlands105 South Korea106 Pindhos107 Cordillera Cantabrica108 Zagros Mountains109 Kimberly Plateau110 Tibesti111 Ahaggar112 Matmata Mountains113 Sri Lanka114 Min Shan115 Tsinling Shan116 Ningling Shan, Bayan

Har, Dalou Shan117 Coastal Range118 Stirling Range119 Sierra Madre Oriental120 Plateau of Tibet121 Heard Island122 Antarctic Peninsula123 Transantarctic Mountains124 Queen Maud Land125 Enderby Land126 Greenland127 Cape Verde128 Fouta Djallom129 Nimba130 Humid Andes (Paramo)131 Semi-humid Andes

(Jalca)

— 4 —

Table of Contents

Foreword ............................................................................................................................................................ 5

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 6

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 8The Role of Law and Policy ........................................................................................................................ 8Legal Recognition of Community-Based Property Rights and Management ............................................. 10

Specific Characteristics of Mountain Ecosystems Relevant to Law and Policy .......................................... 11

International Law and Policies ........................................................................................................................ 14Law and Policy Distinguished .................................................................................................................... 14Hard Law Instruments ............................................................................................................................... 14Soft Law Instruments ................................................................................................................................. 18

National (Domestic) Laws and Policies .......................................................................................................... 23

Community-Based Legal Approaches .............................................................................................................. 28

Identification of Key Issues in Mountain Laws and Policies ........................................................................ 33

Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................. 35All Levels .................................................................................................................................................... 35International ............................................................................................................................................... 36National ..................................................................................................................................................... 36Local ........................................................................................................................................................... 38

References ......................................................................................................................................................... 39

Appendix A. List of Contributors to the Mountain Policy and Law E-Conference ............................................. 42

Appendix B. Bibliography of Mountain-Related Laws and Policies .................................................................. 43

Index ................................................................................................................................................................... 45

Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations .............................................................................................................. 48

FiguresFrontispiece: Mountain Ranges of the World .................................................................................................. 2

Figure 1. Mutually Reinforcing Levels of Law and Policy ....................................................................... 10Figure 2. Mountain Characteristics Relevant to Law and Policy ............................................................. 11

— 5 —

Foreword

OUNTAIN PEOPLES, many withthousands of years of experienceliving and working in their rug-ged environments, are overlookedstewards of fragile landscapes

that support over ten percent of the Earth’s population,and protect the watersheds that ensure freshwater for morethan half of humanity. The high variability of mountainecosystems makes them home to irreplaceable global trea-sures of biological diversity—a diversity that is protectedby mountain communities whose traditional lifestyles de-pend on intimate knowledge and sustainable use of theirnatural environment.

Especially in developing countries, however, there is amarked “vertical gradient of poverty” in mountains, thatmakes mountains home to some of the poorest people in theworld. Their poverty is increasing in most places, as devel-opment investments either ignore or exploit them. Moun-tain tourism now accounts for almost one-fifth of globaltourism revenues, or about US $70–90 billion annually; yetmountain communities share little of the profits. Nor domountain communities normally participate in decisions togrant timber licenses to log the remaining 25% of theworld’s forests that grow in upland areas—forests on whichmountain communities often depend for their very survival.They have minimal access to legal mechanisms for gainingrecognition of their community-based property rights, or toeducation, health care, markets, and especially, decision-making power. Yet few technologies, policies, or laws existto promote sustainable development for mountain peoples,or to protect the natural resources on which their future—and all of ours—depends.

In a few places, nevertheless, there are hopeful signs.Downstream communities are learning that investing inwatershed protection provides direct economic benefits,as well as ensuring environmental services such as cleanwater. Sustainable revenues from ecotourism depend onparticipation of mountain peoples in continued conserva-tion. Such impacts, documented in a previous MountainForum report, Investing in Mountains, have led to the de-velopment of special laws and policies designed to safe-guard mountain environments and cultures.

It is in this context that this ambitious report was under-taken. Through a unique partnership of the Mountain Forum,The Mountain Institute and the Center for InternationalEnvironmental Law (CIEL), we have undertaken a first-everexploration of the reality—and the potential—of law andpolicy to address the special and urgent issues facing moun-tain peoples and ecosystems. Using the Mountain Forum’s1997 electronic conference on “Mountain Policy and Law”as a starting point, the report systematically identifies andanalyzes laws and policies that exist in countries and regionsthroughout the world. The resulting report on Mountain Lawsand Peoples: Moving Towards Sustainable Development andRecognition of Community-based Property Rights is the onlycompilation on this subject. Its recommendations for actionat international, national, and local levels are expected to bea major contribution to policy makers and pragmatists alike.

The Mountain Forum is a global network of people andorganizations working toward equitable and ecologicallysustainable development. The Mountain Institute worksthrough local staff and partners in the Andes, Appala-chians, and Himalayan mountain ranges to strengthenmountain communities, to conserve their natural resourcesand cultural heritage while improving their livelihoods. TheCIEL draws on the energy and experience of the publicinterest environmental law movement to develop andstrengthen environmental law, policy, and managementthroughout the world. Together, we are pleased to presentthis report which we hope will contribute to forging a com-mon consensus for action as we approach the United Na-tions International Year of Mountains in 2002.

Mountain Forum Interim Board of DirectorsDr. Martin Price, Chairman of the Interim Board, European

Mountain Forum, Gland, SwitzerlandDr. Kwesi Atta-Krah, International Centre for Research in

Agroforestry, Nairobi, KenyaDr. J. Gabriel Campbell, International Centre for Integrated

Mountain Development, Kathmandu, NepalDr. D. Jane Pratt, The Mountain Institute, West Virginia, USAMs. Leslie Taylor, Banff Centre for Mountain Culture, Banff,

CanadaDr. Hubert Zandstra, International Potato Center, Lima, Peru

M

— 6 —

AWS AND POLICIES concerning thewell being of mountain peoples and theconservation and sustainable develop-ment of mountain peoples and ecosys-tems are relatively small in number. Yet

mountain areas are some of the most important regions inthe world and are environmentally, culturally, and economi-cally fragile. Using the Mountain Forum’s electronic con-ference on Mountain Policy and Law as a starting point,this report explores the role of law and policy in address-ing special characteristics of mountain peoples and eco-systems. It identifies and analyzes existing laws and poli-cies at the international, national, and local arenas, andmakes recommendations.

Law and policy have been identified in surveys andstudies as among the most important factors in thehealth of mountain communities and ecosystems, al-though their effect can be either positive or negative. Inorder to promote rather than undermine conservation andsustainable development, effective legal and policy in-struments need to address the specific realities of moun-tain domains and should be based on a principle ofsubsidiarity. This means allowing natural resource man-agement decisions to be made at the most appropriatelocal level. It likewise requires meaningful recognition ofthe special roles and potentials of local people directlydependent on mountain resources, sustained support forcommunity-based management strategies, and ensuringthat legal and policy instruments at different levels aremutually reinforcing.

Applying laws and policies that were enacted withlowland environments in mind to mountain areas canhave disastrous effects. Developing mountain-specific ap-proaches requires an understanding of what character-istics of mountains are unique. These characteristics in-clude economic and legal marginalization, isolation,transboundary location, diversity of livelihood strategies,cultural diversity, and environmental sensitivity and di-versity.

The need for mountain-specific legal approaches isbolstered by related trends towards community-based man-agement and control of natural resources. The “Mountain

Agenda” developed at the 1992 United Nations Conferenceon Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio deJaneiro helped fuel this growing recognition of the needfor a new paradigm in mountain resource management.This new paradigm calls for ensuring that mountain com-munities are able to participate fully in decision-makingon the use of natural resources they directly depend on fortheir lives and their livelihoods. A key component will entailthe legal recognition of community-based property rightsand the devolution of management authority to mountaincommunities, with government maintaining monitoring andregional coordination powers.

Realizing this paradigm will require a matrix of mutu-ally supporting laws and policies at the international, na-tional, and local levels. International law and policy canbe used as an important starting point to strengthen con-servation and sustainable development of mountain areas.This report explains the important distinction between softand hard law, and identifies the need for specific, bindinginstruments that focus directly on mountain communities,without losing sight of their broader contexts. Drawing asharp legal line differentiating mountain areas from theirsurroundings may in some cases be impractical and inad-visable.

Equitable, cost-effective conservation often relies onvoluntary, self-interested mechanisms, such as communityuser group codes of conduct, traditional tenure systems,and community-based enforcement. These approaches canhelp prevent illegal harvesting of resources, establish ef-fective and long-term sustainable use strategies, and pre-vent property rights from being arbitrarily transferred tocommercial developers who might disrupt the fragile eco-systems found in mountain regions.

National laws and policies remain key. The nationallaws of France and Austria, for example, single out moun-tains for their unique characteristics, leading to mountain-specific responses. At the same time they are comprehen-sive, helping to weave together separate elements ofeconomy and ecology, and conservation and sustainabledevelopment. National laws also provide a means of trans-lating broad international commitments into effective lo-cal implementation.

LExecutive Summary

Mountain Laws and Peoples: Moving Towards Sustainable Development 7

But international and national efforts will likely proveineffective, and may be destructive, without local inputand implementation. National policies often exploit moun-tain resources without adequately listening to local voicesand ensuring beneficial returns to the communities mostdirectly affected. Promoting conservation and sustainabledevelopment of mountain ecosystems requires that deci-sion-makers work together with local communities to en-sure that the laws and policies are appropriate.

Mountain regions also lack access to appropriate tech-nologies. This severely limits their economic growth andthe ability to respond to opportunities for the improvedmanagement and use of natural resources through, forexample, eco-tourism or the maintenance of biodiversity.Insufficient resources, knowledge and political commit-ment will hamper, and in some cases prevent, the localimplementation and enforcement of appropriate laws andpolicies.

Quechua women on pilgrimage to Qoyllur Riti festival near Cuzco, Peru.

JOH

AN

RE

INH

AR

D

— 8 —

Introduction

This report builds on the electronic conference. It pro-vides:

▲ an overview of the conference discussions;▲ details regarding specific characteristics of moun-

tains that are relevant to law and policy;▲ an exploration of existing and prospective legal and

policy mechanisms at international, national andlocal levels for promoting the well-being, integrity,and productivity of mountain peoples, including theconservation and sustainable management ofmountain ecosystems;

▲ an identification and analysis of theoretical andprocedural gaps; and,

▲ a list of legal and policy recommendations for themore effective promotion of the Mountain Agenda/Chapter 13.

The Role of Law and Policy

LAW HAS AN IMPORTANT, but by no means exclusive,role to play in promoting and securing the civil, political,economic, cultural and environmental rights of affectedgroups, and in ensuring that the benefits and burdens ofdevelopment are equitably distributed. The absence ofspecific laws and policies for addressing the unique hu-man and bio-geographical characteristics of mountain ar-eas occurs in the context of the broader failure of nationstates to develop appropriate domestic and internationallegal frameworks for human rights and community-basedmanagement of renewable natural resources.2 Indeed, theconservation, sustainable development and environmen-tal protection of forests and other natural resources hasfor too long been characterized by the failure of govern-ments to foster appropriate and equitable local incentives,legal and otherwise, for sustainable development (see e.g.,Lynch and Talbott 1995, Pimbert and Pretty 1995).

VARIOUS LEGAL AND POLICY instruments related to theexploitation, conservation and sustainable development ofnatural resources already exist. Few of these instrumentsfocus directly on mountain peoples and ecosystems. Atthe same time, a number of important factors make moun-tain peoples and ecosystems unique and require that spe-cific legal and policy tools be developed, applied and moni-tored.

A global blueprint for the sustainable development ofmountain resources, the “Mountain Agenda/Chapter 13,”was ratified during the 1992 United Nations Conferenceon Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio deJaneiro. Chapter 13 of Agenda 21 drew specific attentionto the challenges and opportunities confronting mountainpeoples and ecosystems, and identified priority areas foraction. The UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)subsequently recognized that “mountains represented anessential component for the global life-support system and[are] essential to the survival of the global ecosystem.” Torepresent the importance of mountains in our ecosystem,the United Nations has declared the year 2002 as the In-ternational Year of Mountains (ECOSOC 1998b).

Agenda 21 and subsequent documents, including theCommission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD)progress reports, and the ECOSOC resolution of July 1997,identify the importance of law in the promotion of moun-tain conservation and development. The 1997 Report ofthe Food and Agriculture Organization Task Manager onChapter 13 of Agenda 21, for example, cites “the need fornew or reinforced legal mechanisms (charters, conventions,national legislation, etc.) to protect fragile mountain eco-systems and promote sustainable development in moun-tain regions” (FAO 1997).

During the spring of 1997, the Mountain Forum hostedan e-mail conference on mountain law and policy. The con-ference was part of a series of “virtual” meetings hostedby the Mountain Forum in support of the “MountainAgenda/Chapter 13.” The high level of participationthroughout reflects keen interest in the topic and high-lights the importance of effectively addressing the issuesdiscussed.

2Rights of association, access to justice, access to informationand freedom of expression, are considered particularly critical forthe success of national human rights and environmental movements.


Simply stated, law and policy can either undermine orpromote conservation and sustainable development. Astudy by The Mountain Institute (TMI) of innovativemechanisms for financing conservation and sustainabledevelopment in mountainous regions around the world,found that legal, regulatory and enforcement structuresare important contributing factors. Indeed, no other con-tributing factors were as consistently identified (Preston1997). In one example, Nepal’s Community Forest Direc-tives 2052 (1995) shifted legal authority from the centralgovernment to local communities as part of a strategy forpromoting the sustainable management of mountain wood-lands that were previously suffering from accelerateddepletion and degradation. Sixty-seven percent of nearly1,000 respondents to a recent survey of non-governmen-tal organizations (NGOs) working on mountain issues feltthat “political decisions and legal prescriptions (or theirabsence or inability to enforce) are principally responsiblefor environmental degradation in mountain regions.” Thenext most important causes cited were developers/roadconstruction (43 percent) and tourists (33 percent) (Price1998).

The importance of legal strategies for promoting thewell-being of mountain peoples and ecosystems points tothe need for a new paradigm in natural resource manage-ment that is premised on a principle of subsidiarity. Inno-vative and integrated legal and policy agendas must re-flect a “mountain perspective” that brings together gov-ernment, businesses, local communities, and mainstreamsocieties in a comprehensive, democratic and equity-drivenprocess. At minimum, this approach should enable com-munities to participate in official decision-making pro-cesses concerning the use of natural resources they di-rectly depend on for their lives and their livelihoods. Thegoal in many instances should be to foster state/local com-munity partnerships that may also involve other actorssuch as NGOs and commercial enterprises.

A horizontal and vertical matrix of mutually support-ive law and policy relationships extending from the localto national, regional and international spheres is neededto promote the well-being of mountain peoples and eco-systems. International and national initiatives can learnmuch from local efforts that are already underway, andlocal initiatives can draw support from positive develop-ments underway on the international and national scenes.Some international instruments, such as the 1992 UNCEDForest Principles or the Convention on Biological Diver-sity for example, may appear as abstract global pronounce-ments with little connection to underlying realities. Localmanagement agreements linked to the aims of internationaltexts such as these, however, can create more authorita-tive legal mechanisms for promoting the well-being ofmountain peoples and the sustainable development ofmountain ecosystems.

Participants in the Mountain Forum’s electronic con-ference on “Mountain Policy and Law” indicated that themost promising initiatives are those in which nationalgovernments defer to local communities in setting up and

executing environmental and developmental projects. Quiteoften local populations have developed their knowledge ofmountain ecosystems over long periods of time (Byers andPreston 1997); much of this knowledge is a priceless in-tellectual resource. The participants largely agreed thatthe role of central governments should be to recognize thevalue of local knowledge and encourage, facilitate, sup-port and help coordinate local initiatives by mountainpeoples.

Legal strategies will inevitably vary depending oneach nation’s unique history, cultures and environments,but common themes can be identified. Rather than beingactive participants in project design and implementation,for example, there is widespread sentiment that nationalgovernments should let communities take responsibilityfor identifying their own solutions to challenges affect-ing their development (Hughey 1997). Oftentimes, ofcourse, the application of these solutions will requireexternal technical assistance for schools, health care,agroforestry and support for enterprise development andcommunications.

As defined by participants, “development” in the con-text of mountains and law should focus specifically uponenhancement of the welfare of human communities. Par-ticipants felt that any developmental processes or activi-ties leading to a reduction of the quality of life in moun-tain communities could not contribute to real development,even where such activity is conducted under the objectiveof economic progress. Inequitable strategies that benefitcertain populations at the expense of communities whoseway of life is impoverished, constitute “maldevelopment”(Senanayake 1997a). Under a new developmental para-digm it could be legally required, for example, that thewell-being of mountain peoples living in areas where min-ing, logging, road building or other activities are plannedbe of foremost concern in project design and implementa-tion. A stronger form of this approach might be to prohibitexternal development interventions in all traditionallyoccupied mountain areas unless the local populations havea meaningful role in the design of the intervention, areassured proportionate benefits, and provide their priorinformed consent.

International actors likewise need to deepen their un-derstanding of the conditions and contexts of mountainpeoples and ecosystems. Indeed, the global developmentagenda needs to recognize and incorporate different world-views arising out of Southern and Northern nations, aswell as those coming from traditionally marginalized com-munities within both developing and industrialized coun-tries. Effective legal and policy strategies must therefore:

▲ address the specific ecological, economic, and cul-tural realities of mountain domains;

▲ promote the well-being of people directly depen-dent on mountain resources;

▲ foster community-based strategies for mountainconservation and sustainable development; and

▲ consist of mutually reinforcing mechanisms at dif-ferent levels (see Figure 1).

10 Mountain Laws and Peoples: Moving Towards Sustainable Development

Traditional LegalApproaches

(Custom)

International Lawsand Policy

(Soft and Hard)

Legal Recognition of Community-Based Property Rights andManagement

SOME LAW AND POLICY MAKERS place greater empha-sis on conservation than on sustainable development andthey may be troubled by the emphasis this report gives tocommunity-based property rights and management. Thisemphasis is based on growing evidence of the failure ofexclusive state-management paradigms in mountain areasand elsewhere. It also reflects a conviction that all hu-mans, by virtue of being human as well as being citizens,have a fundamental right to participate in official decisionsand policies that directly impact on their lives and liveli-hoods. Community-based management, including the le-gal recognition of community-based property rights, is nota panacea for all the problems confronting mountainpeoples and ecosystems. But especially in the majorityworld, i.e. in developing countries, it is essential for en-suring that local communities have legal incentives to par-ticipate as full-fledged citizens in efforts to conserve, pro-tect and sustainably develop mountain ecosystems.

The best governmental response to promote sustain-able management of mountain ecosystems in many, if notmost, mountain regions in the majority world would be toofficially recognize and delineate the perimeters of exist-ing traditional systems, particularly in areas where moun-tain communities have a demonstrable concern for equityand the environment and a desire to manage natural re-sources sustainably. When modern science meets localcultures, there are often serious differences in approachto the management of natural resources. Nevertheless,legal recognition of community-based property rights orthe devolution of power to local people, and their concomi-tant awareness of their responsibilities, can be a powerfulstimulus for facilitating sustainable resource utilization(Metz 1997). Devolution should be accompanied by an of-ficial commitment to strengthen local institutions througheducation and the creation of legal mechanisms to supportpeople’s participation in the design and implementation oflocal laws. Such community-based and community-focusedapproaches will promote the practical application of soundinternational and national initiatives at local levels.

International law already provides a basis for the rec-ognition and protection of community-based propertyrights, at least insofar as indigenous and tribal peoplesare concerned.3 As such, the legal recognition of indig-enous community-based tenure systems need not be con-tingent on formal grants or documents from national orlocal governments, although official government supportis obviously something to be welcomed.

The legal recognition and delineation of community-based tenure systems would, in effect, repeal or overrideexisting national laws and policies that in many countriesare rooted in colonial legacies and influences, and pro-mote “open access” to mountain ecosystems. This recog-nition, in turn, can help discourage in-migration, as wellas illegal extraction and over-exploitation. It would putoutside commercial entrepreneurs on notice that legalrights to extract natural resources within areas coveredby community-based property rights are subject to com-munity approval and profit sharing. Perhaps most impor-tant, recognition of community-based tenure rights wouldalign national governments with—and officially tap theenergies of—mountain-based communities that have re-sisted migration and unsustainable, externally supportedextraction activities within their territories. It would alsogive an official imprimatur to ongoing local efforts to pro-tect and conserve mountain ecosystems.

National Laws and Policy(Soft and Hard)

Mountain Peoples

Figure 1. Mutually Reinforcing Levels of Law and Policy.

3The leading international human rights instrument calling forrecognition of indigenous territorial rights is the International LaborOrganization’s 1989 Convention No. 169 Concerning Indigenous andTribal Peoples in Independent Countries. Article 13 of the Conven-tion specifies that references in it to land “shall include the conceptof territories, which covers the total environment of the areas whichthe people concerned occupy or otherwise use.” Article 14 mandatesrecognition of the rights of indigenous peoples to own and possesstheir traditional territories. Additional support in international lawfor recognition of the community-based tenurial systems can be foundin the United Nations Covenants on Civil and Political Rights andEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as the InternationalCourt of Justice’s Western Sahara (Advisory Opinion) ICJ Reports(1975), p. 39. The Australian High Court case, Mabo v. Queensland,107 A.L.R. (1992), constitutes a landmark decision at the nationallevel; it rectifies the longstanding practice of denying land and otherresource rights to indigenous communities, based on the theory ofterritorium nullius. See McGinley 1993. For additional background onindigenous rights in international law see Wiessner 1999, Maggio1998, Anaya 1996, Reisman 1995, Posey 1995, Plant 1991.

— 11 —

THE CONSERVATION, PROTECTION and sustainable man-agement of mountain ecosystems require that participantsin decision-making processes on international and nationallevels work together with local partners to ensure thatlaws and policies are appropriate for local situations. Oneof the recurrent themes raised in the Mountain Forum’selectronic conference on mountains and law was the needto focus on local-level implementation (“where macromeets micro”). Policy and legal instruments are typicallyineffective if applied in isolation from other relevant fac-tors, especially those on the ground, which is the only placewhere success can be measured.

The distinct characteristics of mountain environmentsrequire law and policy-makers to design integrated, com-prehensive mechanisms directed specifically at sustain-able mountain management. Law and policy-makers how-ever, are typically far removed from rural peoples and en-vironments, including mountain peoples and ecosystems.As such, they usually do not have the same interests, per-spectives or priorities as local people dependent upon eco-logically unique mountain locales. They also frequentlyassume that laws, policies and projects applied in lowlandecosystems can be successfully transplanted to mountainregions, the overemphasis on promoting and documentingindividual property rights being an obvious example.

The unique combination of geophysical attributes ofslope, altitude and climate play a defining role in shapinga mountain range’s cultural and biological features. Thesame characteristics that provide mountain communitieswith the challenges of poverty, inaccessibility, diversity,and fragility also constitute a nexus of common interests(Figure 2). An extraordinary commonality among moun-tain communities transcends the South-North divide. Moun-tain peoples from Switzerland to Nepal to Bolivia list amongtheir highest priorities the maintenance of their culturalintegrity, higher value added for the products produced inmountain areas for lowland consumption, and regulationof the influx of commercial entrepreneurs and tourists inplaces considered to be the home or sacred sites of moun-tain peoples (e.g., Godde 1999, Preston 1997, MountainForum 1995, The Mountain Institute 1998).

Although generalizations are fraught with risk, they

are often an essential starting point in any useful analy-sis. In general, the unique characteristics of mountainpeoples and ecosystems include economic and legalmarginalization, isolation, transboundary location, diver-sity of livelihood strategies, cultural diversity, and envi-ronmental sensitivity and diversity.

Economic and Legal Marginalization

Mountain communities from the North American Appala-chians to the highlands of southwestern China share a highincidence of poverty. People who live in mountainous re-gions often have lower food intake and productive capaci-ties. This is due to, among other things, low soil fertility,shorter vegetation periods, smaller plots of arable landsize, climatic vagaries, and higher caloric requirementsrelated to lower oxygen content in the air.

Of course, not all mountain peoples are poor. Thereare a growing number of affluent individuals and commu-nities in some mountain areas, especially in western Eu-rope and in the North American Rocky Mountains. But

Specific Characteristics of MountainEcosystems Relevant to Law and Policy

Figure 2. Mountain Characteristics Relevant to Law and Policy


most mountain peoples subsist on the edge of survival,struggling day to day to meet basic human needs for foodand fuel. Of the 592 counties listed as poor under China’snational poverty elimination program, for example, 496are in mountainous areas (Shuncheng 1998). Parts of theTibetan Plateau, Peru and Bolivia experience chronic fooddeficits due to an inability of highland communities to pro-duce enough grain and other crops.

The reasons for economic impoverishment of mountaincommunities are complex and varied. Among them is thetendency of national governments to accord lower priorityto the economic and development interests of mountaincommunities, despite their greater need. Mountain areasare usually considered to be peripheral and less produc-tive than other areas of the national territory. Yet at thesame time, national governments bestow legal favors onoutside business and political interests that covet moun-tain resources, such as water and minerals, but have littleor no interest in the well-being of mountain peoples andecosystems. Although local employment opportunities aresometimes generated by outside interests, economic pat-terns in mountain areas are largely characterized by netoutflows of timber (Butt and Price 2000), minerals, water,and other resources with marginal beneficial return flows.This one-way extractive pattern is typical in mountainareas designated by national law as publicly owned re-sources, especially when governments unilaterally grantlegal concessions to outside interests to extract resources.

Isolation

Physical isolation from more populated and economicallybetter off lowland areas inhibits mountain communitiesfrom participating in mainstream socio-economic activi-ties or having access to benefits available in lowland soci-eties. Geophysical barriers make it more difficult for moun-tain peoples to organize and coordinate range-wide strat-egies. Mountain communities on different slopes of thesame mountain range often experience major difficultiesin meeting regularly. Physical isolation and related condi-tions of inaccessibility can also severely limit local capaci-ties to develop collective positions. Geographical isolationlikewise limits opportunities for mountain peoples to maketheir voices heard in distant capitals.

At the same time, the history of collective participa-tion and management evident in many mountainous areassuggests that isolation has merely limited the scale ofcollective action to immediate environments and valleys.Furthermore, improvements in telecommunications tech-nologies are helping mitigate the challenges posed by isola-tion, particularly when mutual understanding of languagesis not a problem.

Transboundary Location

Mountain ranges often form the legal frontiers betweennation-states. As a result, many mountain peoples and eco-systems are divided along arbitrary boundaries. This fur-ther complicates the efforts of mountain peoples to join

forces and promote common political and legal agendas.This obstacle also provides potential opportunities to fos-ter international cooperation through cross-boundary ef-forts to conserve and sustainably develop shared moun-tain ecosystems.

Diversity of Livelihood Strategies

Communities in mountain ecosystems rely on small-scaleproduction systems, resulting in higher production costs.Small-scale agroforestry, the production of non-timber for-est products, pastoralism, and more recently ecotourism,are common livelihood patterns in many mountain areas.Pressures to diversify livelihood strategies in a high-haz-ard, fragile mountain environment are great, and manymountain communities utilize a variety of micro-economicniches up and down mountain slopes.4

Agricultural development strategies and other policyinstruments concerned with economic development havealmost uniformly failed to take the diversity of mountainlivelihoods into account. A study conducted in China ob-served that it was “impossible to eliminate poverty throughincreasing agricultural crops in . . . poor mountainous ar-eas” (Shuncheng 1998). The 1995 Intergovernmental Con-sultation Concerning the Sustainable Development ofMountains in Latin America in Lima, Peru framed the prob-lem of mountain development principally in terms of theclash of two different systems of production and develop-ment (Mujica and Rueda 1995).

Certain forms of agriculture can be counterproductivein niche environments, such as erosion-prone mountainslopes. Large-scale agricultural, logging and other natu-ral resource exploitation strategies, which may be success-ful in lowland areas, are often inappropriate and unsuit-able for the peculiar confluence of climatic variability, al-titude, and slope that define mountain environments. Mo-nocultural plantation-style agriculture may cause irretriev-able long-term damage to watersheds on erosive slopesand other upland niche environments. Such productionsystems are among the greatest causes of depletion ofbiodiversity worldwide (Senanayake 1997a).

Rather than stressing modern western production-fo-cused models as the vehicle for progress, upland develop-ment should take place in the context of the existingworldview and structures of mountain communities, in-cluding their reliance on a diversity of crop species andecological niches. The characteristic appearance of moun-tain landscapes is often an expression of the long-termrelationship and husbandry of local communities towardtheir environment. Examples include the walled fields andpastures of upland Britain, the rice terraces of northernLuzon in the Philippines and Sulawesi in Indonesia, andthe highland gardens of Papua New Guinea and Sri Lanka.

4 For excellent case studies on the management of agriculturaland forest resources in diverse mountain environments by long-termoccupant communities in Japan, Switzerland and Nepal, see Ostrom1990.


Cultural Diversity

Cultural values and other norms, many of which are basedon centuries of adaptation, hold a central place in the livesof traditional mountain communities. These patterns andforms of social organization are typically unique. For ex-ample, in contrast to their lowland counterparts, in tradi-tional mountain cultures, women often retain a high levelof responsibility and control over natural resources andover finances derived from the exchange or sale of goodsand services. In many traditional mountain communities,women are also the primary stewards of indigenous knowl-edge and natural resource management.

Indigenous and other long-term occupants of mountainecosystems often possess invaluable knowledge regard-ing the sustainable utilization and conservation of localresources, including agricultural and silvicultural prac-tices. This local knowledge is derived from their directand immediate experience in maintaining the integrity ofthe natural environment where they live. Local people arebetter situated to control, manage and monitor naturalresources due to their close proximity. When mountainpeoples are forced to abandon their homelands, humanityas a whole is deprived of invaluable site-specific culturalpractices and knowledge, much of it learned the hard wayover long periods of time. Religious taboos and normativebarriers, such as closed seasons on planting or huntingthat have controlled unhindered resource exploitation andensured local survival, will likewise be lost.

Not all traditional practices or attitudes, of course, maybe appropriate for the conservation and sustainable man-agement of mountain resources or for promoting equity.The caste system in rural South Asia, and social restric-tions on women’s roles in making decisions about devel-opment priorities and benefits in many parts of the world,have negative socio-economic and conservation effects(Banskota 1997 and Senanayake 1997b). Some local tra-ditions have also already been undermined or displacedfrom their original religious or ethical roots due to mod-ern inroads. Removed from their historical context andoperational conditions, such structures may actuallythwart efforts to promote conservation and sustainabledevelopment.

Environmental Sensitivity and Diversity

The fragility of mountain environments has been well docu-mented (Harrison and Price 1997). Grazing was haltedmore than 50 years ago in parts of the western UnitedStates. Yet soil erosion and other environmental degrada-tion have continued unabated as a result of the catastrophic

imbalances created by unsustainable grazing on fragileland resources (Kunkle 1997).

The peculiar geological, altitudinal and climatic fac-tors of mountain regions also contribute to the unique-ness of their ecosystems, including the phenomena of bio-logical isolationism and high degrees of endemism. Manymountain regions, such as the Appalachians in the east-ern United States, the Ghats in India, the Carpathians inCentral Europe, and the East African highlands are biodi-versity-rich islands surrounded by massive lowland seas.These mountain biomes are often the last refuge of endan-gered species of plants, insects and animals that have beeneradicated elsewhere or constitute the remaining habitatof important relict species from ancient eras which arenow restricted to specific peaks or micro-climates withina massif.

Increasing evidence of global climatic change due toanthropogenic activities suggests further threats to theviability of fragile mountain ecosystems and the biodi-versity that they sustain. The deterioration of the moun-tain ecosystem jeopardizes not only the long-term welfareof mountain peoples and communities, but also lowlandpopulations that depend upon stable water flows and othermountain-based resources. The Climate Change Conven-tion and Kyoto Protocol seek to mitigate global warmingby controlling greenhouse gas emissions. These instru-ments, however, do not directly address potentially cata-strophic mountain-specific problems such as acceleratedglacier melting that could cause glacial lakes to overflowand result in lowland flooding, and the effect of shiftingclimate belts on rare upland flora and fauna and theirbiomes (Bahadur 1997).

Although many of the specific problems and character-istics of mountain ecosystems also exist in other bio-geo-graphical zones, the challenges of poverty, isolation, di-versity, and environmental sensitivity are deeply en-trenched and mutually reinforcing in mountain areas to adegree that may not be found elsewhere. Legal and policymechanisms must respond to these challenges by:

▲ increasing access to financial resources necessaryto implement any law or service,

▲ devoting required additional resources (includingtime) to understand the unique problems and op-portunities confronting mountain peoples and eco-systems;

▲ becoming highly area-specific through careful re-search and community participation; and,

▲ recognizing the small margin for error in moun-tain conservation and sustainable managementstrategies.

— 14 —

lations and ecosystems, in creating international law andpolicy, another promising development is transboundarycollaboration between neighboring states. Both mountainand lowland communities can derive benefits from cross-border collaboration. These benefits include cross-bordertourism, cooperative efforts in conservation education andtraining, shared approaches to control of poaching, forestfires, movement of contraband and of livestock diseases,and recognition of mutual interests in improving the eco-nomic conditions of the local populations on both sides ofmountain border areas (Davis 1997) (See Box 1, “Infor-mal Transboundary Initiative,” below).

Box 1: Informal Transboundary Initiative

One promising example of the transboundary approachis a joint initiative of Nepal and the Tibet AutonomousRegion in China for managing the Mount Everest eco-system. Although there is a treaty of cooperation andfriendship between the two countries, this initiativewas undertaken by extra-legal transboundary coopera-tion generated through the informal activities of aninternational NGO. “This transboundary collaborationis a bottom-up project, which is bound to gain strengthover the years. Conservation workers on both sides aredetermined to link hands around Mount Everest de-spite the language barrier, the political boundaries andbureaucracies.” Source: Davis 1997 and Preston 1997

Hard Law Instruments

TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL conventionsare binding upon states that sign and ratify them, and alongwith what is understood to be customary international lawamong nation states, are considered to be “hard law”(Brownlie, 1990; Brownlie, 1970). Enforcement however,is particularly problematic for many international law in-struments and norms, because there is often no clear en-forcement mechanism. In theory, parties to a treaty orconvention can prescribe compliance by other partiesthrough arbitration, an action before the International

Law and Policy DistinguishedPOLICY TENDS TO BE GENERAL, aspirational and nor-mative in nature. Unlike law, policy is generally non-bind-ing and legally unenforceable. Policy statements, however,can lay the foundations for the articulation and furtherelaboration of norms, which may eventually crystallize intolegal rules and principles. In contrast with policy, law gen-erally embodies more specific standards that are legallybinding upon the parties concerned. The breach of a policyis followed at most by moral reprimand or peer pressure.Sanctions or other enforceable measures can—at leasttheoretically—remedy violation of a law (Kratochwil 1989).

International policy instruments are generally non-bind-ing expressions of intent or guidelines for proposed futurenational and international action. Examples includeAgenda 21 and the UNCED Non-Legally Binding Authori-tative Statement of Forest Principles. These broad andoften unspecific statements—strong rhetoric notwith-standing—are important first steps but require furtherelaboration for implementation at the national and locallevels. As one participant to the electronic conferenceobserved, “[o]nce a policy framework is in place, othermechanisms such as legal provisions, institutional arrange-ments, incentive structures, and support systems can bedeveloped because it is the overall policy which guidesthe creation of other arrangements” (Jodha 1997).

Global dialogue helps establish basic levels of interna-tionally accepted best practices and generates peer pres-sure among governments to take actions specified in in-ternational instruments. International conferences, suchas the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environmentand Development, and other fora for creating internationalpolicies, contribute to the evolution of a common agendaamong national governments. They also are increasinglyserving as important vehicles for NGO participation in theformation of international norms and the dissemination ofinformation. For example, NGOs played a major role inshaping the debate and catalyzing support for the draftingof the recently signed Landmines Convention.

In addition to the increasingly indispensable role of non-state actors, such as NGOs supportive of mountain popu-

International Law and Policies


Court of Justice or by using other institutionalized disputeresolution mechanisms.

The following hard-law treaties or conventions havean important role to play in efforts to ensure the conser-vation and sustainable development of mountain ecosys-tems. Most of these conventions are “framework” conven-tions. As such, they lay out objectives, overall obligationsand rights of the parties, and general parameters. Frame-work conventions rely upon protocols and other supple-mentary instruments to regulate the parties’ activities withregard to specific aspects of the instrument.

The following compilations do not include every law,treaty or convention that is relevant to mountain peoplesand ecosystems. Indeed, with the exception of the AlpineConvention and the Strasbourg Resolution, none of theinternational treaties listed below are concerned exclu-sively with mountain issues. For example, the Conventionon Biological Diversity (CBD), the United Nations Frame-work Convention on Climate (UNFCCC), and the Desertifi-cation Convention (DC), all seek multilateral solutions toproblems affecting the general global environment. Theseconventions could be enhanced to provide stronger nor-mative protections for mountain issues through the addi-tion of protocols focusing on mountain-specific concernsrelating to biodiversity, climate change, desertification andother important issues.

Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992,31 ILM 818 (1992), in force 1995.

Given the importance of mountains as elevated islands ofhigh biodiversity, this is a crucial document. At the FourthMeeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to theConvention on Biological Diversity, held in Bratislava in1998, mountain ecosystems were listed as an item for “in-depth consideration” in the Programme for Work for theSeventh COP to be held in 2004. Article 8(j) of the Con-vention, meanwhile, mandates protection of the traditionalknowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous andother local communities.

United Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange, 1992, 31 ILM 849 (1992), in force.

Signed at the UNCED, the Convention on Climate Change(CCC) provides a normative framework for addressing thecomplex processes that are causing global warming andother climatic changes. The CCC attempts to balance twoseemingly incompatible goals: 1) the need for industrial-ized countries to reduce human-induced greenhouse gasemissions; and 2) the equally compelling priority of devel-oping countries to achieve socio-economic developmenteither through accelerated use of forest products and fos-sil fuels, or through the transfer from industrialized coun-tries of clean production-focused financial and technicalresources. The CCC has been supplemented by the KyotoProtocol (FCCC/CP/1997/L.7/Add.1) of 1997, which setsspecific greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets forcountries. This latter accord has not yet entered into force.

The CCC addresses the general effects of global warm-ing on the global environment as a whole. It offers mini-mal guidance for tackling the unique and possibly devas-tating consequences of climate change for mountain habi-tats and their human communities. By recognizing thathuman activities have increased greenhouse gases and areadversely affecting natural ecosystems, the CCC does pro-vides a normative starting point for recognizing the im-pact on mountain environments. In addition, the CCC notesthe special vulnerability of specific biomes, including “frag-ile mountain ecosystems” (Preamble, para. 19). The po-tentially catastrophic effects of climate change on moun-tain habitats have only recently become a topic of widerdiscussion, with specific focus on glacial melting, water-sheds and rare endemic floral and faunal species.

International Convention to Combat Desertificationin those Countries Experiencing Serious Droughtand/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa,33 ILM 1332 (1994), in force.

The Desertification Convention (DC) was the first accordthat was proposed at the UNCED to be a legally bindingtreaty (See par. 12.40, Agenda 21, Chap. 12). It is one ofthe more progressive international law instruments. TheDC does not expressly mention mountain ecosystems, butits preamble indirectly acknowledges the consequencesof desertification and drought in the countries of theTranscaucus and Central Asia, regions that contain highdry mountain ecosystems.

Despite the absence of specific language on mountains,the DC has potential to contribute to the sustainable man-agement of dry mountain ecosystems and the human com-munities residing in these areas. The DC recognizes thatparticipation and the recognition of rights and interests oflocal communities are essential requirements for the en-vironmental protection and sustainable development ofareas experiencing drought or desertification.5 In particu-lar, Article 16 (d) expressly calls for adequate protectionof local and traditional knowledge and for appropriate re-turns from the benefits derived from the use of such knowl-edge “on an equitable basis and mutually agreed terms tothe local populations concerned.” The emphasis in the DCon local communities hopefully reflects emerging accep-tance of new normative standards in international law.Indeed, the DC could serve as the legal basis for nationaland regional regimes in dry mountain areas that facilitateequitable utilization of mountain resources throughstrengthening and supporting the quality of life of moun-tain communities.

Convention on the Protection of the World Culturaland Natural Heritage, 1972, 27 UST 40,11 ILM 1358 (1972), in force.

The World Heritage Convention (WHC) establishes a nor-mative regime for protecting, through international coop-

5 See, e.g., Article 5 (d), Article 10 (2), and Article 16 (g).


eration, “cultural and natural heritage of outstanding uni-versal value.” The preamble to the WHC recognizes thatcultural and natural heritage is under increasing threatnot only from traditional forces such as aging, weatheringand erosion, but also from “changing social and economicconditions.”

The WHC states that protection of cultural and natu-ral heritage is often inadequate at the national level be-cause of the scale of protection required and the lack ofscientific, technological and economic resources in manycountries. The WHC implies an international obligation ofall states to provide “collective assistance” to individualstates to protect outstanding examples of this heritagefor the benefit of all people. At the same time, the conven-tion accords full respect to the sovereignty of countrieswhere particular examples of cultural or natural heritageare located.

Article 11 of the WHC authorizes nation states to sub-mit to the WHC Committee (which is under the auspicesof the United Nations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganization (UNESCO)), a list of examples of their cul-tural and natural heritage that they seek to include forprotection under the Convention. Article 2 deals with “natu-ral heritage” and is particularly important for conservingmountain areas; it refers to inclusion of “geological andphysiographical formations” and “natural sites and pre-cisely delineated areas.” More than forty mountain areasaround the world are on the World Heritage list, includingthe Virunga National Park (Democratic Republic of Congo),Mount Kenya (Kenya), Simen National Park (Ethiopia),the Pirin National Park (Bulgaria), and Yosemite NationalPark (USA). Inclusion of a site on the WHC list only signi-fies that the place is of such outstanding importance thatthe country desires international recognition for protec-tion purposes. Listing does not guarantee that the par-ticular site will be protected from further natural or hu-man-related degradation. Nor are many important siteslikely to be listed. Political, military or economic consider-ations may cause a government not to list some importantmountain areas.

The discretionary nature of the WHC’s process for list-ing sites, and the fact that inclusion under the conventionis in many instances only a designation that a site is “out-standing,” inhibits the capacity of the WHC to establish anecessary normative or substantive framework for effec-tively protecting mountain ranges.

Convention on International Trade in EndangeredSpecies of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) 21 ILM1085 (1973), in force.

The Convention on International Trade in EndangeredSpecies (CITES) is limited to the regulation of internationalcommercial trade of wild flora, fauna and their derivativeparts, as a means for protecting endangered species fromextinction. Mountain biomes are in many cases the princi-pal or sole habitat of rare and endemic species, or of relictspecies which due to climatic or human factors are reducedto particular upland ranges or even single massifs. Given

its focus on protecting these types of flora and faunathrough sustainable trade, CITES should provide a solidlegal basis for conserving many mountain species.

CITES has achieved measured success in protectingcertain species, as exemplified by the 1989 decision of theCITES conference of the parties (COP) to list the Africanelephant on the convention’s Appendix I, thereby prohibit-ing the international commercial trade in African elephantivory.6 The convention, however, does not address otherfactors that are equally threatening to the survival of spe-cies. These forces include local harvesting for domesticsubsistence and commercial purposes, such as the wide-spread bushmeat trade within many African and SouthAmerican countries (Bowen-Jones 1999, Wilke et al. 1998).CITES also does not address the growing problem of re-source conflicts between expanding human populations andwildlife over remaining habitats (Parker and Graham1989). For many endangered species in mountain areas, aswell as in other biomes, habitat destruction is as serious athreat to long-term survival as is over-exploitation for in-ternational commercial trade. Because CITES focuses onspecies and not the ecosystems they inhabit, it offers littlein terms of legal tools for conserving mountain biomes.

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of IntellectualProperty Rights (TRIPs), 33 ILM 1197 (1994).

Negotiated in the Uruguay Round of the General Agree-ment on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the TRIPS Agreementis the most important international legal instrument onintellectual property rights. It sets minimum standards fornational protection of intellectual property rights and es-tablishes procedures and remedies for their enforcement.Its enforcement measures—including the potential fortrade sanctions against non-complying World Trade Orga-nization (WTO) members—are unprecedented in the fieldof international intellectual property rights.

The TRIPs Agreement states that all countries musteither issue patents for plants or implement an “effectivesui generis” system that would, among other things, recog-nize the rights of local farmers to their traditional seedvarieties, including the right to trade them. This exceptionexists because many countries—on economic, legal or ethi-cal grounds—rejected the United States Government’sdemand for patenting of plants and animals (Downes 1997).How to implement the sui generis exception, however, isunclear and remains a matter of great contention.

International Union for the Protectionof New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), 1961(amended in 1972, 1978 and 1991).

Related to the TRIPs Agreement is the International Unionfor the Protection of New Varieties of Plants or UPOV. The

6 At the tenth COP in 1997, an amendment to the Appendix I(“endangered”) listing, transferred elephant populations in Botswana,Namibia and Zimbabwe to Appendix II (“threatened”). This re-listingpermits a very limited regulated commercial trade in ivory derivedexclusively from elephants in these countries.


acronym is derived from the French name of the organiza-tion: Union internationale pour la protection des obtentionsvegetales. UPOV is an intergovernmental organization thatworks closely with the World Intellectual Property Office(WIPO). UPOV was created by the International Conven-tion for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants in 1961to protect new plant varieties and the interests of breed-ers and innovators. The convention has since beenamended three times. The most recent amendment in 1991came into force in 1998. As of year-end 1999, only forty-four countries have ratified the UPOV Convention, andratification is divided between the 1978 and 1991 amendedconventions.

UPOV grants exclusive private rights called plant breed-ers’ rights (PBRs)—a form of intellectual property rights—to innovators of new plant varieties. PBRs are granted ifplant varieties meet the specified criteria of distinctiveness,uniformity, stability and novelty.

UPOV is relevant for mountain communities that con-serve and breed plant genetic resources. These communi-ties need to be aware that PBRs can be attached to localplant varieties, thereby usurping the rights of local farm-ers and small-scale breeders. UPOV largely protects inter-ests of seed corporations, often at the cost of small indig-enous farmers. Mountain communities should be carefulto ensure that varieties developed by them are not cov-eted and privatized by commercial breeders.

ILO Convention No.169 Concerning Indigenousand Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries,1989, 28 ILM 1077 (1990), in force.

ILO Convention No.169 is the leading international hu-man rights instrument calling for recognition of indigenousterritorial rights. Article 13 specifies that references inthe Convention to land “shall include the concept of terri-tories, which covers the total environment of the areaswhich the people concerned occupy or otherwise use.”Article 14 mandates recognition of the rights of indigenouspeoples to own and possess their traditional territories.Article 15 adds that “The rights of the peoples concernedto the natural resources pertaining to their lands shall bespecially safeguarded. These rights include the rights ofthese peoples to participate in the use, management andconservation of these resources.” ILO members are legallyobligated under Article 19 of the organization’s foundingcharter to implement the convention. Article 19, however,has yet to be effectively enforced.

Convention on the Protection of the Alps, 1991,31 ILM 767 (1992), in force 1995.

A prime example of transboundary collaboration, the con-vention is a comprehensive, regional agreement for theprotection and sustainable development of the Alpine ar-eas of seven European countries. It avoids division alongnational lines and treats the Alps as a “uniform geographi-cal area within Europe.” The characterization of a moun-tain range as an international region to be protected and

developed is legally unprecedented; the Alps is the firstmountain range to be covered in its entirety under an in-ternational instrument.

The Alpine Convention is also notable for its attemptto construct a political framework in which tradition andthe modern world can find common ground, within an “an-thropologically shaped cultural landscape.” It provides forincorporation into the broader national and regional landuse plans of traditional farming and silvicultural practicesin order to preserve the ecological soundness of the Alps.Under the convention, Alpine states are obligated to takeappropriate measures to respect, preserve and promotethe social and cultural identity of the population living inthe region.

The convention requires Parties to pursue a compre-hensive policy of protection and preservation and com-mits them to trans-frontier cooperation. These generalobligations are to be implemented through protocols onmountain agriculture, land use planning, mountain for-ests, leisure activities, protection of nature and land-scape management, population and culture, preventionof air pollution, etc. The protocols on economic devel-opment address the desires of local Alpine governmentsto promote attractive living areas as well as conserva-tion (Messerli 1999).

European (Aarhus) Convention on Accessto Information, Public Participationin Decision-Making and Access to Justicein Environmental Matters (1998),not yet in force.

The Aarhus Convention grows out of an international pro-cess to define the concept of public participation in thecontext of sustainable development. The three principlesof the Convention, broadly stated, are: 1) the public shouldhave access to environmental information, with limited,explicit exceptions (the principle of access to information);2) the public should have a right to participate and havethat participation taken into account in environmentaldecision-making processes (the principle of access to de-cision-making); and, 3) the public should ultimately haveaccess to an independent and impartial review process,capable of binding public authorities, to allege their rightshave been infringed (the principle of access to justice).The Convention is the first time that States have agreedon the minimum content of these principles and establishedtheir minimum procedural elements in a single, legallybinding international agreement.

The Convention creates domestic obligations for rati-fying European states. The majority of the provisions arenot addressed to international organizations (other thanpossibly the European Union). Rather, they are addressedto the public authorities of national governments. At thesame time, the Convention requires each Party to “pro-mote the application of the principles of this Conventionin international environmental decision-making processesand within the framework of international organizationsin matters relating to the environment.”


Soft Law Instruments

DURING THE PAST HALF-CENTURY new legal normshave been shaped and promoted by a range of instrumentsthat do not fall into traditional international law catego-ries of treaties and conventions or custom. Soft law in-struments can herald and help shape the development ofnew normative standards for appropriate and wise con-duct. The legal status of these instruments has been amajor subject of discussion among international law schol-ars, one of whom has described soft law as “. . . either notyet or not only law” (Dupuy 1991).

Many soft law instruments are a product of meetingsorganized under the auspices of international organiza-tions, such as UNCED in 1992, the World Conference onHuman Rights in Vienna in 1993, the World Summit forSocial Development in Copenhagen in 1995, and the FourthWorld Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995. Addition-ally, NGOs and other non-state actors have already playeda significant role in the creation of soft law instruments.Examples include the Forest Stewardship Council’s Prin-ciples and Criteria for Natural Forest Management, theCharter of Indigenous-Tribal Peoples of the Tropical For-ests, and the SUDEMA Declaration. Although water is acritical resource in mountain areas, no relevant soft lawdocuments were identified during the preparation of thisreport. That should not imply that none exist but ratherthat this a potential gap in law and policy instrumentsthat are relevant to the conservation of mountains.

Soft law represents a blurring between what has beentraditionally understood as “law” and “policy.” Soft lawinstruments such as declarations, resolutions, and codesof conduct are a weaker expression of the norm-creatingprocess than binding hard law instruments such as trea-ties. Soft law often reflects the early seminal stage in thecreation of a new international legal norm. A norm identi-fied only in a soft law instrument may not be legally en-forceable by itself, but it may ultimately acquire some de-gree of legal efficacy. In many respects, law-making pro-cesses are fundamentally political. Soft law instrumentsreflect this and their creation is an important componentthat should be considered in the development of normsand advocacy strategies.

There is an array of soft law instruments that promotethe sustainable management of mountain peoples and eco-systems. Some explicitly address mountain issues whileothers do so only implicitly. The more prominent soft lawinstruments include:

The Mountain Agenda: Chapter 13 of Agenda 21“Managing Fragile Ecosystems: SustainableMountain Development,” A/CONF.151/26,13 August 1992.

Several chapters of Agenda 21 of the 1992 UNCED arerelevant to mountain peoples and ecosystems. The mostimportant is Chapter 13. It draws attention to mountainsas distinct ecosystems that merit special attention within

the broader dialogue on sustainable development. Chap-ter 13 identified priority areas for action and urged “inter-ested Governments” to prepare and implement compre-hensive national and local mountain development pro-grams. As with Agenda 21 as a whole, implementation ofChapter 13 has been highly variable, and most countrieshave yet to create comprehensive mountain developmentplans.

International NGO Consultation on the MountainAgenda, Lima, Peru, February 1995.

The International NGO Consultation on the MountainAgenda was attended by representatives of over 120 NGOsworking on mountain issues. During the Consultation pri-orities for implementing the Mountain Agenda were iden-tified, and the Mountain Forum—a coalition of NGOs andother partners interested in promoting sustainable devel-opment of mountain areas, developing mutual support, anddisseminating information—was established. The Consul-tation identified nine key thematic areas affecting the livesof mountain peoples: Cultural diversity, Sustainable de-velopment, Production systems and alternative livelihoods,Local energy demand and supply in mountains, Tourism,Sacred, spiritual, and symbolic significance of mountains,Water towers, Mountain biodiversity, and Climate changeand natural hazards.

Recommendations for addressing the specific concernsof mountain communities were drafted during the consul-tation. They included respecting and documenting indig-enous knowledge, conserving mountain biodiversity, de-veloping alternative livelihoods for mountain peoples, re-specting the sacred values attached to mountain areas,educating lowland communities about mountain specifics,increasing decentralization and democracy in the gover-nance of mountain areas, developing new land-use andtenure classifications, and conducting both environmen-tal and cultural impact assessments, especially with re-spect to tourism.

European Inter-Governmental Consultationon Sustainable Mountain Development,Trento, Italy, 7–11 October 1996.

Twenty European countries and the European Commissionendorsed a document titled “Sustainable Mountain Devel-opment in Europe,” during the Second Session of the Eu-ropean Inter-governmental Consultation on SustainableMountain Development, held in Trento, Italy. This sessionfollowed one held in Aviemore, Scotland in April 1996.

The document recognized the cultural and economicdiversity of mountain peoples in Europe. It addressed arange of issues from migration and unemployment, to sus-tainable development, energy and forests. It stressed theurgency of promoting economic development and povertyelimination in mountain areas and recommended that “ac-cess to resources, education, health care, telecommunica-tions and economic opportunities should at least be equalto lowland and urban areas if young people are expected


to remain in mountain communities.” It also emphasized,among other concerns, the probable effects that climatechange will likely have on mountain areas. The document’sanalysis of mountain conditions, and the proposed recom-mendations are European-specific, for instance, “developinformation systems for European mountains, and promotean integrated policy framework for mountains in Europe;”the principles, however, are applicable to other mountaincommunities around the world.

The European NGO Consultation on SustainableMountain Development: Recommendations of NGOsand Mountain Populations to Governments and tothe European Union, Toulouse, France, July 1996.

During the European NGO Consultation on SustainableMountain Development a detailed list of recommendationswas developed. The list included supporting multi-disciplinary research in mountain areas, developing a Eu-ropean Charter for Mountain Tourism, and undertakingland management strategies for maintaining viable popu-lations in mountain areas. Some unusual recommendationswere also made, such as reducing “the nuisance causedby air traffic over and through the mountains to a levelthat is bearable to inhabitants and the environment.” Theconsultation also addressed issues related to forests, ag-riculture, and planning and infrastructure.

Final Declaration, European Conventionof Euromontana, Ljubljana, October 1998.

The Final Declaration lamented that economic expansionoften bypasses, and adversely affects rural communities,including mountain peoples. It stressed the need forsustainability and balance in developing policies, and is-sued an alert that “If these tendencies become accentu-ated, the entire European society will suffer a cultural,economical, environmental loss and serious diminution offood variety.”

The Declaration makes very specific suggestions re-lated to economic, agricultural and income-generating ac-tivities of mountain peoples. It calls “upon all the moun-tain populations of Europe to mobilize, to work for sustain-able development in their mountain regions, and to obtaina fair recognition of their essential function in society.”

“The Kathmandu Declaration on MountainActivities,” International Union of AlpinistAssociations (UIAA) 44th General Assembly,16 October 1982.

At the conclusion of the first ever UIAA meeting in Asia,delegates from twenty-six nations resolved to adopt tenprinciples and guidelines as a program for action. Thesewere included in Articles of Declaration averring, amongother things, that: “There is an urgent need for effectiveprotection of the mountain environment and landscape;”“The cultural heritage and dignity of the local populationare inviolable;” and “The use of appropriate technology

for energy needs and proper disposal of waste in the moun-tain areas are matters of immediate concern.”

“Guidelines for Mountain Protected Areas,”IUCN Commission on National Parksand Protected Areas. Synthesizedand edited by Duncan Poore 1992.

The Guidelines for Mountain Protected Areas are the prod-uct of a conference among scientists, managers and otherinterested parties held in 1991 in Volcanoes National Park,Hawaii. The conference was sponsored by the InternationalUnion for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Re-sources (IUCN) and the East-West Center as a means fordeveloping a normative framework for conserving moun-tain resources. The Guidelines are not designed to be le-gally binding. They are a general set of recommendationsdesigned for use by individual countries in developing na-tional policies tailored to specific conditions in mountainregions. They include provisions for ensuring that govern-ments provide for the participation of local mountain com-munities in the development of national conservation poli-cies.

The Guidelines also cover a broad range of other top-ics including: addressing the protection and managementof trans-frontier mountain areas; water and soil conserva-tion; land tenure and land utilization; grazing, harvestingand other resource utilization and exploitation practices;and meeting the cultural and economic needs of communi-ties in mountain protected areas. The Guidelines likewiseestablished a set of recommendations for dealing with theimpacts of global climate change on mountain ecosystems.

“Ecological Guidelines for Balanced Land Use,Conservation and Development in High Mountains,”UNEP-IUCN-WWF 1979 by R.F. Dasmannand D. Poore.

Commissioned by the United Nations EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP) and prepared in collaboration with theIUCN, this document is intended to foster ecologicallysound development of mountain resources. Besides pro-viding guidelines for ecologically appropriate developmentprograms, it urges that any new laws or regulations in-clude an environmental impact assessment.

African Mountains and Highlands Declarationof Antananarivo, International Workshopof the African Mountains Association, held inAntananarivo, Madagascar, 26 May–1 June 1997.

The declaration is an articulation by NGOs of major socio-economic and environmental issues affecting Africanmountain ecosystems. It provides very general policy rec-ommendations, including: 1) more sustainable mountaindevelopment, 2) action oriented mountain research, 3)inter-institutional communication and collaboration, and4) paying special attention to Madagascar, the site of theconference.


Charter for the Protection of the Pyrenees,Conseil International Associatif pour la Protectiondes Pyrénées (CIAPP) 1995.

Some of the major challenges in industrialized countriesto the sustainable development of mountain ecosystemsare highlighted in the Charter. They include: out-migra-tion of mountain people to lowland urban areas; abandon-ment of traditional pastoral, agricultural and silviculturalpractices that are appropriate in mountain locales and givemountain landscapes a unique character; recent in-migra-tion of tourist and leisure industries; and accelerated con-struction of roads and other large-scale infrastructureprojects. As a policy statement, the Charter is not pre-scriptive. Rather it provides a common agenda for govern-ments to follow. The Charter closes by warning that “dec-larations of intent are not enough. We must continue dia-logue with all our partners to determine the new criteriaand rules which will be able to guide a sustainable moun-tain economy and to define how to measure correctly thecosts and benefits of such an economy.”

Un Mémorandum Français sur la PolitiqueEuropéenne de la Montagne. France.13/7/1996–1453. La République Française.

A Memo on European Policy on Mountains prepared by theFrench Government in 1996 promotes national integra-tion of mountain policies within European Union state pro-grams and on an EU-wide basis. The Memo stresses theneed to maintain mountain agriculture. It recognizes theimportance of creating special designations for “mountainquality products” to enhance their marketing image. Ac-cording to the memo, the ultimate goal of European moun-tain policy should be to allow local populations and theirelected officials to acquire ownership over their develop-ment in order to establish parity of revenues and livingstandards between mountain areas and other regions whilerespecting mountain cultural identity.

The Sustainable Development of the MountainAreas of Asia (SUDEMA) Call to Action,Kathmandu, 1994.

The SUDEMA Call to Action was adopted in December1994 at a Conference organized by the International Cen-tre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) inKathmandu, Nepal. It stresses the urgency of improvingthe livelihoods and environment of mountain peoples, andidentifies key areas for accelerating the sustainable de-velopment of mountain areas. It identifies poverty eradi-cation, sustainable natural resource management, gender-balanced decision-making, and preservation of culturalheritage as priorities. It also emphasizes the need for in-tegrating indigenous knowledge in mountain developmentprocesses.

Addressing the lack of any cohesive institutional focusfor promoting sustainable development in mountain areas,

the Call to Action proposes the establishment of NationalMountain Task Forces/Commissions. These proposed en-tities would be primarily responsible for developing com-prehensive National Plans of Action for Mountain Areas.The Plans are to address promoting more effective col-laboration among mountain nations in Asia through theestablishment of an Association of Asian Mountain andUpland Institutions, capacity-building through educationand human resource development, and improving oppor-tunities for financing development in mountain areas.

Intergovernmental Consultation Concerningthe Sustainable Development of Mountainsin Latin America, Lima, Peru, August 1995.

At the invitation of the Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO), representatives of eleven Latin American govern-ments gathered to identify challenges and develop strate-gies for the implementation of Chapter 13 of Agenda 21.The Consultation is considered particularly significant inits articulation of the special concerns of developing coun-tries with mountain resources.

The first priority identified during the Consultationwas the need to address conflicts that hinder efforts topromote sustainable development in the mountains ofLatin America. In that regard, the Consultation concluded“the state must assume the critical role of acting as amediator (advocating conciliation) promoting social equity,and the basic component of sustainability, among others.”It emphasized the need to foster consolidation and col-laboration among the countries of Latin America, “withthe idea of uniting toward the achievement of one com-mon goal/end.” The Consultation also called on developed(minority world) countries to “assume in proportion totheir responsibility, the goal of mitigation of so-calledglobal environmental liabilities . . . , which particularly af-fect sensitive areas, or extremely sensitive areas, such asmountains.”

The importance of involving local people and commu-nities and municipalities in the management of mountainareas was emphasized during the Consultation, as was therole of civil society. Recommendations included the devel-opment of information technologies for disseminatingknowledge, such as geographic information, for mountainareas of Latin America.

Some soft law instruments are not mountain-specificbut are relevant to mountain peoples and ecosystems. Someof the more important and prominent instruments include:

World Charter for Nature, UN GA Res 37/722,ILM 455 (1982).

The World Charter for Nature stresses the need to con-serve natural resources, and highlights concepts of recy-cling, waste minimization, restrained consumption, envi-ronmental assessment and responsible behavior. TheCharter’s universal relevance is evident in its prescription


that: “All persons, in accordance with their national legis-lation, shall have the opportunity to participate, individu-ally or with others, in the formulation of decisions of di-rect concern to their environment, and shall have accessto means of redress when their environment has suffereddamage or degradation.”

The Charter articulates the intrinsic value of nature,irrespective of its utility to humans. It emphasizes the linkbetween human civilization and nature. The Charter alsoreflects the beliefs of indigenous and other rural commu-nities who live in harmony with their natural environments.Mountain peoples—because of their intimate relationshipwith nature, and the unique attributes of their regions—might find support in the Charter’s recommendation inArticle 3 that “All areas of the earth, both land and sea,shall be subject to these principles of conservation; spe-cial protection shall be given to unique areas, to represen-tative samples of all the different types of ecosystems andto the habitat of rare or endangered species.”

International Undertaking on Plant GeneticResources, 1983 (amended in 1989 and 1991).

The International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resourceswas adopted at a Food and Agricultural Organization con-ference in 1983. It was developed with the aim of estab-lishing international norms for the distribution and utili-zation of plant genetic resources, particularly those ofeconomic and social importance. Subsequent interpreta-tions and revisions to the original Undertaking were an-nexed as the 1989 and 1991 Resolutions.

The 1991 Resolution reversed the original foundingprinciple that plant genetic resources are the commonheritage of mankind. In its place, a new principle that holdsplant genetic resources as the sovereign property of na-tions was adopted. The principle of Farmers’ Rights, whichrecognizes the role of farmers as breeders and innovators,was also adopted. Procedures for defining and enforcingthe rights of farmers, however, have yet to be developed.Moreover, the concept of Farmers’ Rights is limited toascertaining the monetary value of farmers’ contributions.The 1991 Resolution mentions the creation of an interna-tional fund that would monitor benefit sharing, but thereare concerns that this would divest indigenous farmers ofauthority and control, rather than foster equitable sharingof benefits.

Though the Undertaking is amorphous and not legallyenforceable, its importance as an international guideline-establishing document should not be undermined. Moun-tain peoples, in collaboration with national and interna-tional NGOs could use, and where necessary adapt, prin-ciples of the Undertaking to meet their special needs. Inthat regard, the twenty-seventh session of the FAO Con-ference in 1993 acknowledged the need to reconcile thegoals of the Undertaking with those of the CBD. It alsoacknowledged the need to regulate access to germplasmcollections concentrated in minority world nations, i.e.developed countries.

Global Plan of Action and Leipzig Declarationof the International Technical Conferenceon Plant Genetic Resources, Leipzig,Germany, 17–23 June 1996.

The Leipzig Declaration and the Global Plan of Action wereagreed to during the Fourth International Technical Con-ference for Plant Genetic Resources, convened by the Foodand Agriculture Organization. The primary aim of theLeipzig Declaration is to promote the conservation andsustainable utilization of plant genetic resources, and toensure that benefits arising from their use are equitablyshared. The Declaration recognizes nations’ sovereignrights over their plant genetic resources for food and agri-culture, and also acknowledges the roles played by farm-ers, plant breeders, and indigenous and local communi-ties, in conserving and improving these resources. Whilethe Leipzig Declaration is a list of objectives and ideals,the Global Plan of Action is a blueprint for achieving them.

Strasbourg Resolution 4: Adapting the managementof mountain forests to new environmentalconditions. Ministerial Conference on the Protectionof Forests in Europe (1990).

Signed by 24 European countries and the European Union,the resolution recognizes the political, environmental,socio-economic, cultural, and scientific importance ofmountain forests and calls for developing a coordinatedEuropean Mountain Forest Action Plan to serve as a frame-work for cooperation on and implementation of specificnational actions. Common objectives include sustainablemanagement and development, promotion of multi-functionality and compensation for management con-straints, reinforcement of knowledge (ecological and socio-economic), prevention of risks, protection of natural re-sources and conservation of biodiversity, and implementa-tion of international commitments. Common actions calledfor in the resolution include training and research programsand the elaboration of a code of conduct for the conserva-tion of biodiversity (Zingari 1999).

Non-Legally Binding Authoritative Statementof Principles for a Global Consensus on theManagement, Conservation and SustainableDevelopment of All Types of Forests, 1992,31 ILM 881 (1992).

This oddly titled instrument reflects the difficulty of de-veloping international legal norms concerning forest re-sources. The statement is a potpourri of competing andoften conflicting principles. Sections potentially support-ive of mountain peoples include 5(a) which avers that “Na-tional forest policies should recognize and duly support theidentity, culture and the rights of indigenous people theircommunities and other communities and forest dwellers”and 5(b) which calls for “the full participation of women inall aspects” of forest management. The statement also


asserts in section 12(d) that “Appropriate indigenous ca-pacity and local knowledge regarding the conservation andsustainable development of forests should . . . be recog-nized, respected, recorded, developed and, as appropriate,introduced in the implementation of programmes.”

Forest Stewardship Council’s Principlesand Criteria (1999).

The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is a voluntary or-ganization comprised of environmental NGOs and privatebusinesses. It was established to promote the sustainableuse of forest resources pursuant to a global standard often recognized principles. The FSC manifests a belief thatconsumers want to make more informed and environmen-tally friendly purchases of forest products. As such, theFSC accredits organizations that have demonstrated ca-pacity to certify whether or not forest products have beenharvested in compliance with its ten principles. This certi-fication system ensures an independent evaluation of aforest company’s practices.

Principle 3 provides that “The legal and customaryrights of indigenous peoples to own, use and manage theirlands, territories and resources shall be recognized andprotected.” Principle 6 requires that “Forest managementshall conserve biodiversity and its associated values, wa-ter resources, soils and unique and fragile ecosystems andlandscapes and, by so doing, maintain the ecological func-tions and integrity of the forests.”

Draft United Nations Declaration on the Rightsof Indigenous Peoples, 34 ILM 541 (1985).

The Draft Declaration was adopted by representatives ofindigenous peoples and organizations meeting in Geneva,Switzerland in preparation for a meeting of the UnitedNations Working Group on Indigenous Populations. It aversthat “All indigenous nations and peoples have the rightsto self-determination, by virtue of which they have the rightto whatever degree of autonomy or self-government they

choose.” It likewise asserts that “Indigenous nations andpeoples are entitled to permanent control and enjoymentof their aboriginal ancestral-historical territories.”

Proposed American Declaration on the Rightsof Indigenous Populations OEA/Ser.K/XVIRECIDIN/doc.4/99 (1999 draft in progress).

The Organization of American States (OAS) is formallyconsidering the adoption of an American Declaration onthe Rights of Indigenous Populations. A draft of the pro-posed declaration was considered by the OAS GeneralAssembly in 1999 and a Working Group has been consti-tuted to continue developing the draft.

The official draft now under consideration recognizesthat “the control and use of land, territories, resources,bodies of water and coastal areas are a necessary condi-tion for the survival, social organization, development andthe individual and collective well-being” of indigenouspeoples. It also declares that “Indigenous peoples havethe right to legal recognition of . . . territories and prop-erty.”

Draft Declaration of Principles on Human Rightsand the Environment (1994).

This Draft Declaration is the first international instrumentthat comprehensively addresses the linkage between hu-man rights and the environment. It was composed inGeneva by an international group of experts invited by theSierra Club Legal Defense Fund on behalf of the UN Spe-cial Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment.The declaration reaffirms that accepted environmental andhuman rights principles include the right of each personto a secure, healthy and ecologically sound environment.It highlights the environmental dimensions of legally rec-ognized human rights such as the right to life, health andculture. It also describes procedural rights, such as theright to participation, that are necessary for the realiza-tion of substantive human and environmental rights.

— 23 —

IN THE CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL ORDER,legal authority still rests largely with nation-states. Whileinternational laws and policies directed at promoting thewell-being of mountain peoples and ecosystems can pro-vide useful tools for setting global standards and address-ing the transboundary nature of some mountain ranges,national legislation is usually much more effective foraddressing domestic issues within particular countries(Gabelnick et al. 1997). One important reason is that na-tional laws and policies are typically more reflective ofunique historical, cultural and environmental factors.

National governments have the responsibility of enact-ing and implementing domestic laws and policies. This isa major task. Besides responding to the demands and ex-pectations of domestic constituencies, national regimesoften must adapt and concretize amorphous expressionsin international law to fit the specific political, geophysi-cal and financial circumstances within their national ter-ritories (Gabelnick et al. 1997).

National (and state) laws and policies can be used tosupport mountain communities, for instance, by providingthem with incentives and insuring them against some po-litical and financial risks. National laws can likewise es-tablish broad standards and processes for promoting sus-tainable development while according local communitiesflexibility to design and implement strategies for meetingthe standards. These standards and processes can beblended with regional and local concerns to create moreefficient and appropriate regulatory and incentive struc-tures. A mixture of legally enforceable and voluntarymechanisms, for example, might be the most cost-effec-tive framework for facilitating conservation goals (Jain1997a). Governments can also allocate funds to encour-age and promote resource management strategies that aremore regionally and locally appropriate. One legal optionis to blend protected and multiple use areas such as theMakalu-Barun National Park and Conservation Area inNepal (Keiter 1999).

Although national governments may formally adopt theoverall objective of sustainable development, ratify spe-cific international environmental agreements, and even

enact implementing legislation, actual implementation isall too often poor or completely lacking. One reason forthis is the “complete divorce between what’s written inthe laws and regulations and the way local governmentsimplement them. Local authorities often do not know norunderstand the laws they are supposed to implement”(Justicia 1997). Lack of knowledge, insufficient resources,or a simple lack of political will frequently precludes theenforcement of otherwise good laws.

A major challenge is for mountain communities to gaininterest and support for their objectives and projects fromlocal, state and national government officials. One pos-sible strategy for gaining government support is to dem-onstrate the success of projects that can be replicated inother areas (Recharte 1997). When evaluating the impactof laws and policies, it is also often important to look atthe actions of NGOs, community groups and other privateactors. Local community implementation and monitoringof compliance has great potential, as the sustainable man-agement of fragile mountain ecosystems requires a thor-ough knowledge of ecosystem processes and land use his-tory. Public interest lawyers and other civil society advo-cates can sometimes play a key role in ensuring imple-mentation by filing cases in courts and otherwise bringingpublic pressure on recalcitrant governments.

A summary listing of some national and sub-nationallaws and policies follow. The list does not include everyimportant national law and policy related to mountains.Rather it is intended to provide a representative sampling.As with their international counterparts, many nationallaws and policies do not specifically address mountainpeoples and ecosystems but are nevertheless significantfor addressing mountain issues.

AustriaAustria has the highest proportion in the European Unionof agriculture and forestry activities in hill and mountainareas. In a 1996 Ministry of Agriculture and ForestryMemorandum on Mountain and Hill Farming and Forestryin Europe, the Government of Austria declared that pre-serving mountain farming and forestry is a top priority for

National (Domestic) Laws and Policies


Austria. The present Austrian policy of Bergbauern-sonderprogramm entails direct payments to farmers, de-pending on the severity of natural handicaps affecting theirfarms and income levels. Reviews of EU agricultural policy,however, indicate that existing policies and structures donot offer satisfactory solutions to mountain area problems.The need for a socially equitable and ecologically respon-sible policy for preserving small-scale farming is recog-nized.

The current Austrian program echoes the French one(summarized below). It attempts to mitigate the socio-eco-nomic constraints that mountain peoples often suffer dueto topography, climate and other factors such as distancefrom markets. Natural constraints limit potentials for ra-tionalizing and maximizing agricultural production. Revo-lutionary technological advances over the past fifty yearshave further widened the gap between more favored low-land areas and mountain areas, leaving mountain farmincomes lagging and threatening the existence of moun-tain life.

Austria’s mountain policy recognizes a diversity of in-terests in mountain resources, including leisure, naturalresource extraction, farming, and forestry. Consequently,it calls for a multi-sectoral approach. For EU States, thismeans “unity without uniformity” and a re-orientation ofthe CAP (compensatory allowances for mountain and hillfarming). It also calls for an EU aid policy to ensure thatmountain farmers have greater flexibility in managingsmaller, marginal farms so that they can make an adequateliving.

Bulgaria

Over a third of Bulgaria’s land area is mountainous andover half of these regions are state owned. In 1996 theParliament of Bulgaria approved a law on the developmentof mountain areas. It establishes a national policy con-cerning mountain development and calls for the creationof supportive institutions, including an Association ofMountain Communities. The law also promotes economicactivities in mountain areas. Mountain populations are tobenefit from a preferential regime regarding natural re-source use, including a reduced tax on water use com-mensurate with the role of specific mountain communitiesin protecting national water supplies. Subsidies to be de-termined by the National Council of Mountain Regions inaccord with the Committee of Forests and the Ministry ofAgriculture are likewise to be provided for afforestationefforts, for following sustainable forest management plans,for creating stands of valuable trees including chestnutand cherry, and for forest management which reduces ero-sion or protects water catchments.

The law also encourages the adoption of effective mea-sures to counter floods and avalanches, limits the areasavailable for second homes and tourist sites, and providestax reductions for companies whose principal activitiesare carried out in the mountains. It places a prohibition onforest cutting in important water catchment areas. TheState, meanwhile, is to allow free use of its property for

the creation of microenterprises based on mushroom dry-ing, medicinal herbs, forest fruits, pine-cone drying, woodresidue recycling, conifer nurseries, extraction of volatileoils, balsamic resin and charcoal extraction.

Canada

A Working Group of representatives of the territorial gov-ernment, NGOs, and local community elders developed theNorthwest Territories Traditional Knowledge Policy, whichis a set of guidelines for incorporating traditional knowl-edge in official decision-making and programming. Thepolicy does not consider intellectual property rights in iso-lation or only in terms of wildlife preservation. The policyalso applies to the Departments of Education, RenewableResources, Justice, and others. The result is a holistic,cross-sectoral application of the traditional worldview oflocal communities to the workings of a regional govern-ment. Although this concept of cross-sectorally applyingindigenous knowledge was included in the Convention onBiological Diversity and Agenda 21, no government otherthan that of Canada’s Northwest Territories has createdexplicit policies on the subject (Davis and Ebbe 1993).

France

The National Mountain Law for France of 1996 acknowl-edges—belatedly—that mountains constitute unique geo-graphic, economic, and social phenomena that requirespecific policies for development and protection. This lawalso recognizes the difficulties faced by mountain commu-nities. These include limitations on land use and increasesin the costs of labor due to altitude and climatic condi-tions that create shorter growing seasons, as well as steepslopes that render mechanization impossible or practicalonly through the use of expensive special equipment. Dueto these mountain-specific conditions, the law provides forspecial compensation to people living in the country’smountain regions. This compensation represents 75% ofall compensation given to disadvantaged zones in France.Given the great variability in mountain conditions, thecompensation is adjusted for slope, altitude, and climate.

Under the French law, each mountain zone and adja-cent areas form a single geographic, economic and socialentity constituting a massif that is delineated by decree.The law establishes a National Council of Mountains pre-sided over by the Prime Minister, which includes repre-sentatives from the European Parliament and nationalorganizations representing mountain peoples from eachmassif. Unfortunately, the National Mountain Law wasenacted after many ghost towns used only by seasonaltourists for winter sports were already built, and local farm-ers had already relocated to higher, more remote moun-tain areas or moved to lowland areas (Messerli 1999).

India

See Box 2, “Risks Associated with Devolution of Power,”on next page.


Box 2: Risks Associated with Devolutionof Power

Devolution of power to local communities is generallybelieved to be a good idea. Among other things, it of-ten enhances local incentives for sustainable naturalresource management. There are risks, however, inlegally transferring powers of planning, implementa-tion, and administration from central authorities tolocal government units.

The Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Coun-cil Act of 1995 (LAHDCA), which was passed by thecentral government, resulted in a devolution of powerthat for several reasons did not have the desired ef-fect. The LAHDCA limited the independence of thelocal councils by requiring approval of plans and bud-gets by the State government, while the Central gov-ernment controls most external funding. At the sametime, the council’s representation reflected an urban,elite stratum that institutionalized divisions betweenBuddhists and Muslims while failing to address ad-equately other important differences, such as gender,age, occupation, and class. This compromised thecouncil’s overall effectiveness in promoting social eq-uity and sustainable resource use. The LAHDCA ex-perience highlights the special challenges posed by adiverse local population and the risk of continued domi-nation by local elites.

Devolution strategies need to be carried out equi-tably and with due concern for differentiation withintargeted populations. As with transboundary chal-lenges, community-based natural resource manage-ment strategies present an opportunity to bring differ-ent groups together around common issues of concern,but only if handled with care and with significant in-vestment of time and resources in a participatory pro-cess.

Editor’s summary of “Thoughts on the LadakhAutonomous Hill Development Council Act of 1995,”taken from an email submission to the electronic con-ference (van Beek 1997) and subsequent personal com-munication (van Beek 1999).

Italy

The Constitution of Italy includes a separate clause onmountain areas. The Law on the Development of High-lands (Law 1102 of 1971) is the implementing mechanism.It emphasizes the importance of mountain and upland pro-tection and mandates the efficient use of their resourcesand landscapes. It also provides for the establishment ofUpland Development Authorities that provide local com-munities with fora for shaping their own development poli-cies and support for more democratic self-administration.Mountainous provinces in Italy (D’Aosta and Boltzano(Upper Adige-Trentino)) have special status and more in-dependent roles in economic and social development. Seealso Box 3.

Japan

Japan’s 1994 Basic Environment Plan notes that moun-tains are characterized by a relatively low degree of hu-man interference and describes them as the skeletal frame-work for the entire ecosystem of Japan. The law also statesthat population decreases and aging of the remaining popu-lations impairs the environmental conservation capacitiesof mountain areas. The emphasis of the plan is on moun-tains as unspoiled areas. It calls for conservation of moun-tains through the creation and restoration of protectedareas. The mountain chapter of Japan’s National ActionPlan for Agenda 21, by contrast, focuses mainly on for-estry policy, although it also includes a general commit-ment to improving infrastructure in mountain areas.

Nepal

The Community Forestry Regulations in Nepal provide auseful example of the devolution of rights, responsibili-ties, and benefits to local forest user groups (FUGS). Theaim is to promote conservation and sustainable develop-ment in ecologically sensitive highland environments. Rec-ognizing the role of women as the main actors and effec-tive managers of forest resources, the regulations man-date greater gender equity in representation, decision-making, and benefits (Joshi 1997).

Philippines

Like many nations with large mountain ecosystems, thePhilippines has no mountain-specific national laws. But itdoes have an array of laws that affect mountain resourcesand peoples. In 1975 the martial law regime of PresidentFerdinand E. Marcos decreed that all areas above 18 de-grees in slope were to be classified as public forestland.The decree was ostensibly based on an unsubstantiated“scientific” theory that approximately 40% of the nationallandmass should be forested and that upland areas arebest suited for this purpose. Most of the nation’s indig-enous peoples, including many mountain-dwelling peoplesin the Gran Cordillera of northern Luzon, were adverselyaffected by the decree. During the 1970s and early 1980smany ancestral domains in mountain areas were overlaidwith large commercial timber concessions granted to out-siders friendly to the martial law regime.

After Corazon Aquino became president in 1986, thePhilippine Department of Environment and Natural Re-sources (DENR) became more responsive to upland com-munities, including indigenous peoples. The DENR begandelineating the perimeters of ancestral domain claims inthe early 1990s, and a large-scale community-based for-est management program was launched. By June 30, 1998,over eight percent of the country’s total land mass, or over2.5 million hectares, including many mountain areas, wasofficially covered by Certificates of Ancestral DomainClaims, and even more areas were covered by differenttypes of tenure instruments under various community for-estry programs.


Legislative efforts to convert the ancestral claims intoancestral titles received a big boost in 1997 when thePhilippines Congress passed the Indigenous Peoples’Rights Act (IPRA). The new DENR administration underPresident Joseph Estrada, who became president on June30, 1998, has been much less supportive of efforts to gainlegal recognition of ancestral-domain rights and to pro-mote community-based forestry. A constitutional challengeto IPRA, supported by a powerful mining industry, is nowpending before the Philippine Supreme Court.

Russia

The Parliament of the Republic of Northern Ossetia-Alaniaapproved a Law on Mountain Territories on 30 December1998. The law covers all aspects of sustainable develop-ment in the small mountainous republic in the northernCaucasus, including taxation, ownership, and protectionof historical, cultural and architectural resources. It alsoincludes articles on the definitions of mountain territoriesand their legal boundaries, local communities’ rights, stateresponsibilities, etc. A post-Soviet creation, the law em-phasizes centralized development but is nevertheless note-worthy as the first law of its kind in the Commonwealth ofIndependent States.

South Africa

South Africa is a water-scarce country and the availabilityof water constitutes a key factor in the quality of life. About20% of South Africa’s land surface may be termed moun-tainous. Important mountain catchment areas encompassapproximately 10% of the land surface and yield over halfof the total annual runoff.

The State owns about 15% of the important catchmentareas; the remainder is either individually or communallyowned. One of the principal reasons for the enactment ofthe Mountain Catchment Areas Act (MCAA) of 1970 wasto provide a legal mechanism for regulating land use inprivately owned mountain catchments. But the MCAA onlycovers about 6% of privately owned catchments. It alsodoes not delineate the characteristics of a mountain catch-ment area, and merely states that such areas are definedsimply as any area declared by the Minister of Environ-ment Affairs to be a mountain catchment area. SouthAfrica’s Forestry handbook also describes mountain areasnarrowly in terms of their water catchment functions, i.e.,as an area of “mountainous or elevated, usually brokenterrain of insignificant agricultural potential, where natu-ral precipitation is sufficient to produce surface or subsur-face water yields that contribute significantly to national,regional or local water supplies” (Rabie et al. 1992). Thislaw provides a good example of the way mountain lawsand policies have traditionally benefited the lowland, main-stream economy, and specifically the large export-oriented,elite-owned farms that depend on water from mountainareas.

Most important mountains and mountain catchments(excluding for instance nature reserves) are subject to le-

gal regulation under the Conservation of Agricultural Re-sources Act (CARA) of 1983. The underlying aim of CARAis to promote food production. The management of manymountain areas, which are rich in biodiversity and impor-tant as water sources, therefore, is often in conflict withconservation goals.

South Africa has no comprehensive legislation dealingspecifically with conservation and sustainable managementof mountains. Rather it has numerous laws covering abroad array of subject matters that do not directly addressmountain specificities. These laws include the Water Act,the 1984 Forest Act, the 1983 Conservation of Agricul-tural Resources Act, and the National Parks Act. SouthAfrican law also has not yet addressed mountain-specificissues related to mountain dwelling populations (whichare primarily from the non-white majority) or importantremnant biodiversity-rich habitat zones remaining in itsmountain areas. Recognizing this deficiency, South Africa’scountry report to the UNCSD noted the “need to harmo-nize legislative policies and formulate new mountain-spe-cific legislation” (South Africa Country Profile 1997).

Switzerland

Some local Swiss regulations on pasture uses date backto the fifteenth century AD and are still valid today(Messerli 1999). The “Federal Law on Assistance Regard-ing Investments in Mountain Areas,” or Swiss MountainLaw of 1974, revised in 1998, aims to improve mountainconditions through investments in infrastructure, equip-ment projects, and land acquisition intended for industry,crafts and trades. It also seeks to offer subsidies for com-munity development projects, especially those concerningcommunications, roads, water pipes and treatment, refusedisposal, schools, professional training, leisure, publichealth, culture, and sports. Subsidies for acquisition ofland rights to support crafts and trades are given exclu-sively to municipalities and local NGOs.

The Swiss law is directed at the domestic “regional”level, which is defined as a group of municipalities closelytied geographically and economically. Regions are to bedelineated according to cultural affinities and to be in linewith regional planning. A region’s demographic evolution,long-term economic capacities, and collective infrastruc-ture are the main criteria for determining whether its de-velopment will be encouraged and assisted.

Ukraine

The Law on the Status of Mountains and Human Settle-ments of 1995 seeks to protect the material security ofvulnerable mountain populations by ensuring the socialand economic development of mountain settlements. Thelaw calls for provision of subsidies and loans from thecentral government, as well as technical and financialassistance for agricultural, social, industrial and social in-frastructure development. Unfortunately, adverse economicconditions have so far precluded implementation (Zak-revsky 1997).


United StatesThe Zuni Resource Development Plan (ZRDP) of 1992 is arare example of an indigenous community using nationallaw to take responsibility, build capacity, and empower it-self through rehabilitation and sustainable managementof its traditional resource base. A case against the USGovernment for mismanagement of Zuni land was settledout of court in return for the enactment of the Zuni LandConservation Act of 1990. The Act established the ZuniIndian Resource Development Fund to finance a resourcedevelopment plan and its implementation throughout theZuni Reservation, which is located at altitudes between6,100 and 7,800 feet.

Written in the format of the United Nations Agenda 21document, the ZRDP provides for comprehensive naturalresource management and building the capacity of localinstitutions. The project literature notes that in the ab-sence of “adequate training or capacity building, it will bevery difficult to maintain an authentically ‘Zuni-based’program capable of handling twenty-first century chal-lenges.” The Zuni Cultural Resources Advisory Team, madeup of respected elders of the religious community, are con-sulted regarding the significance of plants, animals, orlocations, and the Zuni Heritage and Historic Preserva-tion Office provides input on protection of cultural re-sources (Enote 1997).

Shepherds in Makalu-Barun National Park, Nepal.

TM

I A

RCH

IVE

S

— 28 —

THE RELATIONSHIP OF MOUNTAIN COMMUNITIES totheir local environments is typically extensive and inti-mate. In the Caucasus, for example, mountain peoples oftenrefer to the “the law of the mountains,” an expression whichrefers to the legal, ethical and religious norms and lifestylesof indigenous mountain peoples (Badenkov 1999).

There is an array of traditional and new community-based legal approaches for addressing problems and gapsin formal legislation and other mechanisms created bynational and international legal systems. This section cat-egorizes and provides brief insights to a small number ofthem. Many of these approaches build on local knowledge.All of them reflect normative standards that derive theirfundamental legitimacy from local communities directlydependent on mountain resources, not from the legal sys-tems of the nations where they are located. Some are tra-ditional. Others are more recent responses to problemsand opportunities.

An important challenge is to design appropriate inter-faces between national and community-based legal norms.The nature of these interfaces will obviously vary depend-ing on the locale and the objectives. But the fundamentalprinciple should be to recognize, respect and support com-munity-based legal approaches that foster equity, conser-vation and sustainable development.

Traditional Sanctions

Many mountain communities have responded to environ-mental threats by developing strategies for constrainingunsustainable activities. Traditional sanctions in mountaincommunities are often based on centuries of local ecosys-tem knowledge. Such sanctions can be reinforced whenthey are supported by national governments or underminedwhen national governments ignore or override them.

One of the best known examples of traditional sanc-tions is the Sherpa custom of shing-i-nawa, or forest guards,where several men from a village are elected to protectthe forest. The shing-i-nawa also have the power to pre-vent cutting of protected forests, determine where treesmay be cut, inspect firewood stocks in people’s houses,and levy appropriate fines for transgressions. Their poweris reinforced by annual celebrations where the fines are

paid and the perpetrators are subjected to good-naturedridicule by their peers (von Furer-Haimendorf 1964). Thismechanism worked for many years in the Khumbu regionaround Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) in Nepal to prevent un-restricted felling which would threaten the community(McNeely 1995).

A long-standing practice in eastern Bhutan, ridam isthe annual prohibition on entering or using a designatedmountain forest from mid-August to mid-October. Its posi-tive effects are both ecological (by protecting young wild-life and plants during the late monsoon-growing season)and socio-economic (by focusing attention on importantagricultural activities). There are two powerful motivationsbehind the observance of ridam: peer pressure within thecommunity and the Buddhist belief that the acts of thislife will be rewarded or punished in the next. In some ar-eas, this tradition has broken down over recent years withthe introduction of a forest department permit system thatprovides legal access to locals and strangers alike. Vil-lage leaders are anxious to reinstate ridam (Messerschmidt1999).

Rahui refers to the traditional Maori practice of restrict-ing access to essential natural resources when they arebeing damaged or falling below sustainable levels. Forexample, prohibitions on killing an economically valuedbird species are set during breeding season or when itspopulation seems to be declining. Rahui are imposed for agiven period of time—perhaps one to two years —to al-low resources to build back to sustainable levels. Rahuican be established by a verbal notification or by a marker,such as a rock, scrap of cloth, bunch of fern or lock of hairand can be lifted only by those authorized to do so. Maoritribal elders are working with the Department of Conser-vation to reinstate customary use of traditional resourcescomplementary to government laws. They are also usingrahui among their own people with respect to certain pro-tected species, such as wood pigeons, and to waterways(Smith 1998).

Traditional Tenure Systems

For some mountain peoples, traditional community-basedproperty rights systems provide, among other things, an

Community-Based Legal Approaches


experience-based framework for conserving and sustain-ably developing mountain resources. A prohibition againstselling property rights to outsiders is one common examplethat can be found among villagers in Upper Mustang Val-ley of Nepal, the Hunza Valley in Pakistan, and in the GranCordillera mountains of the Philippines. In the Italian Alps“maso” tenure rules traditionally forbid the division of ru-ral land holdings into pieces that are smaller than the mini-mum needed to ensure the prosperity of a family (Bran-dolini 1997). This kind of restraint is often key to avoidingsituations such as in the Kalam Valley of Pakistan wherealienation of traditional property to outside hoteliers andother commercial actors has disrupted the fragile ecology(Sharma 1997).

Other environmentally friendly aspects of traditionaltenure systems include obligations to leave land fallow,prevent overgrazing and erosion, protect watersheds, andundertaking other conservation measures. These tradi-tional systems, however, are often ignored and weakenedby national laws, as well as outside economic interestsand some environmentalists who cling to the belief thatany human activity is bad for conservation.

Community-Based Enforcement

In some cases, community-based initiatives are key toenforcing national and state environmental laws. In thePhilippines, local communities with support from an en-vironmental NGO blocked four of five illegal logging ex-its out of Mt. Isarog in the Bikol region of southeasternLuzon. There is no explicit national law or policy to sup-port their actions but the responsible government agen-cies have been unable or unwilling to enforce legal pro-hibitions on unauthorized logging. Another promising ex-ample is the Chipko movement that developed in theGarhwal Hills at the base of the Himalayas in India. Lo-cal women’s groups physically protected trees from log-ging interests in a move that not only protected theirhealth and livelihoods, but has also left a legacy of effec-tive, dynamic community groups operating in other areasof development and conservation.

Codes of Conduct by Community Groups

Codes of conduct include mutually agreed upon guidelinesthat are developed by local populations or user groups.The llama operators’ code of responsible behavior in moun-tain trekking expeditions in Peru’s Huascarán NationalPark is an example (Cerdán 1997). In Sikkim, India thereare two codes of conduct designed by communities at thebase of tourist trekking trails, one for tour operators andone for clients (Jain 1997b). Local people interested intourism planning for the upland area east of Glacier Na-tional Park, Canada formed the Revelstoke Tourism Ac-tion Committee in April 1995. One year after its forma-tion, the committee developed a code of ethics governingthe promotion of tourism. This code emphasizes coopera-tion, sustainable development, concerns of the local com-munity, and conservation of the environment (Feick 1998).

Community-Based Enterprises

Community management of mountain resources, includ-ing the rights to the timber market and tourism revenues,can promote economic productivity and efficiency. Evenmore important—revenues from community-based enter-prises are often more likely to be reinvested in the localcommunities where the money was generated for publicgoods like schools, roads, water storage, and electricity.

Pingzhang community and Yizi community in Yunnan,China are both characterized by low population density, highdependence on rich forest resources (fuelwood for cookingand tobacco drying, timber for house building, wild fungi formarketing, and humus for animal mulch and fertilizer). InPingzhang community, village leaders and farmers eagerlyparticipate in sustainable timber harvesting and they lobbyfor permanent cutting levels to be assigned. The communityhas the rights to the timber market, and can choose whichcommercial timber companies they sell to. Since 1989,Pingzhang has built a primary school, roads, more than 900mini-water storage units, and established drinking waterfacilities and electricity in some villages. By contrast, in theYizi community, farmers only receive income from felling orroad building. The right of decision on timber sales is not con-trolled at the community level, but at the township level; onestage removed. As economic benefits do not enter the com-munity directly, villagers do not want to cut trees. They loseout in two ways: lack of participation and loss of potentialbenefits such as income for quality of life improvements. Thedifferent dynamics within these two communities demon-strate the importance of community self-determination forforest management (Lai 1999).

The Makalu-Barun National Park in eastern Nepal andthe Annapurna Conservation Area Project (ACAP) in cen-tral Nepal offer examples of how local communities canplay a dynamic role in preserving forest resources basedon flexible, multiple land-use approaches. Today ACAP hasexpanded beyond agricultural and forestry-related workto include fodder plantations, education and tourism pro-grams, health clinics, drinking water systems, and carpetand basket weaving cooperatives. Surrounding forests havebeen zoned for multiple purposes for community use and/or restoration based on systems of collective managementwhich villagers practiced before forests were nationalizedin the 1950s (Denniston 1993).

Waste management is a critical aspect of tourist man-agement that affects health and the aesthetic value of adestination. Cooperative action and appropriate infrastruc-ture are helpful in waste management efforts. Waste dete-riorates very slowly at high altitudes, and therefore muchof the waste generated in the mountains should simply becarried out. In the vicinity of Mount Everest the Sagar-matha Pollution Control Committee shows how “well-co-ordinated local initiatives, local institutional systems forenvironmental care can be developed” to combat the prob-lems of tourist waste management (Sharma 1998). Withinone year, this NGO collected nearly 200 tons of garbage inaddition to 719 gas and oxygen cylinders and 603 kilo-grams of batteries (ibid).


Another encouraging example of how local and nationallevel policies can interface with a sensitivity of the spe-cific advantages of mountain environments and judicial useof natural resources comes from the northern parts of theHengduan mountains. Near the towns of Ganze in Sichuanand Diqing in Yunnan, indigenous Tibetan communitiescollect the matsutak mushroom from locally managed for-ests. Considered a delicacy in Japan, for which there is aready export market, the mushrooms fetch local commu-nities a high price (Bandhyopadhyay 1992).

Sacred Traditions and Environmental Conservation

Many of the world’s religions imbue mountains with sa-cred connotations (Bernbaum 1998; Moussouris 1998).Spiritual and religious values are also important forcesfor conservation and traditional stewardship of mountainenvironments. Belief in the power of mountains comes fromthe perception of them as dwelling places of deities whooften are considered to be protectors of local communi-ties. The Sherpa people of Khumbu in Nepal, for example,view the craggy, fortress like peak of Khumbila as the seatof the warrior god who watches over their homeland andprotects their yaks. Reforestation efforts have been suc-cessful in Badrinath, the major Hindu pilgrimage shrinein the Indian Himalayas. The G.B. Pant Institute of Hima-layan Environment and Development, in collaboration withthe Head Priest of the temple, encouraged pilgrims to plantsaplings on the hill slopes as an act of religious devotion.There was a great rush, and 20,000 seedlings were planted(Bernbaum 1996).

Maori wahi tapu refers to culturally sacred sites. Liter-ally translated as ‘window to the past,’ it provides theMaori with genealogical links to their cosmological ori-gins. These sites include burial grounds and caves, battle-fields, and certain mountains. While a number of legisla-tive acts affect wahi tapu, two have been seen to be mosteffective: the Resource Management Act 1991 and therevised Historic Places Act 1989. The Resource Manage-ment Act permits a tribal leader, with approval from theMinister for the Environment, to become a “heritage pro-tection authority.” An authority is able to influence localgovernments considering whether to issue a heritage or-der which provides official protection for sacred Maori sitesby including them in a district plan. The Historic PlacesAct also allows for Maori representation, but in the formof a Council (Sole and Woods 1996).

Examples of religiously based codes include “Adaty”Islamic customs in North Caucasus, and taboo, i.e., re-source use restrictions, that are placed on sacred grovesor other areas that must be left intact. Often these areashave important functions in hydrology or erosion control.

Women’s Roles in Mountain Communities

In addition to their central roles as stewards of family well-being and cultural heritage, mountain women are key natu-ral resource managers. An example of a positive experi-ence that couples women’s participation in farming with

efforts to promote sustainable agricultural techniquescomes from the highlands of southern Brazil where awomen-led farm management and training center has beenestablished (Dankelman and Davidson 1991). Anothersuccessful example comes from the mountainous regionof Lorestan in eastern Iran. A project initiated in 1974sought to help recently settled women reclaim importanttraditional roles they had occupied in their nomadic days.It selected female extension workers from the local popu-lation to work in four key units: agriculture, education,health, rural industries and domestic economies. With theexception of the agricultural unit, women’s participationhas proved a success; participating in innovative literacytechniques based on the local culture, and improving theirliving standards through the production and marketing ofhandicrafts (Dankelman and Davidson 1988).

There are many other initiatives that by ensuring thefull participation of women have experienced considerablesuccess. An illustration comes from an agricultural exten-sion project in eastern Nepal, which initially worked ex-clusively with male farmers. It made little headway untilthe emphasis was shifted to working with women who werethe actual vegetable growers. In a single year, the numberof gardens increased from 75 to 210 (Pakhribas Agricul-tural Centre 1987).

Multi-sectoral approaches have also proved to be ef-fective mechanisms for addressing gender issues. Save theChildren in Nepal combined community forestry projectswith literacy classes for women that emphasized environ-mental issues and concerns. Since 1990, committed womenhave formed hundreds of user groups and have initiatedan array of community projects. Many of these groups havesince been granted legal control over community forestsby the national government (Acharya 1993).

The community of Alta Cima in the El Cielo BiosphereReserve—a mountain cloud forest in northeasternMexico—traditionally depended on what is now a pro-tected area for its livelihood. The people of Alta Limafound alternative livelihoods with the help of a localNGO. This NGO assisted the community in organizingworkshops and developing action plans. One result wasthe formation of a women’s cooperative called El Grupode Mujeres de Alta Cima. With start-up money from asmall international grant, the cooperative opened a res-taurant and a small store. According to the results of aneconomic impact study, the benefits from the cooperativeare numerous (Walker 1998).

Conversion from Natural Resource Dependenceto Local Tourism Initiatives

Bouma Falls, in the highlands of Taveuni island in Fiji, isa popular tourist destination. It is largely managed by thelocal community and overseen by the Native Lands TrustBoard (NLTB). The NLTB provided technical and financialassistance to develop a trail winding from the local villageup to Bouma Falls. Before any work began, local clan-basedleaders reached consensus as to how the project shouldproceed and much of the success of Bouma Falls has been


attributed to that fact. The project also allows for themaintenance of the traditional community, as the trail iswell outside the village (Godde 1998).

In contrast to Bouma Falls, the Koroyanitu ForestEcotourism Project involves the entire community. Theproject operates on the belief that commercial activitieslike tourism must involve everyone residing in Koroyanituvillage, not just the chiefs and local leaders. It facilitatesecotourism workshops where information on community-based tourism as an alternative to logging is shared (Godde1998).

Legal Rights of Disadvantaged CommunityMembers

Mountains often straddle national boundaries, which candivide ethnic groups. An example of such a group is theAkha community, which originated in China and now re-sides throughout much of mountainous mainland South-east Asia. Since the 1930s, two vastly different politicaleconomies and state structures have influenced Akha ac-cess to resources and land management. After the 1949Chinese Revolution, all Akha living in China automaticallybecame citizens of that nation. As citizens, they were in-cluded in land use policies that affected all rural farmers.In 1982–83, economic reform policies resulted in the dis-tribution of land that was previously held by the communeto villages and households. Akha households in XianfengVillage, China are now relatively well off due to thrivingactivities in community forestry, agriculture, horticulture,and wage labor in the nearby city.

In Thailand, by contrast, the legal history of ethnicminorities is quite different. In 1898, the Royal Thai Gov-ernment claimed ownership over the northern territoriesoccupied by the Akha and other non-Thai ethnic groups,and the Royal Forestry Department was vested with man-agement authority. Most of these areas were in mountain-ous and upland regions. Hill tribe identity cards thatbranded non-Thais by ethnicity and village were issued.The cards prohibited travel outside the province of resi-dence without approval, and precluded any formal userights or ownership rights to land and other natural re-sources. Villagers with hill tribe identity cards can at bestonly find menial jobs in town. The drug trade or other il-licit activities tempt some young people seeking to increasetheir incomes. Work on tea plantations, which has resultedin over-felling of forests has become another source of in-come for many ethnic groups. Poorer villagers, who usedto depend on swidden agriculture for food, face a seriousloss of subsistence.

The differences in the treatment and histories of theAkha in China and Thailand reflect the political structuresof the two countries. The Chinese approach has led to betteropportunities for employment and less degradation of en-vironmental resources. The socialist concept of state build-ing in China includes all ethnic minorities. The Thai ap-proach, which copied developments in its colonized neigh-bors (Lynch and Talbott 1995), vested the kingdom withsole ownership of most mountain and forest resources.

Claiming all forests as state assets has enabled the RoyalForest Department to perpetuate the legal marginalizationof many mountain people in Thailand, often on the groundsthat they are “not Thai” (Sturgeon 1999).

In the Shivalik hills of India the untiring efforts of anNGO called Vikalp have evolved into the Ghad SkhetraMazdoor Sangathan, an organization that strives to obtainlegal rights for landless and forest workers. Interactingthrough Vikalp, it also works on larger legal and policyissues that can benefit forest workers and wildlife conser-vation (Gairola and Sreedhar 1999).

Associations of Local Communities

The likelihood that community-based initiatives will suc-ceed usually increases when alliances are formed withother communities and institutions. Coalition allies caninclude other like-minded communities, lowland organi-zations or even national and local governments. An ex-ample of successful community associations is the Trentinocooperatives, described in Box 3. In the Dominican Re-public, the rural associations of San José de Ocoa haveformed a coalition organization that has been classified asan NGO, and is in fact a form of local government (Iturri1997). The villages within the township of St-Martin,Switzerland have collaborated to revitalize and preservethe agriculture-based culture of this alpine region througha sustainable form of community-based tourism. Originallydeveloped as an alternative to a winter ski resort, theproject complements other ski resorts in the area as itprovides fair-weather activity for tourists who wish to en-joy mountain environments (Gaspoz 1998).

Box 3: Federazione Trentina della Cooperative

Italian national law provides a friendly policy environ-ment that encourages reinvestment in mountain com-munities. In Trentino, the Catholic Church has beeninstrumental for over 100 years in setting up agricul-tural and other local community cooperatives (co-ops).Members support each other through pricing mecha-nisms, profit sharing, mutual financial support, andproduct marketing. These cooperatives were developedduring the late 1800s to mitigate the social disrup-tion, poverty, exploitation, massive out-migrationcaused by the industrial revolution, outdated farmingmethods, land fragmentation, severe flooding and out-breaks of introduced crop diseases in the mountainareas. The co-ops are characterized by a clear identi-fication of needs at the local level, clear objectives,democratic organization, and mutual trust betweenmembers. In some cases they are the only local enter-prises that provide essential services to outlying com-munities with significant socio-economic challenges.The co-ops are key to the region’s development, andhelp ensure that mountain communities, through lo-cal agricultural produce marketing and related enter-prises, share in the benefits of development (Bassetti1996).


Local Zoning

Zoning can provide a powerful legal instrument for pro-tecting mountain communities and environments fromunsustainable or undesirable land uses. In New Mexico,USA, the city of Sante Fe created a Mountain Special Re-view District. An ordinance has been issued by the districtwhich regulates construction, development, and land man-agement activities in order to better manage erosion, wa-ter (rights, storage and recharge), inheritance/family trans-fers, access roads, visual integrity and open space provi-sions (Sante Fe Extraterritorial Zoning Authority 1995).A Mountain Protection Plan created by Albemarle County,Virginia, USA provides local zoning, erosion and lightingordinances, and planning tools based on aesthetic, agri-cultural, ecological and financial criteria (Tice 1997). Inthe Ecuadorian Andes, by contrast, a lack of land use plan-ning and clear regulations concerning land development

have been major contributors to the degradation of moun-tain resources and the depletion of biodiversity (Senan-ayake 1997c).

Collaborative National/Local Policy Development

Local tourism planning works better when it involves col-laborative frameworks that include local community groupsas well as external supporting agencies. An example comesfrom Huascarán National Park, Peru, where facilitatorsfrom The Mountain Institute brought together national of-ficials, park staff, and literally hundreds of community andprivate sector groups to create a local ecotourism plan.The plan is now seen as “the most comprehensive attemptto manage tourism in the history of natural protected ar-eas in Peru, and the first one specifically tied to a man-agement plan for any unit within the National System ofNatural Protected Areas in the country” (Torres 1997).

Stol (farmers’ cabins) in Steinskvanndalen, Norway.

MA

RT

IN P

RIC

E

— 33 —

IDENTIFICATION OF THE BEST and worst elements ofexisting mountain laws and policies is beyond the scopeof this paper. Some key issues and legal approaches, in-cluding those raised by the electronic conference partici-pants, however, can be identified.

Commonalities between mountain areas in the major-ity and minority worlds, i.e., the South and the North, havealready been described in the section on “Specific Charac-teristics of Mountain Ecosystems” above. There are alsomajor differences. Over 50% of the Alpine population, forexample, now live in small towns and urban centers. Re-mote areas experience out-migration but the changingsettlement patterns often create opportunities for neweconomic and industrial activities in the main valleys(Messerli 1999). The situation in the financially prosper-ous North is also more conducive to transfers of financialand technical resources into mountain areas, as in France,Austria, Switzerland and Norway. These transfers may rep-resent the true value of mountain resources and the envi-ronmental services they provide, as well as an apprecia-tion of the cultural diversity mountain peoples bring towider societies.

In Southern nations there is greater differentiationamong mountain ecosystems, such as tropical humid moun-tains and arid tropical and subtropical mountains. In hu-mid tropical mountain ecosystems, in-migration is com-mon, in part because of better climate and soils. In aridtropical mountains, by contrast, unfavorable ecologicalconditions foster out-migration to agricultural areas andurban centers. Colonial legal legacies of public (state)ownership of mountain resources exacerbate demographicpressures, and attendant demands on water, forests, pas-tures, and other natural resources, in tropical humid moun-tain areas by pulling in migrants in search of arable land.They likewise undermine community-based tenure sys-tems, including traditional incentives for conservation andsustainable management. The problem tends to becomemore acute when excessive concentration of private own-ership over arable land resource pushes migrants intoostensibly public frontiers.

In both the North and South, the best laws and policiesprovide for community-based or decentralized and partici-

patory planning and implementation. Both approachesreflect an official commitment to subsidiarity and therebypromote local community participation and decision-mak-ing. Whether one is working with forest user groups inNepal or in “regions” identified in Swiss law, legal recog-nition of existing community-based property rights andrespect for local knowledge and priorities increases thelikelihood that efforts to promote equity, conservation andsustainable development in mountain areas will succeed.Decentralized approaches can provide an attractive alter-native when there is insufficient political and legal sup-port for community-based approaches.

The foregoing compilations of international and na-tional (domestic) laws and policies highlight many rela-tively recent positive developments. Indeed, positive in-stitutional developments are occurring in some countries(Price 1999b). But the compilations also reveal seriousproblems and gaps that must still be addressed if law andpolicy are to be effective tools for promoting social justiceand mountain conservation and development. These prob-lems and gaps include the following:

Need for Comprehensive National MountainPolicies and Laws

Some governments opt not to enact comprehensive nationalmountain policies and laws on the grounds that they aretoo costly or time-consuming. Indeed, comprehensive ap-proaches may be unnecessary and inappropriate, especiallyif other laws already provide for varied approaches to eco-system management. The 1997 Report of the FAO TaskManager on Chapter 13 of Agenda 21, however, notes that“in spite of increased international attention since UNCEDon the need for reform . . . , examples of departments,programmes or legislation that deal with mountain issuesin a more integrated way are still rare.” The mountainsections of country profiles submitted to the United Na-tions list forestry, fisheries, wildlife, biodiversity and othersectoral legislation but comparatively few mountain-spe-cific laws or policies (UNCSD 1997).

Where a binding unified mountain law is not possibleor desired, a national mountain policy can still foster more

Identification of Key Issues in MountainLaws and Policies


consistency in governmental approaches to mountainmanagement (Gabelnick et al. 1997). A national mountainpolicy statement can also serve as a model for interna-tional comparison.

It is important to recognize that the primary problemsfor the sustainable management of mountain ecosystemsare related to altitudinal, slope and climatic peculiarities,and the resulting natural and cultural isolation of high-land biomes. Many of the points raised by participants tothe electronic conference, however, are not exclusive tomountain ecosystems. Sectorally, while forestry laws maynot be sufficient to cover mountain forests, policy makerscan learn from community forest policy and programs, andshould consider incorporating lessons learned in any com-prehensive mountain laws or policies.

Discrepancy Between Formal Enactmentof a Law and its Actual Implementation

As noted previously, laws and policies may be enacted atnational and international levels but the absence of imple-menting legislation and political will largely preclude anyimplementation. This can be referred to as lex simulata, alargely political response to pressure in the guise of a lawthat is not (at least yet) intended to be implemented. Forexample, the US can proudly list the impressive collectionof UNESCO Biosphere reserves it has successfully nomi-nated. The agreed principles of biosphere reserves, suchas the establishment of buffer zones, however, have oftennot been complied with. This highlights the need for moreeffective international and national monitoring of compli-ance (Peterson 1997).

Local Access to Existing Information

One study found that frequent change in China’s forestpolicy causes confusion among farmers regarding theirrights and responsibilities. As many as 60% of farmersare unsure of the changes concerning afforestation and85% of farmers attribute their fear of investment in tim-ber to the policy instabilities. “To promote development offorestry there is a need to clarify the ownership of for-ests, . . . and develop management guidelines involving thestate, collectives and individuals” (Shuncheng 1998).

Gender

The key role of women is noted in the CBD and DC. Suchstatements, however, have been largely rhetorical. Therehas been little effort to date on international and nationallevels to address women’s roles in law and policy instru-ments concerning mountain peoples and ecosystems (Byersand Sainju 1994).

Defining the Boundaries of Mountain Areas

There are widespread discrepancies in mountain areasbetween local ecosystems and local government adminis-trative units. This can lead to the inclusion of non-moun-

tainous areas in mountain administrative units and vice-versa, inconsistent application of laws in administrativelyseparated parts of the same mountain range, and resent-ment of communities located on the periphery of a moun-tain administrative unit due to their exclusion from favor-able socio-economic policies earmarked for mountain popu-lations (Saint-Pierre 1997). There is a need for inter-gov-ernmental cooperation to address cross-boundary issuesconcerning shared mountain populations (Saint-Pierre1997). It may be impractical and unadvisable to draw sharplegal lines that isolate mountain ecosystems from sur-rounding areas. Rather, efforts should be made to under-stand the linkages and develop laws and policies that fos-ter productive interactions.

South/North and Domestic Equity Issues

Most national (domestic) laws and policies still fail to re-flect the values and importance of mountain cultures andareas and the environmental services provided by manymountain communities. Existing international documents,including the Mountain Agenda/Chapter 13, likewise failto appreciate the contributions of mountain communitiesor to provide for international burden-sharing arrange-ments, the distribution of benefits from the utilization ofmountain resources, or other related equity issues (Gabel-nick et al. 1997).

Persistent Attitudes and Behavior

Law and policy makers and development workers oftentreat local mountain communities in patronizing ways.These attitudes can undermine local peoples’ traditionsas well as their confidence in, responsibility for, and com-mitment to sustainable management and externally initi-ated projects. The traditional patron-client relationshipbetween Nepalese state forestry officials informally knownas “Banko Raja (Kings of the Forest)” and local forest usercommunities, for example, has stood in the way of theparticipation of mountain communities in development andconservation (Lama 1997).

This is a difficult area for law and policy to address.National and international law cannot eliminate prejudicesand other negative attitudes and behaviors. This limita-tion reinforces the need for dialogue, cross-cultural train-ing and a commitment to change from within bureaucra-cies, institutions and broader societies.

Intellectual Property Rights

Indigenous knowledge of the natural world is generallyundervalued and inadequately protected under currentnational and international intellectual property rights re-gimes. Given the role of mountains as a storehouse of bothbiodiversity and traditional knowledge, the ongoing fail-ure of international and national legal systems to recog-nize and protect traditional knowledge is harmful to somemountain communities and the floral and faunal resourcesthey steward.

— 35 —

THE ELECTRONIC CONFERENCE contained many impor-tant recommendations that merit attention in law andpolicy instruments relating to the conservation and sus-tainable development of mountain peoples and ecosys-tems. The normative value of these recommendations hasbeen largely validated during subsequent research for thispaper.

All Levels

Recognize the Importance of Mountain Ecosystems

Many important benefits are provided by mountain eco-systems. These benefits should be acknowledged and pro-tected in international and national laws and policies. Al-though valuable in their own right, general environmentallaws and policies do not adequately address mountain is-sues. Specific legal and policy tools are needed to addressthe unique biological, geological, climatic, economic, andcultural characteristics of mountain peoples and ecosys-tems.

Support and Protect Mountain Peoples’ Rightsand Cultures

National governments and the international community canuse law and policy to support mountain peoples’ rightsand cultures. This should include appropriate recognitionof, and support for, the useful roles mountain communi-ties play in the sustainable management of mountain eco-systems. It should also include legal recognition of tradi-tional community-based property rights and knowledgesystems.

Improve the Well-Being of Mountain Communities

Supporting mountain peoples’ rights and cultures can in-clude creating legal and policy mechanisms for improvingtheir well-being. As several European laws demonstrate,this can entail the enactment of laws mandating resourcetransfers, investment in health and education, reinvest-

ment of profits from the exploitation of mountain resources,diversification of economic activities, and incentives forthe development of appropriate technologies. As part of acomprehensive mountain policy, legally mandated invest-ments in livelihood strategies could strengthen local com-munities and reduce out-migration and pressures on frag-ile resources such as forests and farmland.

Ensure Local Participation

Any prospective law or policy instrument concerning theconservation and sustainable development of mountainsshould in the early drafting stages ensure the participa-tion of mountain peoples in designing, implementing andmonitoring laws and policies that directly impact on theirlives and livelihoods. Existing laws and policies shouldlikewise be modified to ensure local participation. Devel-opment projects and ecotourism schemes need to integratelocal participation in the design, management, implemen-tation and sharing of benefits by communities affected bya project or living in the area of a project activity (Jain1997a). A critical issue will be identifying who effectivelyrepresents those directly dependent on a specific moun-tain ecosystem, and what legal personality local represen-tatives should have. Traditional structures of authoritysometimes exclude important groups due to education,class, caste, livelihood or gender (Jain 1997a). To the ex-tent possible, law and policy should be aware of and notreinforce these exclusions whether or not they are consid-ered traditional.

Be Sensitive to Gender Issues

One area where some traditional norms, as well as na-tional laws, discriminate is with regard to gender. Womenplay a critical and all too often unrecognized role in facili-tating sustainable mountain development. Women are alsofrequently the primary users of community-owned re-sources and are the first to suffer if those resources arerestricted or degraded (Byers 1995). Laws and policiesshould not undermine the traditionally prominent role ofwomen in many mountain communities, nor should theyreinforce existing prejudices and unfair practices.

Recommendations


Make Vertical and Horizontal Linkages

Local, national, and international legal norms, processesand institutions should reinforce each other by adheringto common principles. Traditional legal mechanisms cansimilarly reinforce and be reinforced by national and inter-national laws.

Build Public Interest Law Capacities

As this report highlights, one of the greatest challengesconfronting mountain communities is the failure of nationalgovernments and international institutions to respond totheir concerns, aspirations, rights and potentials. The ten-dency of national law to override—and international lawto overlook—the interests of rural peoples, including popu-lations directly dependent on mountain ecosystems, is his-torically rooted and continues to frustrate sustainabledevelopment and sound environmental governance. Butthere are very few public interest lawyers researching andadvocating on behalf of mountain peoples and ecosystems.Meeting this challenge will include fostering interest onbehalf of mountain communities in law schools and thelegal profession. Success in this regard should result inthe creation and strengthening of national and interna-tional public interest human rights and environmental laworganizations committed to advocating on behalf of moun-tain communities.

Promote Legal Education

Whether hard or soft, laws can be powerful tools. But inorder to benefit fully from national and international laws,mountain peoples need to know about and use them. Pub-lic interest law organizations and other institutions work-ing on behalf of mountain communities, including govern-ment entities, should develop paralegal training initiatives,including seminars and materials, so that public interestlawyers can help mountain peoples learn about their legalrights and responsibilities. The training of “barefoot para-legals” who come from mountain communities should alsobe considered.

InternationalDevelop an International Instrument

The natural and logical culmination of the MountainAgenda/Chapter 13 is a future international instrumenton mountain peoples and the conservation and sustain-able development of mountain ecosystems. The instrumentcould be a law or a policy. There is no consensus, how-ever, on this point. Efforts to promote conservation andsustainable development within mountain cultures and eco-systems, meanwhile, need not await an international con-vention or any other instrument.

Create Mountain-Specific Protocols

Mountain ecosystems are unique and inadequately cov-ered by more general conventions such as the CBD or DC.

These instruments, however, could be made more appli-cable through the addition of future protocols focusing onmountain-specific concerns relating to property rights,biodiversity, climate change and desertification.

Strengthen Regional Policy Frameworks

Most mountain regions have already held an Intergovern-mental Consultation as part of the follow-up to Chapter 13of Agenda 21. These meetings have proved useful. Moreshould be held in the hope they will lead to more concreteoutcomes, such as strengthening national commitmentsand facilitating transboundary cooperation.

Build Transboundary Cooperation

Mountain ecosystems, cultures, and economies are usu-ally not contiguous with international frontiers and do-mestic boundaries agreed to or created by central govern-ments. Cooperation between neighboring states is neces-sary for promoting the well-being of mountain peoples andecosystems. This cooperation can also promote peace be-tween states and recognition of shared values and objec-tives.

National

The overriding recommendation in terms of national (do-mestic) law is to develop and enact a national law onmountains. Some aspects of existing national laws, espe-cially those in Europe, can help inform and guide legisla-tive drafting processes. The following recommendationsalso merit serious consideration:

Build on and Support Traditional and IndigenousInstitutions and Mechanisms

Many mountain communities possess local knowledgeimportant for the conservation and sustainable manage-ment of mountain resources. This traditional knowledgeshould be recognized, relied upon and supported.

Recognize Traditional and Indigenous Community-Based Property Rights

Traditional and indigenous tenure systems are a reflec-tion of local knowledge and ecology. Original, long-term(i.e., indigenous) occupants of mountain areas should berecognized as the owners of the mountain areas wherethey are located. In most instances where property rightsare not yet formally defined or individuated, this shouldinclude full legal title and recognition of traditional andprivate community-based property rights.7

7For a more detailed explanation of the authors’ definition of“private community-based rights,” see Lynch 1999.


Apply Full Cost Pricing of Resources

Outside interests typically fail to take into considerationthe full social, environmental, and economic services pro-vided by mountain ecosystems, the costs to mountainpeoples of commercial resource extraction activities, orthe downstream effects of mountain exploitation in low-land areas, such as reduced water supply or flooding dueto deforestation. As a result, timber, minerals, and watertaken from mountain areas are often exploited in waysthat are adverse to the interests of local communities. Localcommunities, meanwhile, internalize the costs of pollutedwater sources, erosion, degraded forests and sacred sites.Large-scale commercial extractors, however, seldom pro-vide affected communities with any significant benefits.If reflected in the price of concessions or other fees, fullcost pricing could help reduce exploitation to more sus-tainable levels. Obligatory reinvestment of profits derivedfrom the utilization of timber, minerals, water and othermountain resources would encourage benefit sharing andhelp reduce disparities in income and social infrastruc-ture.

Create a Separate Integrated Policy whichAddresses all Goods and Services Producedin Mountain Areas

Many domestic agricultural policies currently provide goodexamples of how governments contribute to the degrada-tion of mountain environments, especially through subsi-dies for mono-cropping. An integrated policy should beformulated that addresses the financial and technical chal-lenges of producing goods and services in harsh uplandenvironments and the small-scale production systems thatcommunities have evolved in response.

Target Development Assistance

International and domestic assistance programs shouldensure that the primary recipients of outside support, fi-nancial and other, should be communities directly depen-dent on mountain areas.

Zoning

National and local governments have important roles toplay in promoting the well-being of mountain peoples andecosystems. When appropriate this may include zoningregulations for the purpose of directing development awayfrom especially sensitive areas. Rural zoning measures canhelp ensure that fragile habitats are strictly protected anddevelopment is directed at less biologically sensitive orvaluable areas. Zoning can also ensure that the activitiesof one community do not negatively affect the welfare ofother user communities.

Conserve Ecosystems

Current environmental approaches must be tailored tomountain specificities. Besides zoning initiatives, three

types of more comprehensive use patterns may merit con-sideration in some locales.

Absolute/strict protected areas: Forty percent of globalbiodiversity hot spots are located in mountain areas. Fullprotection of at least some of these biologically rich areasis necessary. In most, if not all areas, however, full protec-tion can allow for limited (non-mechanized) traditionaluses.

Mixed-use protected areas: The creation of strict preser-vation areas off limits to all human use, especially in lightof expanding populations and human needs in ecologicallyimportant areas such as the Himalayan zone, is increas-ingly understood to not be viable. Innovative mixed-useapproaches, including legal recognition of private commu-nity-based rights, could lead to the establishment of lessstrict conservation areas that permit human habitation andsustainable resource extraction. These approaches haveengendered local support and are viewed as a realisticmeans for conserving biodiversity (Jain 1997a).

Areas open to the “modern” sector: Some mountain areasmay be suited to more intensive uses. These uses mightinclude primary (timber/minerals/water) resource extrac-tive industries, construction of infrastructure, and recre-ation and other amenities that foster in-migration. Theseactivities should be regulated by a framework that is spe-cifically tailored to mountain considerations, and that re-quires environmental impact assessment, community par-ticipation, reinvestment, full cost pricing and protectionof sacred sites.

Establish a Legal Framework for ProtectingSacred Sites

Traditional community-based beliefs and practices that areeffective in preserving mountain ecosystems, such as sa-cred sites, are being overwhelmed in many locales. Someof these local controls merit legal support. Of course, sa-cred traditions are not always environmentally sound,especially when markets or other outside influences changethe context of the sacred use of the materials (The Moun-tain Institute 1998). Law and policy can help define ac-cess privileges and negotiate appropriate controls oversacred sites.

Protect Intellectual Property Rights of LocalPopulations

Action at the international level due to the interlockingglobal patterns of extraction and exploitation (e.g. inter-national pharmaceutical companies) is required to ensurethat mountain peoples benefit from the exploitation of theirlocal knowledge. At national levels this can take the formof a special traditional knowledge policy (GNWT 1996).

Information

To build on this initial report and respond to general callsfor more information from the Commission on SustainableDevelopment, the Declaration of Antananarivo, and other


documents, there is a need for more research, databasedevelopment, and information exchanges on mountain lawand policy. In particular, information on the impact of lawsand policies will help evaluate their effects on mountainpeoples and ecosystems.

Local

Challenge Mountain Peoples and Communities

In order to better influence and shape laws and policieson all levels, mountain peoples are well advised to rethinktheir situations and perceptions. Global society is rapidlydeveloping and penetrating virtually every mountaintop.

Social, economic and political dynamics grow ever morecomplicated and this presents new dangers and opportu-nities for mountain peoples and ecosystems. Rethinkingold taboos and traditional practices, including customarylaws and practices, and being open to new initiatives isoften necessary in order to respond to, and more effec-tively impact our changing world.

Recognition and Appreciation

Mountain peoples face threats on multiple fronts and manyfeel unappreciated. They should know that a small butgrowing number of people living in other ecosystems valuetheir contributions in conserving and sustainably manag-ing the world’s mountains.

Trekking guide/naturalist with alpine flora, Mount Kenya National Park, Kenya.

ELI

ZAB

ET

H B

YER

S

— 39 —

Note: References marked with an asterisk (*) are avail-able on Mountain Forum world wide web site at <http://www.mtnforum.org>. For easy retrieval, enter the author’sname or keywords from the title in the “Search” box onthe Mountain Forum web site.

Acharya, Harihar. 1993. Participation of Women in the Manage-ment of Community Forests in Gorkha, Nepal. Save theChildren/USA, Kathmandu, Nepal.

*Alirol, Philippe. 1997. “MPL: The Need for a StrategicInitiative on Mountains.” Contribution to Mountain Policyand Law Electronic Conference, Mountain Forum.

Anaya, S. James. 1996. Indigenous Peoples in International Law.Oxford University Press.

*Badenkov, Yuri P. 1997. “MPL: RE: Mountain Debate.”Contribution to Mountain Policy and Law ElectronicConference, Mountain Forum.

— 1999. Personal communication to Jane Pratt: Reviewcomments on draft “Mountain Laws and Peoples” report.

*Bahadur, Jagdish. 1997. “MPL: Himalayan Snow and Ice.”Contribution to Mountain Policy and Law ElectronicConference, Mountain Forum.

Bandhyopadhyay, Jayanta. 1992. “The Himalaya: Prospects forand Constraints on Sustainable Development,” in Stone,P.B. (Ed.), State of the World’s Mountains: A Global Report.Zed Books, London.

*Banskota, Mahesh. 1997. “MPL: Contribution to the InformalLegal Traditions and Local Regulation.” Contribution toMountain Policy and Law Electronic Conference, MountainForum.

*Bassetti, M. 1996. “Cooperatives of the Trentino Region, Italy.”Federazione Trentina delle Cooperative. Trento, Italy.Contribution to Paying for Mountains Electronic Confer-ence. Mountain Forum.

*Bernbaum, Edwin. 1996. “Secrets of the Sacred Hills,” inPeople & the Planet: People and Mountains: Pinnacles ofDiversity, Volume 5 Number 1.

*— 1998. Sacred Mountains of the World. University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.

Bowen-Jones, Evan and Stephanie Pendry. 1999. “The Threat toPrimates and other Mammals from the Bushmeat Trade inAfrica, and How this Threat Could be Diminished,” in Oryx33(3) (233–246).

*Brandolini, Giorgio. 1997. “MPL: Mountains Face NewChallenges.” Contribution to Mountain Policy and LawElectronic Conference, Mountain Forum.

Brownlie, Ian 1990. Principles of Public International Law,Fourth Edition. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

—. 1973. “A Survey of International Customary Rules of

Environmental Protection,” in Natural Resources Journal 13(179).

*Butt, Nathalie and Martin F. Price. 2000. Mountain People,Forests, and Trees: Strategies for Balancing Local Managementand Outside Interests. Synthesis of an Electronic Conference,April 12–May 14, 1999. Mountain Forum and The MountainInstitute. Franklin, West Virginia.

*Byers, Elizabeth. 1995. “Mountain Agenda: EnvironmentallySustainable and Equitable Development Opportunities.”Invited paper presented at the International NGO Consulta-tion on the Mountain Agenda, 1995, Peru. The MountainInstitute. Franklin, West Virginia, USA.

*Byers, Elizabeth and Meeta Sainju. 1994. “Mountain Ecosys-tems and Women: Opportunities for Sustainable Develop-ment and Conservation,” in Mountain Research and Develop-ment, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 213–228. University of CaliforniaPress for the International Mountain Society and UnitedNations University.

*Byers, Elizabeth and Lynelle Preston. 1997. “MPL: 2nd theme,International and national action for mountains.” Contribu-tion to Mountain Policy and Law Electronic Conference,Mountain Forum.

*Cerdán, Miriam. 1997. “MPL: Llama Operators’ Code ofConduct.” Contribution to Mountain Policy and LawElectronic Conference, Mountain Forum.

Dankelman, Irene and Joan Davidson. 1991. “Land: Women atthe Centre of the Food Crisis,” in Sally Sontheimer, (ed.),Women and the Environment: A Reader. New York: MonthlyReview Press.

— 1988. Women and Environment in the Third World: Alliance forthe Future. Earthscan Publications Limited, London, inassociation with the World Conservation Union.

*Dasmann, Raymond F. and Duncan Poore. 1979. EcologicalGuidelines for Balanced Land Use, Conservation and Develop-ment in High Mountains. UNEP-IUCN-WWF.

*Davis, Robert. 1997. “MPL: Nature Has No Frontier.” Contribu-tion to Mountain Policy and Law Electronic Conference,Mountain Forum.

Davis, Shelton H. and Katrinka Ebbe. (eds.). 1993. “TraditionalKnowledge and Sustainable Development.” EnvironmentallySustainable Development Proceedings Series No. 4. WorldBank, Washington, DC

Denniston, Derek. 1995. “High Priorities: Conserving MountainEcosystems and Cultures,” Worldwatch Paper 123. Washing-ton, DC: The Worldwatch Institute.

Downes, David. 1997. “Using Intellectual Property as a Tool toProtect Traditional Knowledge,” CIEL Discussion Paper.Washington, DC: Center for International EnvironmentalLaw.

References


Dupuy, P. 1991. “Soft Law and the International Law of theEnvironment,” in Michigan Law Journal of International Law,12 (420).

*ECOSOC. 1998a. Resolution 1997/45, ECOSOC substantivesession of 1998, 6–31 July 1998, Item 7(e) of the provi-sional agenda.

*— 1998b. International Year of Mountains. Report of the Fifty-Third Session, Agenda Item 12.

*Enote, Jim. 1997. “MPL: Zuni Land Conservation Act.”Contribution to Mountain Policy and Law ElectronicConference, Mountain Forum.

*FAO. 1997. Task Manager’s Report on Chapter 13, Agenda 21(Report of the Secretary-General). United Nations and Inter-Agency Committee on Sustainable Development. E/CN.17/1997/2/Add.12 22 January 1997.

*Feick, Jenny. 1998. “CBMT: Revelstoke Tourism ActionCommittee.” Contribution to Community-Based MountainTourism Electronic Conference, Mountain Forum.

*Gabelnick, Tamar, Dereck Hogan, Kaori Okuizumi, PaulPfeuffer, Kristen Pisani, and Rexon Ryu. 1997. “ManagingFragile Ecosystems: Sustainable Mountain DevelopmentPolicy Analysis and Recommendations.” Graduate TaskForce on International Affairs, Woodrow Wilson School ofInternational and Public Affairs, Princeton University,March 1997.

*Gairola, H and R. Sreedhar. 1999. “Peoples Forestry Manage-ment: From Policy Perspectives to Conflict Resolution.”Contribution to Mountain People, Forests, and TreesElectronic Conference, Mountain Forum.

*Gaspoz, Michael. 1998. “CBMT: Sustainable Tourism in St-Martin, Switzerland.” Contribution to Community-BasedMountain Tourism Electronic Conference, Mountain Forum.

*Godde, Pam (ed.). 1999. “Community-Based Mountain Tour-ism: Practices for Linking Conservation with Enterprise.”Synthesis of an Electronic Conference, April 13-May 18,1998. Mountain Forum and The Mountain Institute.

*Godde, Pam. 1998. “CBMT: Community-based MountainTourism in Fiji.” Contribution to Community-Based Moun-tain Tourism Electronic Conference, Mountain Forum.

*GNWT. 1996. Northwest Territories Policy 51.06-TraditionalKnowledge. Canada.

Harrison, D. and M.F. Price. 1997. “Fragile Environments,Fragile Communities? An Introduction” in Price, Martin F.,ed. People and Tourism in Fragile Environments. John Wileyand Sons.

*Hughey, Ken. 1997. “MPL: Global policy/community manage-ment.” Contribution to Mountain Policy and Law ElectronicConference, Mountain Forum.

*Iturri, Manuel Paulet. 1997. “MPL: San José de Ocoa.”Contribution to Mountain Policy and Law ElectronicConference, Mountain Forum.

*Jain, Nandita. 1997a. “MPL: Participation in Zoning ProtectedAreas for Ecotourism.” Contribution to Mountain Policy andLaw Electronic Conference, Mountain Forum.

*—. 1997b. “MPL: Codes of Conduct, Sikkim.” Contribution toMountain Policy and Law Electronic Conference, MountainForum.

*Jewett, Gary. 1997. “MPL: East Carpathian TransboundaryConservation.” Contribution to Mountain Policy and LawElectronic Conference, Mountain Forum.

*Jodha, Narpat. 1997. “MPL: Missing Policy Space for MountainAreas.” Contribution to Mountain Policy and Law ElectronicConference, Mountain Forum.

*Joshi, Amrit Lal. 1997. “MPL: Community Forestry Regula-tions in Nepal.” Contribution to Mountain Policy and LawElectronic Conference, Mountain Forum.

*Justicia, Rebeca. 1997. “MPL: Ecuador’s Tropical Andes.”Contribution to Mountain Policy and Law ElectronicConference, Mountain Forum.

Keiter, Robert B. 1999. Personal communication to ElizabethByers: Review comments on draft “Mountain Laws andPeoples” report.

Kratochwil, F. 1989. Rules, Norms and Decisions. On the Condi-tions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in InternationalRelations and Domestic Affairs. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

*Kunkle, Sam. 1997. “MPL: Grazing.” Contribution to MountainPolicy and Law Electronic Conference, Mountain Forum.

*Lai Qingkui. 1999. “MPFT: Commercial Community TimberOperations in Yunnan.” Contribution to Mountain People,Forests and Trees Electronic Conference, Mountain Forum.

*Lama, Shambu. 1997. “MPL: A Voice from the Central Hills ofNepal.” Contribution to Mountain Policy and Law ElectronicConference, Mountain Forum.

Lynch, Owen J. 1999. “Promoting Legal Recognition of Commu-nity-Based Property Rights, Including the Commons: SomeTheoretical Considerations.” Presented at a Symposium ofthe International Association for the Study of CommonProperty and the Workshop in Political Theory and PolicyAnalysis, Indiana University. A copy of this article can befound at <http://www.indiana.edu/~iascp/symposium99.html>.

Lynch, Owen J. and Kirk Talbott. 1995. Balancing Acts: Commu-nity-Based Forest Management and National Law in Asia andthe Pacific. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

Lynch, Owen J. and Janis Alcorn. 1994. “Tenurial Rights andCommunity-Based Conservation,” in Natural Connections:New Perspectives on Community-Based Conservation. eds.David Western, Michael Wright, and Shirley Strum. IslandPress.

Maggio, Gregory F. 1998. “Recognizing the Vital Role of LocalCommunities in International Legal Instruments forConserving Biodiversity,” in UCLA Journal of EnvironmentalLaw and Policy 16 (1) 179–226.

Maggio, Gregory F. and Owen J. Lynch. 1996. “Human Rights,Environment and Economic Development: Existing andEmerging Standards in International Law and GlobalSociety.” Papered prepared by the World Resources Insti-tute for the Earth Council’s environmental ombudsmaninitiative (mimeo.). A copy of this article can be found at<http://www.ciel.org/>.

McGinley, G.P. 1993. “Indigenous Peoples’ Rights: Mabo andOthers vs. State of Queensland, The Australian High Courtaddresses 200 Years of Oppression,” Denver Journal ofInternational Law and Policy, Vol.21.

*McNeely, Jeffrey A. 1995. “Conserving Diversity in MountainEnvironments: Biological and Cultural Approaches.” Invitedpaper presented at the International NGO Consultation onthe Mountain Agenda, 1995, Peru. IUCN—The WorldConservation Union, Gland, Switzerland.

Messerli, Bruno. 1999. Personal communication to Jane Pratt:Review comments on draft “Mountain Laws and Peoples”report.

*Messerschmidt, Don. 1999. “The Forest in Bhutanese Cul-ture.” Contribution to Mountain People, Forests and TreesElectronic Conference, Mountain Forum.

*Metz, John. 1997. “MPL: RE: Ecuador’s Tropical Andes.”Contribution to Mountain Policy and Law ElectronicConference, Mountain Forum.

*Mountain Forum. 1995. “International NGO Consultation onthe Mountain Agenda: Summary Report and Recommenda-tions to the United Nations Commission on SustainableDevelopment..” The Mountain Institute.

*Moussouris, Yorgos. 1998. “CBMT: Science and Ecotourism vs.Exiled Gods.” Contribution to Community-based MountainTourism Electronic Conference, Mountain Forum.

*Mujica, E. and J.L. Rueda. 1995. “Intergovernmental Consulta-tion Concerning the Sustainable Development of Mountains


in Latin America.” Centro Internacional de la Papa. Lima,Peru.

Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution ofInstitutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.

Pakhribas Agricultural Centre. 1987. Review of Achievements1972–1987. Dhankuta, Nepal.

Parker, I.S.C. and A.D. Graham. 1989. “Men, Elephants andCompetition,” in The Biology of Large African Mammals intheir Environment. 241–243. (eds. P.A. Jewell and G.M.O.Maloic, Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, No.61).

*Peterson, David. 1997. “MPL: Legal Text on BiosphereReserves.” Contribution to Mountain Policy and LawElectronic Conference, Mountain Forum.

Pimbert, Michel P. and Jules N. Pretty. 1995. Parks, People andProfessionals: Putting “Participation” Into Protected AreaManagement. United Nations Research Institute for SocialDevelopment, Geneva.

Plant, Roger. 1991. “Land Rights for Indigenous and TribalPeoples in Developing Countries: A Survey of Law andPolicy Issues, Current Activities, and Proposals for an Inter-Agency Programme of Action” (mimeo.). InternationalLabour Office, Geneva.

Posey, D.A., 1995. Indigenous Peoples and Traditional ResourceRights: A Basis for Equitable Relationships. Green CollegeCentre for Environmental Policy and Understanding, Oxford.

*Preston, Lynelle (ed.). 1997. “Investing in Mountains: InnovativePractices and Promising Examples for Financing Conservationand Sustainable Development. The Mountain Institute and theFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Franklin, West Virginia, USA.

*Preston, Lynelle. 1997. “MPL: Transboundary Collaboration.”Contribution to Mountain Policy and Law ElectronicConference, Mountain Forum.

Price, Martin. 1998. “Mountains: Globally Important Ecosys-tems”. in S.A. Dembner (ed.) Unasylva, Volume 49, Number195. Publishing Management Group, FAO InformationDivision. This article can be viewed on the World Wide Webat: <http://www.fao.org/forestry/foda/unasylva/195/E/195-e.stm>

— 1999a. “Towards Cooperation Across Mountain Frontiers,”European Environment, Vol. 9, No. 3.

— 1999b. Personal communication to Jane Pratt: Reviewcomments on draft “Mountain Laws and Peoples” report.

Rabie, M.A., P.E. Blignaut and L.P. Fatti. 1992. “Mountains” inFuggle, R.F. and M.A. Rabie, eds. 1992. EnvironmentalManagement in South Africa. Juta & Co., Cape Town.

*Recharte, Jorge. 1997. “MPL: Conservation/DevelopmentPolicy for Municipalities in Ecuador.” Contribution toMountain Policy and Law Electronic Conference, MountainForum.

Reisman, W.M. 1995. “Protecting Indigenous Rights in Interna-tional Adjudication,” American Journal of International Law,Vol. 89.

*Saint-Pierre, Claude. 1997. “MPL: Need to Define the Bound-aries of Mountain Areas.” Contribution to Mountain Policyand Law Electronic Conference, Mountain Forum.

*Sante Fe Extraterritorial Zoning Authority Ordinance No.1995-1: Mountain Special Review District, New Mexico,USA.

*Senanayake, Ranil. 1997a. “MPL: Development.” Contributionto Mountain Policy and Law Electronic Conference,Mountain Forum.

*— 1997b. “MPL: RE: Mountain Debate Comment by Dr. Yuri P.Badenkov.” Contribution to Mountain Policy and LawElectronic Conference, Mountain Forum.

*— 1997c. “MPL: Mountain Landscape Design and Manage-ment.” Contribution to Mountain Policy and Law ElectronicConference, Mountain Forum.

*Sharma, Pitamber. 1997. “MPL: Informal Traditions.” Contri-bution to Mountain Policy and Law Electronic Conference,Mountain Forum.

*— 1998. “CBMT: Theme 2, Guest Moderator’s IntroductoryStatement.” Contribution to Community-Based MountainTourism Electronic Conference, Mountain Forum.

Shuncheng, Yang. 1998. “Issues Relating to Forestry and theMitigation of Poverty.” Forestry and Society Newsletter, Vol.16, 1005-3654.

*Smith, Ailsa. 1998. “CBMT: Site Consecration.” Contribution toCommunity-Based Mountain Tourism Electronic Conference,Mountain Forum.

*Sole, Tony and Kirsty Woods. 1996. “Protection of indigenoussacred sites: the New Zealand experience.” In JimBirckhead, Terry de Lacy and Laurajane Smith (eds.)Aboriginal Involvement in Parks and Protected Areas. Aborigi-nal Studies Press. Canberra.

*South African Country Profile. 1997. “Implementation ofAgenda 21: Review of Progress Made since the UnitedNations Conference on Environment and Development,1992,” 7–25 April 1997.

*Sturgeon, Janet. 1999. “MPFT: Property Rights UplandForests: China/Thailand.” Contribution to Mountain People,Forests and Trees Electronic Conference, Mountain Forum.

*The Mountain Institute. 1998. Sacred Mountains and Environ-mental Conservation: A Practitioner’s Workshop. The MountainInstitute. Franklin, West Virginia, USA.

*Tice, David. 1997. “MPL: Mountain Protection Plan.” Contribu-tion to Mountain Policy and Law Electronic Conference,Mountain Forum.

*Torres Angeles, Miriam Edith. 1997. “Advances In theManagement of Recreational Use of Huascarán NationalPark, Peru.” The George Wright Society Forum, Volume 14,Number 3, 1997.

*UNCSD. 1997. Mountain Sections of United Nations CountryProfiles, in “Implementation of Agenda 21: Review ofProgress made since the United Nations Conference onEnvironment and Development, 1992.”

*— 1995. Third Annual Session’s report on Agenda 21, Chapter13 on Sustainable Mountain Development.

*van Beek, Martijn. 1997. “MPL: Autonomy, Community, andDevelopment.” Contribution to Mountain Policy and LawElectronic Conference, Mountain Forum.

*— 1999. Personal communication to Elizabeth Byers: Reviewcomments on draft “Mountain Laws and Peoples” report.

von Furer-Haimendorf, Christoph. 1964. The Sherpas of Nepal.John Murray, London. 297 pp.

*Walker, Scott. 1998. “CBMT: Your Community and Tourism.”Contribution to Community-Based Mountain TourismElectronic Conference, Mountain Forum.

Wiessner, Siegfried. 1999. “Rights and Status of IndigenousPeoples: A Global Comparative and International LegalAnalysis,” Harvard Human Rights Journal, Vol. 12.

Wilke, David S., Bryan Curran, Richard Tshombe and Gilda A.Morelli. 1998. “Managing Bushmeat Hunting in OkapiWildlife Reserve, Democratic Republic of Congo,” in Oryx32(2) (131–144).

*Zakrevsky, Alexander. 1997. Personal communication toElizabeth Byers on 5 April 1997, Contribution to MountainPolicy and Law Electronic Conference, Mountain Forum.

*Zingari, Pier Carlo. 1999. “MPFT: Balancing values: Europe–2.” Contribution to Mountain People, Forests, and TreesElectronic Conference. Mountain Forum.

— 42 —

Appendix A. List of Contributors to theMountain Policy and Law E-Conference

Mountain Policy and Law:

Promising Examples and Innovative LegalMechanisms for Conservation and SustainableDevelopment

An Electronic Conference of the Mountain Forum,April–May 1997

The Mountain Policy and Law electronic conference identifiedinformal and formal legal mechanisms and examples that havebeen used to conserve mountain ecosystems and promote equi-table and sustainable development of mountain peoples. Therewere 276 participants in the conference. Nearly half of theparticipants, 123 people from 38 different countries, madedirect contributions to the conference. An on-line mountain li-brary on the Mountain Forum web site at <http://www.mtnforum.org> provides access to key reference documents,including the texts of many hard-to-find mountain laws. Thefull Mountain Policy and Law discussion is archived at: <http://www2.mtnforum.org/mtnforum/archives/discuss/discuss.htm>

E-conference Moderation Team:

Elizabeth Byers, The Mountain InstituteLynelle Preston, The Mountain InstituteYuri P. Badenkov, Russian Academy of Science and the

Asia Pacific Mountain Network

E-conference Contributors

Philippe Alirol, Yuri Badenkov, Jagdish Bahadur, MaheshBanskota, Richard Bartak, Paul Beard, Larry Beckhardt,Keebet von Benda-Beckmann, Peter Blignaut, SimoneBorelli, Giorgio Brandolini, Bulgarian Mountain ForumFoundation, Alton Byers, Elizabeth Byers, Steve Caicco,Gabriel Campbell, Miriam Cerdán, Mike Cohen, Bob Davis,Timi Ecimovic, Jim Enote, Jason Espie, Ken Ewing, CurtFish, Tamar Gabelnick, Rodolfo Gajardo, AlessandroGimona, Larry Hamilton, Irena Hanouskova, PhilipHazelton, Derek Hogan, Ken Hughey, Manuel Paulet Iturri,Nandita Jain, Garry Jewett, Lan Jia, Narpat Singh Jodha,Amrit Lal Joshi, Rebecca Justicia, Robert Keiter, Valerie V.Kudachin, Sam Kunkle, Shambu Lama, Wendy Lama, RickLandenberger, Carlos Llerena, Francisco A. Magno, Jean-François Maissen, Douglas McGuire, Nadia McLaren, JohnMetz, John Mock, Tom Moritz, Roger Ngoufo, KaoriOkuizumi, Kim O’Neil, Kenneth Parker, François Parvex,David L. Peterson, Paul Pfeuffer, Kristen Pisani, Phil Pow-ers, Mohan Prabhu, D. Jane Pratt, Lynelle Preston, Mar-tin Price, James Ramsay, Jorge Recharte, Andrew Roberts,Stephen Roberts, Jamie Ross, Rexon Ryu, Claude Saint-Pierre, Jivan Saran, Fausto O. Sarmiento, Thomas Schaaf,Jim Schweithelm, Ranil Senanayake, El Hadji Sène,Pitamber Sharma, John Shores, Milan Shrestha, ScottSlocombe, Center for Latin American & Caribbean Stud-ies, Bikash Thapliya, David Tice, Daniel Vallauri, Martijnvan Beek, Suzanne Warsinsky, Alexander Zakrevsky

— 43 —

Appendix B. Bibliography ofMountain-Related Laws and Policies

Note: Further information on the policy and law instru-ments listed below (including the full text in most cases)is available in the “Policy and Law” section of the Moun-tain Forum’s on-line library at <http://www.mtnforum.org>

International (Hard Law) InstrumentsAgreement on Trade Related Aspects of International Property

Rights (TRIPS) 33 ILM 1197 (1994).Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992, 31 ILM 818 (1992).Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of

Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), 1973, 21 ILM 1085 (1973).Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Produc-

tion and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on theirDestruction, 36 ILM 1507 (1997).

Convention on the Protection of the Alps, 1991, 31 ILM 767(1992), in force 1995.

Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and NaturalHeritage, 1972, 27 UST 40, 11 ILM 1358 (1972).

European (Aarhus) Convention on Access to Information, PublicParticipation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice inEnvironmental Matters (1998).

International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties ofPlant Resources (UPOV). 1961 (amended 1972,1978,1991).

International Convention to Combat Desertification in thoseCountries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertifica-tion, Particularly in Africa, 33 ILM 1332 (1994).

International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No.169Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in IndependentCountries, 1989, 28 ILM 1077 (1990).

International Protocol for East Carpathian Region establishedby Poland, Slovak Republic and Ukraine, 1993.

International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources 1983(amended 1989, 1991, 1998).

Statutory Framework of the World Network of BiosphereReserves. UNESCO General Conference (November 1996).

Strasbourg Resolution 4: Adapting the management of moun-tain forests to new environmental conditions. MinisterialConference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (1990).

United Nations Framework Convention on Climatic Change, 31ILM 849 (1992).

Soft Law InstrumentsAfrican Inter-Governmental Consultation on Sustainable

Mountain Development Recommendations. 1996.African Mountains and Highlands Declaration of Antananarivo,

International Workshop of the African Mountains Associa-tion, held in Antananarivo, 26 May–1 June 1997.

Charter for the Protection of the Pyrénées, Conseil InternationalAssociatif pour la Protection des Pyrénées (CIAPP) 1995.

Charter of Indigenous-Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests,World Rainforest Movement, Penang, Malaysia, 1992.

Draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of IndigenousPeoples, 34 ILM 541 (1995).

“Ecological Guidelines for Balanced Land Use, Conservationand Development in High Mountains,” UNEP-IUCN-WWF byR.F. Dasmann and D. Poore. (1979).

Euromontana. 1998. Final Declaration, European MountainConvention, 1–3 October 1998.

European Charter of Mountain Regions (2nd Session): Recom-mendation 14. Congress of Local and Regional Authoritiesof Europe. 1995.

European Inter-governmental Consultation. 1996. TowardsSustainable Mountain Development in Europe. EuropeanInter-governmental Consultation. Trento, Italy.

European NGO Consultation on Sustainable Mountain Develop-ment. 1996. Recommendations of NGOs and MountainPopulations to Governments and to the European Union.European NGO Consultation on Sustainable MountainDevelopment, 1996. ARPE and CIAPP. Toulouse, France.

First Continental Conference of Indigenous Peoples on 500Years of Resistance Quito, Ecuador, July 1990. Resolutionsof the Women’s Commission.

Forest Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for NaturalForest Management. Document 1.2 Revised January 1999.

Guidelines for Mountain Protected Areas,” IUCN Commissionon National Parks and Protected Areas. Synthesized andedited by Duncan Poore (1992).

Intergovernmental Consultation Concerning the SustainableDevelopment of Mountains in

Latin America. 1995. Mujica, E. and J.L. Rueda. CentroInternacional de la Papa. Lima, Peru.

International Mountaineering and Climbing Foundation (UIAA)Environmental Objectives and Guidelines (1997).

International NGO Consultation on the Mountain Agenda:Recommendations to the United Nations Commission onSustainable Development (1995).

Kathmandu Declaration on Mountain Activities, InternationalMountaineering and Climbing Foundation (UIAA) (1982).

Leipzig Declaration on Conservation and Sustainable Utilizationof Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (1996).

Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual PropertyRights of Indigenous Peoples. First International Confer-ence on the Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights ofIndigenous Peoples, Convened by the Nine Tribes of


Mataatua in the Bay of Plenty Region of Aotearoa NewZealand, Whakatane, Aotearoa, June 12–18, 1993.

Non-Legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for AGlobal Consensus on the Management , Conservation andSustainable Development of All Types of Forests, 1992, 31ILM 881 (1992)

SUDEMA Declaration. The Sustainable Development of theMountain Areas of Asia. Kathmandu, 1994.

The Mountain Agenda: Chapter 13 of Agenda 21 “ManagingFragile Ecosystems: Sustainable Mountain Development,”A/CONF.151/26, 13 August 1992.

United Nations Environment Programme EnvironmentalManagement Guidelines for the Integrated Management ofMountain Ecosystems. Denmark Printers, Western Austra-lia 1995.

World Charter for Nature (1982).UN GA RES 37/7.

National Laws and PoliciesAustriaMinistry of Agriculture and Forestry Memorandum on Mountain

and Hill Farming and Forestry in Europe, 1996.

BulgariaBulgarian Law No. 90, 1993. Mountain Regions in the Republic

of Bulgaria.

CanadaNorthwest Territories Policy 51.06. Traditional Knowledge.

FranceFrench Law No. 85-30, 1985.Memo 13/7/1996–1453 on European Policy on Mountains,

1996.

IndiaThe Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council Act of 1995.

ItalyItalian Law GU 06/09/96, 1996. Woodlands, Forests, and

Mountain Territories.

JapanBasic Environment Plan.National Action Plan for Agenda 21.

NepalCommunity Forest Directives 2052 (1995).

PhilippinesRevised Forest Code, Presidential Decree No. 705, of 1975 as

amended.Indigenous Peoples Rights Act, Republic Act No. 8371, of 1997.

RussiaLaw on Mountain Territories. The Parliament of the Republic of

Northern Ossetia-Alania, 1998.

South AfricaMountain Catchment Areas Act, 1970.

SwitzerlandFederal Law on Assistance Regarding Investments in Mountain

Areas. Law 901.1, 28.07.1974, revised 1998.

UkraineLaw on the Status of Mountain and Human Settlements,

January 12, 1995.

United StatesZuni Land Conservation Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-486).

Selected Examples of Community-Based ApproachesNote: further information on these examples is availablein the Mountain Forum’s on-line library at <http://www.mtnforum.org>. For easy retrieval, type the name ofthe example, or key words, in the “Search” box on theMountain Forum web site.

Associations of local communitiesSan José de Ocoa, Dominican RepublicTrentino cooperatives, ItalyVillages in St-Martin Commune, Switzerland

Codes of conduct by community groupsHuascarán, Peru“The law of the mountains,” CaucasusSikkim, IndiaRevelstoke Tourism Action Committee Code of Ethics, Canada

Collaborative national/local policy developmentHuascarán National Park Ecotourism Management Plan, Peru

Community-based enforcementChipko movement, IndiaMt. Isarog, Philippines

Community-based resource managementAnnapurna Conservation Area, NepalForest management in Yunnan, ChinaMakalu-Barun National Park and Conservation Area, NepalMatsutak mushrooms in local economy, Hengduan mountains,

ChinaSagarmatha Pollution Control Committee, Nepal

Conversion from natural resource dependenceto local tourism initiativesBouma Falls, FijiKoroyanitu Forest Ecotourism Project, FijiProtected area tourism services, Alta Cima, Mexico

Legal rights of disadvantaged community membersDifferent identities and rights of the Akha people in China/

ThailandVikalp, rights of the landless and forest workers, India

Local zoningMountain Protection Plan, Albemarle County, Virginia, USASante Fe Ordinance No. 1995-1: Mountain Special Review

District, New Mexico, USA

Sacred traditions and environmental conservationBadrinath reforestation, IndiaMaori wahi tapu, New Zealand

Traditional sanctionsMaori rahui, New ZealandRidam, BhutanSherpa shing-i-nawa, Nepal

Traditional tenure systemsHunza and Kalam Valleys, PakistanMaso tenure, Italian AlpsAdaty, Northern CaucasusUpper Mustang, Nepal

Women’s roles in mountain communitiesFarm management and training, BrazilLiteracy/forestry user groups, NepalNomadic women in education, health, and enterprise, IranVegetable gardens, Nepal

— 45 —

Index

AAdaty 30, 44Africa 13, 15, 16, 19, 26, 39, 41, 43Agenda 21, Chapter 13 8, 18, 20, 33, 34,

36, 40, 41, 44agriculture 12, 13, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24,

26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37, 41, 43,44

agroforestry 9, 12, 31air traffic 19Alirol, P. 39, 42Alpine Convention 15, 17Alps 15, 17, 29, 43, 44altitude 11, 12, 24, 27, 29Annapurna Conservation Area 29, 44Appalachian Mountains 5, 11, 13arbitration 14architecture 26Atta-Krah, K. 5Austria 6, 23, 24, 33, 44

BBadenkov, Y. 1, 28, 39, 41, 42Bahadur, J. 13, 39, 42Banskota, M. 1, 13, 39, 42Bartak, R. 42Beard, P. 42Beckhardt, L. 42Bhutan 28, 44biodiversity 7, 12, 13, 15, 18, 21, 22, 26,

32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 40Bisaz, A. 1Blignaut, P. 1, 41, 42Bolivia 11, 12Borelli, S. 42Brandolini, G. 29, 39, 42Brazil 30, 44Britain 12Bulgaria 16, 24, 44Bulgarian Mountain Forum

Foundation 42bushmeat 16, 39, 41Byers, A. 42Byers, E. 1, 40, 41, 42

CCaicco, S. 42Campbell, G. 5, 42

Canada 5, 24, 29, 40, 44Carpathians 13, 40, 43caste 13, 35Caucasus 26, 28, 30, 44Cerdán, M. 29, 39, 42certification 22, 25charters 8, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 43, 44Chaudhry, S. 1China 11, 12, 14, 29, 31, 34, 41, 44Chipko 29, 44CIEL 1, 5, 39CITES 16, 43citizenship 10, 31climate change 13, 15, 19, 36, 43Climate Change Convention 13, 15codes of conduct 6, 18, 29, 44Cohen, M. 42colonial legacies 10, 31, 33commercial interests 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16,

17, 22, 29, 31, 37, 40community cooperatives 29, 31, 39, 44community forestry 9, 25, 30, 31, 34, 39,

40, 44community-based property rights 1, 5, 6,

10, 28, 33, 35, 36, 40Congo, Democratic Republic of 16, 41Convention on Biological Diversity 9, 15,

24, 43conventions 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,

19, 24, 36, 43cooperatives 29, 31, 44cultural diversity 6, 11, 33

DDavis, B. 14, 24, 39, 42declarations 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 37, 43, 44defining mountain areas 24, 26, 34, 41dependence on natural resources 5, 6, 9, 11,

13, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37, 44Desertification Convention 15devolution of power 6, 10, 24, 25diversity of livelihood strategies 6, 11,

12, 26Dominican Republic 31, 44

EEaston, M. 1Ecimovic, T. 42economics 6, 20, 26, 44

ECOSOC 8, 40ecotourism 5, 12, 31, 32, 35, 40, 44Ecuador 32, 40, 41, 43education 5, 9, 10, 14, 18, 20, 26, 29, 30,

35, 36, 44El Cielo Biosphere Reserve 30endangered species 13, 16, 21, 43endemism 13, 15, 16energy 5, 12, 15, 18, 19, 29Enote, J. 27, 40, 42enterprise 9, 24, 29, 31, 44environmental sensitivity 6, 11, 13erosion 12, 13, 16, 24, 29, 30, 32, 37Espie, J. 42ethics 13, 16, 28, 29, 44Ethiopia 16European Union 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 43Ewing, K. 42extractive industries 5, 9, 10, 12, 24, 25,

26, 29, 31, 34, 37

FFAO 8, 20, 21, 33, 40, 41Fiji 30, 40, 44fines 28fire 14Fish, C. 42food security 11, 12, 19, 21, 26, 31forest products 12, 15, 22forest user groups 25fragile ecosystems 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 22,

23, 29, 35, 37France 6, 17, 19, 20, 24, 33, 43, 44full cost pricing 37

GGabelnick, T. 23, 34, 40, 42Gajardo, R. 42Garhwal Hills 29gender 13, 18, 21, 25, 29, 30, 34, 35, 39,

43, 44Ghats 13Gimona, A. 42Glacier National Park 29glaciers 13, 15Gran Cordillera 25, 29grazing 13, 19, 29, 40guidelines 14, 19, 24, 29, 34, 39, 43, 44Gurung, H. 1


HHamilton, L. 42handicrafts 26, 29, 30Hanouskova, I. 42hard law instruments 6, 14, 18, 43Hazelton, P. 42health 5, 6, 9, 18, 22, 26, 29, 30, 35, 44Hengduan Mountains 30, 44Himalaya 5, 29, 30, 37, 39historical perspectives 9, 12, 13, 18, 23,

26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 36Hogan, D. 40, 42Huascarán National Park 29, 32, 41, 44Hughey, K. 9, 40, 42human rights 8, 10, 12, 17, 18, 22, 36,

37, 40, 41

Iillegal activities 6, 10, 14, 29, 31ILO 17, 43inaccessibility 11, 12India 13, 24, 29, 31, 44indigenous peoples 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20,

21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 34, 36,39, 40, 41, 43, 44

Indonesia 12infrastructure 19, 20, 25, 26, 29, 37intellectual property rights 16, 17, 24, 34,

37, 43Iran 30, 44isolation 6, 11, 12, 13, 24, 34Italy 18, 25, 29, 31, 39, 43, 44Iturri, M. 31, 40, 42IUCN 19, 40, 43

JJain, N. 23, 29, 35, 37, 40, 42Japan 12, 25, 30, 44Jewett, G. 40, 42Jia, L. 42Jodha, N. 14, 40, 42Joshi, A. 25, 40, 42Justicia, R. 23, 40, 42

KKathmandu 5, 19, 20, 39, 43, 44Keiter, R. 23, 40, 42Kenya 5, 16Kohler, T. 1Kudachin, V. 42Kunkle, S. 13, 40, 42Kyoto 13, 15

LLadakh 25, 44Lama, S. 42Lama, W. 42Landenberger, R. 42landscapes 5, 12, 17, 19, 20, 22, 25, 41language 12, 14, 15large-scale production 12, 20, 25, 26,

37Latin America 12, 20, 41, 42, 43literacy 30livestock 14, 29Llerena, C. 42local elites 25, 26

local laws and policies 9, 13, 18, 23, 29,32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44

local reinvestment 5, 26, 29, 31, 34, 35,37, 41, 44

local subsidies 21, 24, 26, 37Lynch, O. 1, 8, 31, 36, 40

MMadagascar 19Maggio, G. 1, 10, 40Magno, F. 42Maissen, J. 42majority world 10, 17, 26, 33Makalu-Barun National Park 23, 29, 44Malaysia 43marginalization 6, 9, 11, 12, 31markets 5, 20, 24, 29, 30, 31, 37maso 29, 44Mataatua 43McGuire, D. 42McLaren, N. 42medicinal plants 24Messerli, B. 1, 17, 24, 26, 33, 40Metz, J. 10, 40, 42Mexico 30migration 10, 18, 20, 31, 33, 35, 37Mills, M. 1minority world 20, 21, 33Mock, J. 42monocultures 12, 37Moritz, T. 42Moss, L. 1Mount Everest 14, 28, 29Mount Isarog 29, 44Mount Kenya 16Mountain Agenda 6, 8, 18, 34, 36, 39, 40,

43, 44mountaineering 19, 43multifunctionality 21, 29, 38mushrooms 24, 29, 30, 44

Nnational laws and policies 6, 10, 12, 23,

25, 27, 29, 31, 35, 36, 40, 44natural hazards 12, 18, 24natural resource management 6, 9, 13,

20, 25, 27Nepal 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 20, 23, 25, 28, 29,

30, 33, 39, 40, 41, 44New Zealand 41, 44Ngoufo, R. 42niche environments 12non-timber forest products 12, 24, 29, 30,

44Northwest Territories 24, 37, 40, 44

OOkuizumi, K. 40, 42O’Neil, K. 42outside interests 10, 12, 25, 29, 31, 37,

39

PPapua New Guinea 12Parker, K. 16, 41, 42partnerships 5, 9, 11, 18, 20Parvex, F. 42pastures 12, 26, 33

peer pressure 14, 28Pelinck, E. 1Peru 5, 12, 18, 20, 29, 32, 39, 40, 41, 43,

44Peterson, D. 34, 41, 42Pfeuffer, P. 40, 42pharmaceuticals 37Philippines 12, 25, 26, 29, 44Pirin National Park 16Pisani, K. 40, 42Poland 43pollution 17, 29, 37, 44poverty 5, 11, 12, 13, 18, 20, 31, 41Powers, P. 42Prabhu, M. 42Pratt, J. 5, 39, 40, 41, 42Preston, L. 9, 11, 14, 39, 41, 42Price, M. 1, 5, 9, 12, 13, 33, 39, 40, 41,

42property rights 5, 6, 10, 11, 16, 29, 36,

41, 43protected areas 17, 19, 23, 25, 28, 30, 32,

37, 40, 41, 43, 44protocols 13, 15, 17, 36, 43Pyrénées 20, 43

Rrahui 28, 44Ramsay, J. 42Recharte, J. 23, 41, 42recommendations 5, 6, 8, 18, 19, 20, 21,

35, 36, 40, 43recreation 17, 20, 24, 26, 37regulations 9, 11, 16, 19, 23, 25, 26, 32,

37, 39, 40relict species 13, 16representation 18, 20, 22, 24, 25,

30, 35research 13, 19, 21, 35, 36, 38ridam 28, 44roads 9, 20, 26, 29, 32Roberts, A. 42Roberts, S. 42Ross, J. 42Russia 26, 44Ryu, R. 40, 42

Ssacred sites 11, 30, 37, 41Saint-Pierre, C. 34, 41, 42sanctions 16, 24, 28, 29, 44Saran, J. 42Sarmiento, F. 42Schaaf, T. 42Schweithelm, J. 42Scotland 18seasonal activities 24, 31seeds 16, 17Senanayake, R. 9, 12, 13, 32, 41, 42Sène, E. 1, 42Sharma, P. 29, 41, 42shing-i-nawa 28, 44Shores, J. 42Shrestha, M. 42Simen National Park 16ski resorts 24, 31Slocombe, S. 42slope 11, 12, 24, 25, 30, 34Slovak Republic 43


small-scale production 11, 12, 17, 24, 29,30, 37

social class 13, 25, 35soft law instruments 18, 20, 40, 43soil 11, 13, 19, 22, 33South Africa 26, 41, 44sports 26, 31Sri Lanka 12Strasbourg Resolution 15, 21, 43subsidiarity 6, 9, 33SUDEMA 18, 20, 44Switzerland 5, 11, 12, 22, 26, 31, 33, 40,

44

Ttaxation 24, 26Taylor, L. 5technology 5, 7, 12, 16, 19, 20, 24, 35Thailand 31, 41, 44Thapliya, B. 42The Mountain Institute 1, 5, 9, 11, 32,

37, 39, 40, 41, 42Tice, D. 32, 41, 42tourism 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, 20, 24,

29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 40, 41, 44trade 16, 31, 39, 43

traditional knowledge 15, 24, 34, 36, 37,39, 44

traditional tenure systems 6, 28, 29, 44training 14, 21, 26, 27, 30, 34, 36, 44transboundary issues 6, 11, 12, 14, 17,

19, 23, 25, 31, 33, 34, 36, 40, 41Transcaucus 15treaties 14, 15, 18trekking 29

UUIAA 19, 43Ukraine 26, 43, 44UNCED 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 18, 33, 41UNCSD 8, 26, 33, 37, 40, 41, 43unemployment 18UNEP 19, 44United Kingdom 12, 18USA 1, 5, 13, 16, 27, 32, 39, 41, 44user groups 6, 25, 29, 30, 33, 34, 37, 44

VVallauri, D. 42values 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 21, 22, 28, 29,

30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 41

van Beek, M. 1, 25, 41, 42Virunga National Park 16von Benda-Beckmann 42

Wwage labor 12, 31, 44wahi tapu 30, 44Warsinsky, S. 42waste disposal 19, 20, 26, 29water supply 5, 12, 13, 18, 19, 22, 24, 26,

29, 32, 33, 37watersheds 5, 12, 15, 24, 26, 29, 44Wiehen, M. 1wildlife 13, 15, 16, 24, 27, 28, 31, 33, 34,

39, 41, 43World Heritage Convention 15, 16

YYosemite National Park 16

ZZakrevsky, A. 26, 41, 42Zandstra, H. 5zoning 24, 29, 32, 37, 40, 41, 44Zuni 27, 40, 44

— 48 —

Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations

CBD Convention on Biological DiversityCCC Climate Change ConventionCIEL Center for International Environmental LawCITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered SpeciesDC Desertification ConventionECOSOC Economic and Social Council of the United NationsFAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsFSC Forest Stewardship CouncilFUGS Forest user groupsGNWT Government of the Northwest Territories, CanadaICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain DevelopmentILM International Legal MaterialsILO International Labour OrganizationIUCN World Conservation UnionMF Mountain ForumNGO Non-governmental organizationSUDEMA Sustainable Development of the Mountain Areas of AsiaTMI The Mountain InstituteUIAA International Union of Alpinist AssociationsUNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and DevelopmentUNCSD United Nations Commission on Sustainable DevelopmentUNEP United Nations Environment Programme

Keywords: Alpine, biodiversity, common property, community-based, cultural heritage, ecosystem, environment, for-est, human rights, hills, indigenous peoples, isolation, international law, law, local level, marginalization, montane,mountains, national (domestic) law, participatory approaches, policy, property rights, steeplands, subsidiarity, sustain-able development, traditional, uplands, water.

Documents

Mountain Laws and Peoples: Moving Towards Sustainable