European Tropical Forest Research Network

Organisations - Institutions - Programmes

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF MOUNTAIN FORESTS – WHOSE CLAIMS, WHOSE ISSUES AND WHOSE BENEFITS?

By Birgit Habermann

Mountains cover about 1/4 of the Earth's terrestrial surface. Approximately 12% of the world's population live in the highlands; 40% of humanity lives in adjacent medium- and lower watershed areas. (FAO, 2000)

But what do mountains mean to the world's population, half of which depends on mountain resources, particularly fresh water? How much willingness is there to compensate the stewards of mountain resources, rural amenities and landscape values for their invaluable services? How will the integrity of mountain ecosystems be safeguarded, and the damage caused by over-use and exploitation of mountain resources repaired? Can a balance be found between conservation of biodiversity and peoples' livelihoods in highly populated and sensitive mountain ecosystems; the needs of mountain communities and the urban/lowland population; and the productive capacity of mountain forests; their protection and protective functions?

Mountains forests of the world
Mountain forests represent almost 1/3 of the world's closed forest area. As can be seen in table 1, mountain forests are diverse and widely spread over all continents. 48% of the world's total terrestrial surface lies above 500 m; 27% above 1 000 m; 11% above 2 000 m; 5% above 3 000 m; and 2% above 4 000 m (Messerli and Ives, 1997).

Different issues arise in different contexts: in most European mountain regions rural amenity values, the protective function of mountain forests and timber production are at the centre of debate, whereas mountain regions in developing countries face problems of severe land degradation, deforestation, conflicts of land ownership, as well as exploitation of resources through high demand for fuel wood and agricultural land, unsustainable forest practice, and through timber logging and mining by lowland based companies. Kassahun Embaye reports on the situation in Ethiopia, where people are heavily dependent on subsistence farming and wood products from the forests. Yet they are forced to compensate for declining land productivity by expanding farm- and grazing land into forested areas. The FAO's State of the World's Forests Report (FAO, 2003) points out that mountain areas in developing countries are characterised by multiple land use systems. There is a high demand for pasture areas, wood (as the main fuel) and non wood forest products (NWFPs) from the forests. Forests are often overexploited, but sometimes mountain forests are also valued as sacred groves containing sites of religious or spiritual importance, thus conserving and promoting rare/uncommon woody plant species as reported by Binggeli et al for the Ethiopian Highlands.

Table 1: Mountain forest types by area and by dominant region, source: UNEP-WCMC (2000).

For industrialised countries, the FAO report describes a different situation: Mountain forests are over mature and underexploited; often not economically viable to harvest; and wood has been replaced by other fuels. Consequently the protective function of the forests is impaired and new management strategies such as community forest management are required, as has been practised for centuries in parts of Europe. Zimmermann gives an account of the current situation in Switzerland, reporting on the main problems in relation to mountain forest which include guaranteeing and improving stability; controlling forest expansion; and using mountain forests in a sustainable manner.

In both cases mountain forests play a crucial role in providing various functions and services to mountain communities and adjacent lowland settlements. However, these multifaceted interlinkages between highlands and lowlands, the complexity of mountain societies, the remoteness and harsh environment of mountain areas as well as the increasing dependency on goods and services externally imported require an equally multifaceted and trans-disciplinary approach to mountain forest research and development planning.

IYM2002 – commitment to action ?
The International Year of Mountains 2002 was proclaimed in 1998 by the General Assembly of the United Nations based on an initiative from Kyrgyzstan. The mission statement of IYM2002 was as follows (FAO, 2000): "The International Year of Mountains promotes the conservation and sustainable development of mountain regions, thereby ensuring the well-being of mountain and lowland communities."

Compared to Agenda 21 (Chapter 13, Managing Fragile Ecosystems: Sustainable Mountain Development) there was a much stronger focus on mountain communities and a more people-centred approach. A wide range of activities focused on mountain people and communities as the primary target groups of activities. It was emphasised that IYM observance should be action-oriented through the promotion and initiation of events, income-generating activities for poverty reduction, activities supporting indigenous people or other vulnerable groups, but also through sustainable use of natural resources and preservation of biological diversity and ecological systems. The website (http://www.mountains2002.org) provides valuable information on the events and the outcome of IYM2002.

A major success of IYM2002 was the increased awareness for mountains – national committees were formed in 78 countries, some of which have been extraordinarily active throughout the entire year. International highlights have been the ‘High Summit 2002: International Conference around the Continents' Highest Mountains' in May, and the ‘Bishkek Global Mountain Summit' in Kyrgyzstan in October. However, the success of IYM2002 should be measured by the amount of active follow-up at different levels. In spite of a number of declarations and conventions (see www.mountains2002.org), and numerous conferences and international and national committee meetings, the question remains how much commitment to action is actually transferred into visible results for mountain communities. Following the Bishkek Global Mountain Summit an interesting debate on declarations and their relevance to mountain communities took place on the Mountain Forum list server (http://www.mtnforum.org). Criticism arose regarding the large amount of money spent on such meetings and the lack of participation of the people concerned. It is not realistic to expect long public plenary discussions during such conferences, yet more participation of local organisations and representatives of mountain communities is desirable. Development workers, scientists, researchers, NGOs or mountain people are depending on financial inputs, and declarations can be very supportive for obtaining these, but the people concerned have to be given a voice to take part in the creation of these conventions. Specific international declarations on mountains will be helpful to justify the importance of supporting mountain communities, but they will only lead to sustainable development if subsidiarity becomes a core principle of development planning and implementation in mountain areas.

Actors for mountains
Actors for mountain forests and mountain people are international organisations and networks, national governments and decentralised authorities, donor organisations, major NGOs; research institutions, mountain people and communities themselves. Some of the organisations and networks active in IYM2002 and involved in follow-up activities are mentioned below:

The Mountain Agenda was created prior to the Rio Earth Summit (UN Conference on Environment and Development in 1992) to enhance the position of mountains on the global environmental agenda through creating awareness among decision-makers, experts, and the general public. It is an informal group of people with professional interests in sustainable mountain development, drawn from the academic and development cooperation communities (http://www.cde.unibe.ch/programmes/global/glo22.html).

Networking has significantly increased since the Rio Earth Summit, especially since the Mountain Forum was established in 1995 as a decentralised network to carry out a wide array of activities connecting and empowering mountain supporters throughout the world (http://www.mtnforum.org). It aims to promote global action towards equitable and ecologically sustainable mountain development through information sharing, mutual support and advocacy. The network comprises thousands of people, professionals and organizations from over 100 countries.

The Mountain Institute (http://www.mountain.org) is a nonprofit scientific and educational organization committed to the preservation of mountain environments and advancement of mountain cultures around the world. Its mission is to advance mountain cultures and preserve mountain environments. Its objectives are to conserve high priority mountain eco-systems, to increase environmentally and culturally sustainable livelihoods for mountain communities, and to promote support for mountain issues through advocacy, education and outreach.

So far the only international centre specifically devoted to integrated mountain development is ICIMOD (International Center for Integrated Mountain Development, http://www.icimod.org). It was set up following widespread recognition of the alarming environmental degradation of mountain habitats and consequent increase in impoverishment of mountain communities in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan (HKH) Region in the 1970s. The primary objectives of ICIMOD are to help promote the development of an economically and environmentally sound mountain ecosystem and to improve the living standards of mountain populations in the HKH Region. ICIMOD works mainly at the interface between research and development.

Conventions and partnerships – a step forward
IYM2002 has facilitated the creation of a significant number of new partnerships and conventions regarding mountains whilst also successfully strengthening existing ones. Leading documents are the 2002 Tokyo Declaration for the International Year of Mountains (United Nations University, http://www.unu.edu), the 3rd European Mountain Convention at Inverness, Scotland (Euromontana, http://www.euromontana.org), the Alpine Convention (CIPRA, http://www.cipra.org), and the 4th International Consultation on Mountain Forests in Pamplona, Spain (European Observatory of Mountain Forests and FAO, http://www.eomf.org; http://www.fao.org).

Within the Alpine region a major success of IYM2002 was the ratification of all 8 protocols of the Alpine Convention by the governments of Austria, Germany and Liechtenstein in December 2002, and the selection of Innsbruck for the placement of the permanent secretariat of the convention. The Alpine Convention contains protocols on conservation and landscape management, mountain farming, regional planning and sustainable development, mountain forests, tourism, soil protection, energy and traffic. The Alpine Convention tries to find a balance between the protection of the Alps and the necessary impulses for economic development. A similar initiative is underway in the Carpathians and major progress is to be expected in 2003.

At the 8th meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice of the Convention on Biological Diversity in March 2003, mountain biological diversity was the main theme. In the preparatory document (UNEP/CBD, 2002) it was stated that there was an urgent need for "information on the linkages between the livelihoods of population inhabiting mountain areas and the status of mountain biodiversity on the one hand, and policies and activities impacting mountains being carried out away from the mountain communities". The document concludes that qualitative data on mountain biological diversity, and biological inventories and monitoring initiatives will be important to develop indicators of ecosystem change.

The Bishkek Mountain Platform was a key outcome of the Bishkek Global Mountain Summit. The purpose of the platform is to provide guidance to governments and others on how to improve the livelihoods of mountain people, to protect mountain ecosystems and to use mountain resources more wisely. It aims at achieving a UN resolution on sustainable development on mountain regions and pledges a long-term commitment and determination to the fate of mountain regions, protecting mountain ecosystems, promoting peace and economic equity, and providing support for current and future generations of mountain people.

Prior to that, the International Partnership for Sustainable Development in Mountain Regions was presented and officially launched at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg by FAO together with the United Nations Environment Programme and the Government of Switzerland, on behalf of 15 members of the IYM Focus Group. It builds on existing collaboration among members of a growing network of concerned organizations and people that have already been working together to implement Chapter 13 of Agenda 21. The newly launched Partnership is a flexibly structured alliance including several UN agencies, private sector, non-government organizations (NGOs) and the academic and research community. A secretariat for this partnership will be established at FAO in order to continue the work started in IYM2002.

Policy trends and key issues
In European countries mountain policies have been established over the last three decades and have become an important measure of European Community policy (Dax, 2002). The main measures aim at compensating less-favoured production and living conditions in mountain areas. According to Dax (2002) recent trends point more in the direction of an integrative approach trying to apply a stronger territorial viewpoint towards mountain policies. This approach was inspired by regional policies in several European countries such as Austria and Switzerland, and partly developed by alternative groups in remote mountain areas of France and Spain.

Forest policy instruments exist in many countries worldwide. According to Beck and Suda (2000) the most prominent economic tools for mountain forestry are financial incentives, either indirect in the form of tax reductions or as direct subsidies paid to motivate forest owners to carry out forest management activities voluntarily. The authors point out that the financial resources are mainly state budgets. In developing countries foreign financial aid from donor countries is added to that. Subsidies are mainly offered for private investments, such as plantations or afforestation, thus benefiting large companies or individual landowners rather than disadvantaged mountain communities. Hence, without more attention to subsidiarity and sustainable livelihoods, as well as appropriate certification schemes, the gap in sustainable mountain forestry investment remains. In sector III of this newsletter, Kassahun Embaye makes a strong statement for approaches that provide motivation for tree planting and forest protection by local people. He proposes to introduce financial incentives for forest establishment on a local level instead of investing in large scale plantations and tree promotion projects in developing countries. Zingerli addresses the conflict of biodiversity and conservation interests versus the livelihoods of poor and marginalized mountain communities. She reports that in Vietnam, in a traditional top-down approach, forests have been classified at the central state level and the policy framework applied identified mountain communities as being solely responsible for forest degradation. Peter reports a similar scenario for the Dominican Republic where government policies failed to protect mountain forests by expelling and criminalizing local forest users. In a case study of Mexico, Mitchell describes both the conflicts but also the benefits of the traditional collective landownership and management in two communities in the Sierra Norte of Oaxaca. In both communities there is a forest conservation ethic, which can now be combined with modern forestry techniques – sustainable forest management becomes feasible with low-intensity logging and NTFP collection. Mitchell states that the key to forest use and protection rests with an empowered citizenry, and he emphasises the importance of encouraging democracy in forest-dependent mountain communities.

A well known example of collaborative management of mountain forest resources on a local level is Nepal, where the government has been promoting a community-based management paradigm since the 1980s. Institutional, legislative and regulatory changes increasingly recognized the customary usufruct rights of local people and their active role in managing the natural resources. Bhim Adhikari however reports that community forestry in the Mid Hills failed to contribute significantly to the livelihoods of very poor and marginalized sections of the community. Better off households and local elites were more favoured by the system than poorer households. The author proposes to address equitable systems of benefit distribution and cost sharing instead of supporting a focus on a highly protective silvicultural regime aiming at high timber output. Forest management policy needs to be directed at increasing alternative forest products (such as NTFPs) of high value for poorer households. Equally important in many mountain areas is agroforestry, as mentioned by Sorg et al. for the case of the walnut-fruit forests in Kyrgyzstan.

As stated by Beck and Suda (2000), it is necessary to develop methodologies for the valuation of forest goods and services. Economic arguments are needed to justify public and political support of mountain forestry. In a recently published report on the future of mountain societies (The Panos Institute, 2002) it was emphasised that the first challenge was to value mountain resources; goods such as water, biodiversity, and forests are traditionally perceived as immeasurable; but based on an extensive evaluation of the environmental services and other conservation benefits that mountain areas provide for lowland and urban areas, new environmental economic tools can be developed to place monetary values on these goods. International action will be necessary to elaborate innovative financing mechanisms to ensure that a fairer share of the benefits is returned to mountain communities. Sectoral, integrated, regional development policies, and the definition and protection of property rights are equally important (Mountain Agenda, 1997). To guarantee sustainability it has to be ensured that compensation payments go directly to mountain communities and that their role as stewards of mountain forests is recognised. Empowerment and decentralisation are crucial issues - there has to be a "reasonable distribution of responsibilities between governments, public agencies, and scientific, multilateral, community and private organisations. Subsidiarity should be a guiding principle, with public structures responsible only for tasks that cannot be satisfactorily devolved." (Mountain Agenda, 1997).

Conclusion:
After the IYM2002, much work remains to be done, but a hopeful step in the right direction has been taken. Awareness for the importance of sustainable development of mountain forests has been raised, and the economic and ecological benefits of mountain forests have been at the centre of debate in many places.

In research, however, a more integrated approach will be required, with less focus on forestry as an isolated discipline. Research has to address the needs of resource users; respond to their demands; and respect the value of local knowledge. The broad scale of land use issues in mountain areas ranges from agriculture, conservation, protective functions, water sources, to (eco-)tourism and recreation purposes. Building on the strong networks among foresters (and the existing legislative and institutional structures in forestry) a more integrated, trans-disciplinary and people-centred approach will have to evolve to achieve a more sustainable development of mountain forests in the long run.

Equally important is the valuation of environmental functions and goods provided by mountain forests and mountain communities; the selection of adequate criteria and indicators for sustainable mountain forest management; and the establishment of adequate compensation mechanisms and policy instruments. Sustainable development aims at promoting harmony between humanity and nature – mountain ecosystems are particularly fragile, and mountain communities are often in a disadvantaged and underprivileged position. Given the necessary support, mountain people will be in a better position to achieve sustainable, harmonious living with their unique environment.

References:
Beck, R. and Suda, M. (2000) Subsidies for mountain forestry. In: Price, M.F. and Butt, N. (eds.) (2000) Forests in Sustainable Mountain Development: a State of Knowledge Report for 2000. Task Force on Forests in Sustainable Mountain Development. CABI Publishing/ IUFRO. pp. 421 – 428.
Dax, Th. (2002) Mountain Development Research – Listing of Projects and Project Areas. [INTERNET] Bundesanstalt für Bergbauernfragen. Available from: http://www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/daxt02a.htm

Top of page