Sustainable Mountain Development - Mountain Geography: Physical and Human Dimensions - page 599

gional intergovernmental consultations on SMD (Backmeroff et al. 1997; Banskota and
Karki 1995; ILRI 1997; Mujica and Rueda 1996) and summarized by Price (1999). While
all of these documents provide long lists of issues that are intended to contribute, or
in some way are related, to SMD, they are not prioritized—which is appropriate given
the very different characteristics of the world's diverse mountain regions, even on one
continent.
Another key issue is the scale at which SMD should be implemented. For instance,
one village or local community may be able to develop a strategy for its own future
that appears to be viable in the long term, yet may have side effects that are unsustain-
able for neighboring or downstream communities. Along the many mountain ranges that
form boundaries between countries and regions, there are particular needs for trans-
boundary cooperation in SMD, given that ecological and societal processes and struc-
tures span these boundaries. The development of cooperative regional approaches is
also important within the mountain massifs that are now divided between two or more
nation states but have long-established cultural and economic identities distinct from
adjacent lowlands in these states (e.g., Muhweezi et al. 2007). Thus, rather than pro-
posing a precise definition of sustainable mountain development, it is probably better to
recognize it as “a regionally-specific process of sustainable development that concerns
both mountain regions and populations living downstream or otherwise dependent on
these regions in various ways” (Price and Kim 1999: 205).
Defining Indicators
Sustainable mountain development is a complex process with uncertain objectives that
are likely to shift over time. To assist in project development and wider planning, and to
evaluate success, requires indicators: units of information measured over time that doc-
ument changes in a specific condition. Sustainability indicators “should measure char-
acteristics or processes of the human-environmental system that ensure its continuity
and functionality far into the future . . . [and] be credible (scientifically valid), legitimate
in the eyes of the users and stakeholders, and salient or relevant to decision makers”
(Hak et al. 2007: 3-4). Van de Kerk and Manuel (2008: 229) have suggested five criteria
for a good sustainability indicator: “(1) an indicator must be relevant for an issue ac-
cording to the definition used; (2) an indicator must be measurable; (3) indicators have
to be independent from each other and must have no mutual overlap; (4) data for the in-
dicators must be available from public sources, scientific or institutional; (5) data must
be available for all countries, at least for all but the smallest countries.”
Various indicators for SMD have been proposed. At a global level, FAO (1996) pro-
posed pressure and state indicators, to be used in a pressure-state-response frame-
work (OECD 1993). Subsequently, Odermatt (2004) used the driving
force-pressure-state-impact-response (DPSIR) model (Jesingshaus 1999) to evaluate
case studies of SMD. Such frameworks are based on the premise that human activities
(driving forces) exert pressures (e.g., pollution emissions or land-use changes) on the
environment, which can induce changes in the state of the environment (e.g., changes
in ambient pollutant levels, habitat diversity, nutrient flows). These lead to impacts on
populations, economies, and ecosystems, to which society then responds with environ-