Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
mental and economic policies and programs intended to prevent, reduce, or mitigate
pressures and/or environmental change.
FAO (1996) suggested that the key pressure indicator for SMD is the population of
mountain areas, to be measured in terms of population density, growth, and migration.
Two key state indicators were proposed: (1) the welfare of mountain populations, to
be measured in terms of nutritional anthropometry, that is, “measurements of the vari-
ations of the physical dimensions and the gross composition of the human body at dif-
ferent age levels and degrees of nutrition” (Jelliffe 1966); (2) qualitative assessment of
the condition and sustainable use of natural resources in mountain areas, a composite
of four sub-indices used to describe the state of the natural resource base of a water-
shed: extent of protection of soil; area of “hazard” zones; extent of degraded land; and
an indication of productivity. Other proposals were made by Rieder and Wyder (1997),
who, like many authors, suggested that sustainability should be measured in terms of
three sets of indicators: ecological, economic, and social. Thus, they omitted a fourth di-
mension—ethics—identified by Ekins and Max-Neef (1992). Recognizing that indicators
need to be tailored to specific circumstances, Rieder and Wyder (1997) discussed is-
sues relating to economic, ecological, and social indicators for Bhutan, Encañada (Peru),
Pays d'Enhaut (Switzerland), North Ossetia (Russia), and Puka (Albania). At the nation-
al level, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia, and Switzerland suggested indicators of
SMD in documents submitted to the second session of the European intergovernmental
consultation.
Odermatt (2004) looked at 22 case studies of SMD from developing countries and
18 from industralized countries, using key themes identified as being of specific im-
portance in mountain regions around the world. These included freshwater (up-
stream-downstream cooperation), mountain forests and forestry, mountain agriculture
and land management, poverty, local and indigenous knowledge, migration, mountain
tourism, and legislation on mountains. He found that, while the DPSIR model was an
adequate tool for deriving sustainability variables (i.e., Responses), it was better suited
to the mountains of developing countries—but there was a serious lack of baseline data
for these regions. He also noted that such frameworks can be challenging to use. For
instance, depending on the particular geographical context, a variable such as out-mi-
gration may be seen as a Pressure, an Impact, or a Response.
Even at a regional or continental scale, agreement on priorities for SMD, and how
they should be measured, will not be simple, as shown by a survey of key respondents
working in government, NGOs, and scientific organizations in 30 European countries
(Price and Kim 1999). Using a set of 36 possible indicators derived from meetings on
SMD in Europe, they found that, for all respondents, ecological priorities ranked high-
er than sociopolitical or economic priorities. However, there were two highly ranked
sociopolitical variables: the empowerment of mountain communities and the need for
education and training in conservation and development. Respondents from Central/
Eastern Europe placed greater emphasis on ecological indicators than those from
Western Europe. The greatest similarities were with regard to sociopolitical variables,
implying a common interest in the more equitable provision of benefits to people in
mountain areas, to reduce marginality and ensure the long-term survival of populations
in these areas. Finally, the most significant differences were found between government
employees and those of NGOs and independent scientific organizations. Generally, the
Search WWH ::




Custom Search