Sustainable Mountain Development - Mountain Geography: Physical and Human Dimensions - page 607

more generally to quality of life and well-being, including basic needs (water, food,
shelter, health, education) and capabilities (choice, empowerment, security) (Chambers
2005). Thus, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) developed the widely
used Human Development Index (HDI), which also includes standard of education and
quality of living conditions, and a Human Poverty Index (HPI), which recognizes that in-
creases in cash income do not inevitably lead to decreased poverty (Kreutzmann 2001).
Most of the world's mountain people—63 percent in 2000 (Huddleston et al.
2003)—derive their livelihoods from subsistence agriculture, which may include the sale
of crops, livestock, or other products. The physical geography of their environment can
lead to severe limitations on agricultural productivity and options for economic develop-
ment. Steep slopes and high altitudes, combined with low temperatures, result in soils
that tend to be less developed, and with fewer nutrients than in lower and flatter areas.
Complex topography leads to slope instability, increased frequencies of natural hazards,
and lower accessibility. All of these physical factors have been widely cited as reas-
ons for excessive poverty in mountain areas. Data from individual countries underscore
the notion of mountains as pockets of poverty. To cite but two examples, in Kyrgyzstan
poverty rates in mountains were found to be twice as high as the national average, and
in Morocco up to three times higher (Padiukova and Padiukova 2007; Bürli et al. 2008).
Despite widespread consensus that mountain areas are characterized by high levels
of poverty, solid evidence to back this general statement in a global perspective is lack-
ing, due first to a lack of spatially disaggregated data, which would allow specific ana-
lysis for mountains; and second to the great variability of mountain environments. As
noted by Ives (1997: 61), “to conclude that . . . mountains, relative to their surround-
ing lowlands are necessarily regions of poverty, is taking a facile generalization to the
point of absurdity.” Ives mentions specifically the inner tropical mountains surrounded
by semiarid and arid zones, as in Ethiopia and East Africa, which receive more precip-
itation than adjacent areas, and are therefore relatively advantaged in terms of agri-
cultural production. From a global perspective, Parvez and Rasmussen (2004) synthes-
ized poverty and growth data with a focus on mountain regions, comparing mountain
countries (over 50 percent of territory in mountains) with nonmountain countries, based
on GDP per capita, under 5 mortality rate, life expectancy at birth, and adult illiter-
acy rate (the indicators used for HDI). They found no significant difference between
these two categories of countries, neither at the aggregated level, nor when distinguish-
ing among low-, medium-, and high-income countries. They also focused on differen-
ces within individual Asian countries. In India, mountainous states were near national
average, with some states above and others below the national average poverty rate.
In Pakistan, areas in the Hindu Kush-Himalaya showed high poverty rates (62-76 per-
cent) compared to the national average (27 percent) in 1991; but by 2001, the national
poverty rate had increased to 32 percent, while those of the mountain regions had come
down to 29-42 percent. In Tibet from 1979 to 1995, the poverty level decreased from
30 percent to 19.2 percent.
Overall, these findings show that growth and development performance, and hence
poverty, differ widely between mountain regions at the global level and within countries,
and strongly suggest that mountain development and poverty levels follow national de-
velopment. Overall, there are countries with a high proportion of mountains that are
poor in economic terms (e.g., Afghanistan, Bhutan, Bolivia, Burundi, Ethiopia, Nepal,