Sustainable Mountain Development - Mountain Geography: Physical and Human Dimensions - page 635

These two sets of principles overlap significantly, forming part of a larger debate
on SMD that includes some of the background papers prepared for the Bishkek Global
Mountain Summit, the culminating global event of the IYM (Parvez and Rasmussen
2004; Pratt 2004; Starr 2004) and more recent proposals for strategic action (e.g.,
Messerli 2012). One key theme running through these documents is the need for moun-
tain people to have a greater involvement in defining their futures, recognizing espe-
cially the many benefits they provide to wider societies and focusing on opportunities
rather than constraints. Thus, Parvez and Rasmussen (2004) propose a “sustainable
livelihoods” approach (Carney et al. 1999) that is people centered, based on an under-
standing of how people and communities “make use of their existing human, social, nat-
ural, physical and financial capital to adopt livelihood strategies to overcome vulnerab-
ility associated with exogenous and endogenous shocks.” They note that one of the key
attributes of many mountain societies is high levels of social capital (Coleman 1988)
based on “cohesive communities with well-established traditions of cooperation and col-
lective work.” This is no longer true of all mountain communities, but the roots often
remain—and one reason that some people become amenity migrants is to live in such a
cohesive community. Often they are in the forefront of developing new institutions that
build on their previous experience.
FIGURE 12.18 Mountain areas present specific challenges for development. Seven principles for
achieving the aims of sustainable development (T. Kohler 2012, based on Mountain Agenda 2002.)