Sustainable Mountain Development - Mountain Geography: Physical and Human Dimensions - page 639

ment in January 2012, mountains were mentioned in one paragraph; by June, when
the conference took place, the outcome document, The Future We Want (UN Gener-
al Assembly 2012) included three paragraphs (210-212) specifically on mountains. The
fact that mountains are mentioned at all resulted from considerable lobbying at all
levels and from all major mountain areas worldwide, including a preparatory global con-
ference in Lucerne, Switzerland, organized by the Mountain Partnership and the Swiss
Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) in October 2011, attended by members
of the Secretariat of the Rio + 20 conference (Maselli 2012).
In summary, the last two decades, and particularly the IYM, have been a period of
increasing momentum, enthusiasm, and attention for SMD, during which diverse organ-
izations and governments have launched and realized many joint initiatives in favor of
mountain regions, their inhabitants, and their resources (Rudaz 2011; Messerli 2012).
Perhaps this is appropriate, because cooperation is a distinguishing characteristic of
mountain societies; in such uncertain environments, it has long been recognized that
sharing resources and working together is essential for long-term survival. The integra-
tion of mountain areas into regional and global economies has often decreased the ef-
fectiveness of such cooperative structures, as the interests of lowland areas—with their
much larger weight in terms of political and economic influence and population num-
bers, or private interests for profit making—come to dominate. In many ways, mountain
regions act to magnify the uncertainties of the modern world, of which the most pro-
found worldwide manifestations are the globalization of economies, a looming multiple
resource crisis, gloomy outlooks for energy and food supplies, and climate change. A
key indicator of the long-term success of the process toward SMD that began at Rio in
1992 will be the number of effective partnerships developed to avoid conflicts and to
increase cooperation—both among mountain people themselves and between them and
the great diversity of other stakeholders who are concerned with the long-term security
of mountain environments and the billions who depend on them.
References
Ackermann, N., Hiess, H., Simon, C., Schreyer, C., Weninger, A., and Zambrini, M. 2006.
Future in the Alps: Report. Project Question 4: Leisure, Tourism and Commuter
Mobility. Vienna: CIPRA.
Agarwal, S. K. 2006. Re-energizing watermills for multipurpose use and improved rural
livelihoods. Mountain Research and Development 26: 104-108.
Agence Régional pour l'Environnement/Conseil International Associatif pour la Protec-
tion des Pyrénées (ARPE/CIAPP). 1996. Recommendations of NGOs and Mountain
Populations to Governments and to the European Union. Toulouse: ARPE/CIAPP.
Agrawala, S., ed. 2007. Climate Change in the European Alps: Adapting Winter Tourism
and Natural Hazards Management. Paris: OECD.
Akramov, K. T., Yu, B., Fan, S. 2010. Mountains, global food prices, and food security in
the developing world. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00989. Washington, DC: International
Food Policy Research Institute.
Allan, N.J. R. 1986. Accessibility and zonation models of mountains. Mountain Research
and Development 6: 185-194.