Since many mountain ranges cross or constitute national borders, they raise issues that are inherently transboundary and that require cooperation at global or regional level. However, with the exception of the Alpine Convention, this has not prompted the adoption of legally binding, mountain-specific international instruments, either globally or regionally.
As yet, there is no legally binding global agreement which deals specifically with mountains. This is partly due to the existence of numerous conventions which, though not focusing on mountains as such, do have some bearing on mountain peoples and resources. For example, the Convention to Combat Desertification acknowledges in its preamble the impact of desertification on arid regions with mountain ecosystems in Africa, Central Asia and the Transcaucasus. The Convention on Biological Diversity, which aims at the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources, is similarly relevant because mountain ecosystems are often biodiversity-rich areas. Another example is the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which notes in its preamble the special vulnerability of “fragile mountain ecosystems” to climate change. Some earlier conventions are also relevant for mountains, including the 1972 World Heritage Convention (as many natural sites included in the World Heritage List are mountain areas) and the 1968 African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (which addresses mountain-related issues such as soil erosion in connection with agricultural and land use planning). However, the contribution of these conventions to sustainable mountain management is limited to the specific aspects they cover.
In addition to the mountain-related provisions of these conventions, there are some general principles of international environmental law which are applicable to mountain ecosystems. One is the obligation of states to manage their natural resources so as not to “cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction” (Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development). Another is the duty of states to cooperate in a spirit of partnership (Principle 7 of the Rio Declaration), which may apply to the management of mountain ranges shared by two or more states. More broadly, the principle of sustainability, although not specifically defined in this context, is key to the management of mountain ecosystems. It implies a wise and equitable use of mountain resources in environmental, economic, social and cultural terms, taking due account of the interests of both present and future generations (Fodella and Pineschi, 2000).
The only legally binding instrument in existence that specifically deals with a mountain range has been adopted at regional level: the Convention on the Protection of the Alps. Adopted in Salzburg, Austria, in 1991, the Convention entered into force in 1995. Its initial signatories - Austria, France, the European Community, Germany, Italy, Liechtenstein and Switzerland - were later joined by Slovenia (1993) and Monaco (1994). All nine parties had ratified the Convention by 1999.
The Convention provides for the protection and sustainable development of the Alps in their entirety as a uniform regional ecosystem. Parties agree to establish a comprehensive policy towards this end. They also endeavour, through the application of the prevention, precautionary and polluter-pays principles, to cooperate in several areas of common interest, including agriculture, forestry, land use planning, protection of landscapes, culture and population, leisure activities and air pollution control.
The Convention is designed as a framework agreement: its substantive provisions are set out in general terms, which need to be specified through additional protocols for their effective implementation. Nine such protocols have been concluded so far: (i) in 1994, three protocols were signed in Chambéry (France), covering mountain agriculture, nature protection and landscape conservation, and land use planning and sustainable development; (ii) in 1996, two protocols were signed in Brdo (Czech Republic), on mountain forests and tourism; (iii) in 1998, two protocols were signed in Bled (Slovenia), on soil conservation and energy; and (iv) in 2000, two more protocols were signed in Lucerne (Switzerland), governing transport and dispute settlement.
Some of the protocols, especially the one on transport, have been hard to negotiate and to agree upon. In addition, four other protocols are envisaged by the Convention but have not yet been adopted; they are to address population and culture, water, air quality and waste management.
Despite being signed by most parties, at the time of writing only Liechtenstein has ratified the existing protocols. However, Austria and Germany were expected to ratify them soon, and other parties were taking steps toward ratification. The protocols are therefore likely to become effective before the end of 2002, as under the Convention they come into force three months after their ratification by three parties.
The Alpine Convention is viewed as a model for the development of mountain accords in other regions of the world. Similar range-wide agreements are currently in the making, at varying stages of preparation or design, including instruments for:
the Altai range, shared by China, Kazakhstan, Mongolia and the Russian Federation. In this context, a Protocol of Intentions was adopted in 1998, whereby the four countries, aware of their common responsibility for the protection and development of the Altai region, recognize the need to improve economic development, to generate income and to develop the infrastructure (Pradhan, 1999);
the Caucasus range, shared by Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and the Russian Federation. After a meeting held in June 2001 between the countries concerned, a Resolution was adopted, which recognizes the Caucasus as one of the most important mountainous ecosystems of the Earth, due in particular to its rich biological and landscape diversity. The Resolution is based on the principle of integrity of the Caucasian region from geographical, ecological and social perspectives;
the Carpathian range, shared by the Czech Republic, Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Ukraine and Yugoslavia. International cooperation efforts for the protection and sustainable management of the Carpathians started in November 2001, during a meeting held in Ukraine. Since then, the range countries have considered the development of a convention to promote, in an integrated fashion, the sustainable development of the region, taking into account sectoral needs such as tourism, agriculture and transport (Egerer, 2002).
In the framework of the Council of Europe (CE), a draft European Convention of Mountain Regions, covering most aspects of mountain development and protection, was developed in 2000, building on an earlier draft European Charter of Mountain Regions. The proposed Convention seeks to enhance socio-economic development in mountain areas to meet local people’s needs, as well as environmental protection, in a balanced manner. The draft Convention was recently considered by the CE Committee of Ministers but has not yet been adopted.
Soft-law instruments - declarations, resolutions, plans of action and codes of conduct -, usually shaped and adopted through international fora and conferences, have often been used in the recent past to promote norm-creating processes that, in turn, led to the development of hard law agreements. A number of such soft-law instruments concern mountain peoples and ecosystems, such as Chapter 13 of Agenda 21 and various other post-Rio documents, some of which are briefly outlined below.
“Managing Fragile Ecosystems: Sustainable Mountain Development” is the title of the chapter that was devoted to mountains under Agenda 21, adopted in 1992 by the Rio Conference on Environment and Development. By endorsing this instrument at the highest political level and in such a global forum, which assembled 180 UN member countries, the international community, for the first time, clearly and formally signalled its common concern for the world’s mountains as essential reservoirs of natural and human resources, which need to be protected, restored and developed.
Chapter 13 is a policy tool geared towards action at the national and international levels. It identifies rural development, food security, fresh water, biological diversity, forests, climate change, culture, traditional knowledge and tourism, among others, as the main mountain issues. It seeks to achieve sustainable mountain development notably through: (i) raising the awareness and supporting the efforts of mountain peoples to reverse the trend of degradation; and (ii) creating effective mountain constituencies and building networks of national, regional and global mountain institutions.
In assessing the progress made in implementing Chapter 13 since Rio, the Commission on Sustainable Development concluded in 2001 that the level of economic development in most mountain regions of the world “remains unacceptably low.” However, it also found that significant results had been achieved, particularly with regard to the creation of innovative mechanisms fostering cooperation among actors involved in mountain issues, as well as the adoption of approaches balancing development needs and environmental concerns.
In the final declaration of the World Mountain Forum, held in Paris and Chambéry (France) in June 2000, more than 800 persons coming from 70 mountain countries endorsed a draft World Charter designed to represent the needs and aspirations of mountain peoples (World Mountain Forum, 2000a and 2000b). According to the draft charter, three conditions are crucial to meeting mountain populations’ requirements: (i) mountain peoples must find a place in society while retaining their identity; (ii) mountain peoples must face economic competition while working to change the conditions of trade to their advantage; and (iii) mountain peoples need to retain control of their environment and the development of their natural resources, managing them for their own needs as well as on behalf of the national and world community.
The draft charter envisions the establishment of a worldwide organization to be called “Mountains of the World,” which would speak for mountain areas, and whose membership would be open to local authorities, associations and groups representing mountain dwellers. Alongside this organization, there should be a financial mechanism, possibly in the form of a foundation, which would mobilize the resources needed to strengthen cooperation and build partnerships among mountain regions and countries.
The draft charter is undergoing a review and revision process with a view to its adoption at the second World Meeting of Mountain Populations, to be held in Quito, Ecuador, in September 2002. A new version of the text was issued in May 2002, with additional inputs from a recently established non-governmental organization, the Association of Mountain Populations of the World. The draft should be further discussed and amended at six regional preparatory meetings prior to its finalization for the Quito event.
In the aftermath of the Rio Conference, a flurry of soft-law instruments on mountain ecosystems, often inspired by Chapter 13 of Agenda 21, have been developed by governmental and non-governmental fora in many regions of the world. Some are:
the Cusco Declaration on Sustainable Development of Mountain Ecosystems: drawn up by representatives of 18 countries from various continents gathered in Cusco, Peru, in 2001, the Declaration identifies the environmental, social and economic measures most widely recognized as essential to the sustainable management of mountain areas (International Workshop on Sustainable Mountain Development, 2001);
the Draft Central Asian Charter for the Sustainable Development of Mountain Regions, covering the mountain areas of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan: inter-ministerial consultations among the concerned countries are being carried out with a view to adopting the Charter at the Global Mountain Summit to take place in November 2002 in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan (Fourth International Conference on Sustainable Mountain Development, 2001; and UNEP, 2001);
Euromontana declarations: an association of 36 mountain organizations from 15 countries of Central, Eastern and Western Europe, Euromontana has adopted various declaratory documents at its periodic conferences. The Second Euromontana Convention (held in Trento, Italy, 2000) produced a Final Declaration stating that the comparative advantage of mountain regions, as reservoirs of environmental and cultural diversity, is quality. In the face of globalization, the sustainability of economic activities in mountain zones can only be ensured by high-quality, value-added products (Euromontana, 2000). At Euromontana’s Third Convention (held in Inverness, Scotland, 2002), the deliberations focused on mountain agriculture in the context of the reforms of the European Union agriculture and regional development policies. The Convention stressed again the importance of high-quality products and recognized the positive externalities of mountain agriculture (effects on landscape, rural communities, tourism, etc.) within the European Union and for the European states (Euromontana, 2002);
the African Mountains and Highlands Declaration: adopted at the International Workshop of the African Mountains Association held in Antananarivo, Madagascar, in 1997, the Declaration highlights the major problems affecting Africa’s mountain ecosystems and provides policy recommendations to address them (African Mountains Association, 1997);
the UIAA Kathmandu Declaration: adopted by the International Union of Alpinist Associations (UIAA) meeting in Kathmandu, Nepal, in 1997, this document calls for effective protection of the mountain environment, for respect for the culture and dignity of mountain peoples, and for the promotion of contacts between mountaineers in a spirit of friendship, respect and peace (International Union of Alpinist Associations, 1997);
the Charter for the Protection of the Pyrénées: developed in 1995 by the International Associated Council for the Protection of the Pyrenees, the Charter has three objectives: preservation of the range’s ecological values; access for visitors without altering access points; and economic development respecting the environment (Conseil International Associatif pour la Protection des Pyrénées, 1995).
The international instruments reviewed above reflect states’ common concern for the protection and development of major mountain ecosystems, at regional and subregional levels. As noted, because many mountain areas cross national borders, international agreements and actions are often required to articulate and formalize international mountain policy goals. However, practical mountain conservation and development measures take place mainly within state borders through national legislation.
Mountain-related legislation is still embryonic. So far, only a dozen or so states have passed exhaustive or sectoral mountain-specific laws, including Cuba, France, Georgia, Greece, Italy, Switzerland and Ukraine. Other states, such as the Russian Federation (including Siberia), Kyrgyzstan, Morocco and Romania, are about to draw up or enact similar laws. In Bulgaria, a bill on mountain areas was drafted in 1993 and is in the process of being adopted.
Furthermore, in some countries mountain legislation has been developed at the sub-national level. An example is the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania in the Russian Federation, with its Act of 30 December 1998 relating to mountain territories. In Italy, most mountainous regions enacted mountain laws between 1996 and 2000. The main examples of national and sub-national legislation are listed in the Annex.
An analysis of domestic legal texts dealing with mountains reveals a number of similarities - in their objectives and scope; in their institutional frameworks; and in the economic, social and environmental policies they reflect. This section discusses these matters, briefly outlining the main features of mountain-specific legislation. The case studies in the second part of this study provide a more detailed review of several mountain laws.
Mountain areas are characterized by particular natural, economic and social features, including geographic isolation, difficult climatic and environmental conditions, fragile ecosystems, political marginality and, in many cases, poverty. Mountain legislation attempts to address these issues.
Promoting the protection and sustainable development of mountain areas is the first aim of most laws relating to mountains. Within this general objective, the emphasis is adjusted to fit national contexts. For example, the French Law 85-30 of 1985 determines the policy for the development, management and protection of mountain regions, with the aim “to enable local populations and their elected officials to acquire the means for and the control of their development, with a view to creating equality of income and living conditions between mountain and other regions, while fully respecting the cultural identity of mountain peoples” (art. 1).
Respecting the cultural identity of mountain communities is also an aim pursued by a number of laws. Insofar as locally enacted laws meet the special needs of the mountain peoples and the mountain areas they cover, they are best suited to fulfil their regulatory role efficiently. For example, in the 1999 Georgian law, a stated objective is to meet the needs of today’s mountain peoples as well as those of future generations.
The 1998 law of the Russian Republic of North Ossetia-Alania balances, among its purposes, the need to establish social, economic and legal bases for the development of mountain areas with the concern for preservation and rational use of their natural resources. Similarly, in Ukraine, the purposes of the 1995 law on mountain settlements are to improve the living conditions of citizens living in mountain settlements, and to promote the social and economic development of these settlements. Finally, one of the aims of the 1997 Swiss law on aid to investment is the promotion of sustainable development of mountain regions through the allocation of funding for infrastructure development.
National laws generally define “mountains” in order to delineate the scope of the law. Given the great diversity of mountain zones, it is not possible, nor desirable, to draw up a detailed definition for mountains, which would be universally acceptable and applicable worldwide. In practice, law-makers take into account various elements to define mountains and to determine their boundaries, including natural characteristics (altitude, topography, climate, vegetation) as well as human factors (food security, land-use opportunities and constraints, highland-lowland interactions).
Of the currently used definition criteria, altitude (or the hypsometric criterion) is the most meaningful, for at certain altitudes living conditions become much more difficult and precarious than in the lowlands. Thus it is often the altitude factor that makes it necessary to adopt specific laws. Other particular conditions are generally combined with the hypsometric criterion to better delineate mountain zones. For example, the law of Georgia defines mountains on the basis of altitude (at least 1 500 meters above sea level), but extends the notion of “mountain” to regions where, although the altitude is above 1 000 meters (sometimes 800 meters), specific conditions occur in terms of slope gradients, geographic location, environmental, economic and ethnic features, quality of the soil and of agricultural land, demographic parameters and migration trends. Similarly, the Ukrainian law defines “mountain settlements” based on the hypsometric criterion (settlements located at 400 meters above sea level), on the scarcity of arable lands (less than 0.15 ha of arable land, or 0.60 ha of agricultural land, per inhabitant), and on climatic conditions (cold and long winter, cool and short summer, high precipitation, floods, etc.). Bulgaria and Switzerland use similar criteria for the delimitation of their mountain regions.
Other laws present some peculiarities. For instance, the French law defines mountain areas according to the standard criteria of altitude, slopes and handicaps, but altitudinal parameters differ depending on whether the areas are located in the mainland or in the overseas territories. Moreover, the law specifically identifies the country’s mountain ranges. The law of the Russian Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, in addition to defining “mountain areas” as spaces where daily human activities are affected by environmental conditions such as altitude and climate, explicitly determines the boundaries of those areas. In Poland, the Mountain Areas Economic Development Bill, drafted in 2001 but not yet formally approved, identifies three regions as mountainous: Karpaty, Sudety and Oewiêtokrzyskie. In addition, a decision of the competent Ministry may subject boroughs and farms to the law where 50 percent of the area is located at 350 meters above sea level or where the slope gradient exceeds nine degrees, as well as those located at an altitude between 250 and 300 meters and where the slope gradient is between six and nine degrees (Fatiga, 2002).
Mountain-specific laws must be developed and implemented taking into account the strong linkages they have with legislation governing related sectors. Thus, their application must be well coordinated with that of sectoral laws regarding notably agriculture, the environment, land use planning, water, mining, forestry and protected areas.
Some laws include explicit provisions to that effect. For example, the mountain law of the Russian Republic of North Ossetia-Alania states in various sections that it must be implemented consistently with other relevant laws of the Russian Federation and of the Republic. The 1997 Swiss law provides that financial aid granted under it does not rule out financial allowances under other laws.
The institutional mechanisms for the implementation of mountain laws vary according to the characteristics of each country, particularly in terms of administrative systems, financial means, economic, social and other conditions. Two main approaches are generally followed: one is the establishment of ad hoc bodies to meet particular needs of mountain regions; the other is the optimal use of the institutions already in place, with possible adjustments to their mandate or structure.
Institutions dealing specifically with mountains include both government institutions, vested with political and/or administrative powers, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), which support government efforts and promote the protection and development of mountain areas.
(a) Government Institutions
Because of the particular features and needs of mountain areas, several countries have established specialized institutions as the sole or principal government structure responsible for mountain issues, which may have support, advisory, coordination and/or management powers in relation to mountains.
France provides a good example of this approach. The 1985 law establishes specialized advisory bodies for the development and protection of mountain regions: the National Mountain Board at the central level and Range Committees for each of the seven existing mountain ranges. The Prime Minister presides over the National Mountain Board which, through its permanent commission, coordinates government action in mountain areas. The Range Committees, which are set up by decrees (Nos. 85-995 to 85-1001) and chaired by the prefects, set objectives and define action for range development. The committees may also propose modifications to the boundaries of the ranges, and must be consulted on similar proposals put forward by other authorities. Moreover, there is provision for the involvement of local communities in decision-making processes through consultations carried out by the National Mountain Board or its commission (Decree 85-994).
Specialized institutions at both central and local level are also envisaged by the Bulgarian bill, which states in its preamble the need for decentralization of powers and responsibilities. The bill makes provision for the establishment of a National Board for Mountain Regions to supervise its implementation and to coordinate government actions taken by the state, by mountain district authorities and by mountain commune associations. In the Russian Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, the mountain law provides for the establishment of a mountain-specific institution, referring to implementing regulations for the determination of its mandate and structure.
The Italian institutional arrangements are also characterized by decentralization. In order to encourage local participation in the decision-making process, Laws 1102 (1971) and 142 (1990) establish and regulate the Mountain Communities, which are autonomous local entities with a specific mandate to promote the development of mountain areas. Mountain Communities are set up and delineated by regional legislation.
(b) Non-governmental Organizations
Governments have increasingly involved NGOs and other civil society organizations in the law-making process. These organizations generally bring together diverse actors and are highly specialized. Therefore, they are often able to better understand and meet local needs, and can significantly contribute to the formulation and implementation of national strategies and plans.
For example, the Georgian Union of Mountain Activists, established in 1999, contributed to the drafting of the Georgian mountain law. Moreover, the Union contributes to the socio-economic development of the country’s mountain regions, and now supports the enforcement and improvement of mountain legislation.
Switzerland also offers an interesting example of the roles played by NGOs in mountain development. The Swiss Group for Mountain Regions (Groupement suisse pour les régions de montagne), established in 1943, is active in such areas as the sustainable development of mountain resources, the protection of mountain ecosystems and the promotion of equal treatment for mountain and lowland areas. Moreover, the Swiss Aid to Mountain Peoples’ association (Aide suisse aux montagnards) has been providing support to the country’s mountain regions since its creation in 1952. Focusing its efforts on improving the economic potential and living conditions in mountain regions, it seeks to halt the out-migration of mountain peoples through support to mountain agriculture and promotion of mutual aid among mountain farmers. Its activities include efforts to improve housing and working conditions, provision of training and credit for young farmers, social aid for people in need and improvement of infrastructure.
Most countries, however, do not have public institutions that deal specifically with mountains. Therefore, institutional responsibilities for mountain development are frequently divided among different ministerial departments, particularly those dealing with agriculture, rural development, the environment, land use planning, water resources and tourism. In Burundi, for example, according to the Forest Code of 1985, the main responsible agency is the forestry department at the central and local levels. Similarly, Uganda has no mountain-specific agency: mountain-related provisions are included in the 1995 National Environment Statute, and the National Environment Management Authority, the District Environment Committees and the Local Environment Committees are primarily responsible for the protection and conservation of mountain regions.
On the other hand, some countries have mechanisms to ensure that central and local bodies which exercise some authority with respect to mountains can consult and share responsibilities. This is the situation for example in Switzerland, a federal state where powers are shared between the Confederation and the cantons. The 1997 law on aid to investment in mountain regions sets out the respective powers of governments at different levels, providing that the cantons are responsible for implementing the law, whereas the Confederation monitors the actions they take. Similarly, while funding is provided by the Confederation, the cantons determine the specific allocations of such funding.
Because of the characteristically harsh conditions of mountain areas, legislators have often seen the necessity of designing economic measures to meet some of the law’s objectives. Most national laws set out such measures to promote mountain development, including through the establishment of special funds and the provision of incentives to foster activities in mountain areas, particularly agriculture, tourism and manufacture of local products.
Some countries have set up special mountain funds to support investment and development in mountain regions, with the accrued resources being used in the form of subsidies, investment loans, research funding and other support. For instance, the 1997 law of Switzerland creates a special fund at the federal level to finance aid to investment in mountain regions, including loans for infrastructure development. The fund is financed by contributions from the Confederation and from the cantons, as well as by loan repayments and interests.
In Italy, a national mountain fund was established by Law 97 of 1994 and is financed by contributions from the European Union, the state and the regions. Funds are allocated to regions and autonomous provinces, which in turn may establish their own mountain funds. In Georgia, the law provides for the establishment of a special fund for mountain areas, to be filled by donations, revenues from the exploitation of local resources, rental fees from pasture land, etc. The Bulgarian bill also provides for the creation of a special fund for the development of mountain regions, to be used in the form of subsidies, investments loans, funding for research, etc.
Many mountain people depend on agriculture, not only to meet their food requirements directly, but also in terms of creating jobs and contributing to economic development - hence the pride of place that agriculture occupies in many mountain laws. In France, agriculture is acknowledged as being of public interest inasmuch as it is essential for mountain peoples (article 18 of the 1985 Act, incorporated in article L113-1 of the Rural Code). Under Georgia’s law, agri-food industries, including animal husbandry, fruit growing, aquaculture and horticulture, are considered to be one of the cornerstones for the socioeconomic development of mountain regions.
In Switzerland, general legislation dealing with agricultural development (the 1998 Federal Law on Agriculture and the 1998 Ordinance on Direct Payments to Agriculture) contains provisions for the promotion of mountain agriculture. An example is financial aid for crops grown on sloping land (Law on Agriculture, art. 75). Under Bulgaria’s bill, the central government and local entities would grant financial assistance for programmes that promote mountain farming and livestock activities at the national, regional and local levels.
Also under the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union, there is provision for incentives to mountain agriculture. Directive 268 of 1975, now repealed, introduced financial support in favour of mountain agriculture, including compensatory allowances for the permanent natural handicaps. Regulation 1257 of 1999, which currently governs the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, contains provisions on “less-favoured areas”, which explicitly include mountain areas. Under the Regulation, mountain farmers meeting specified requirements are entitled to compensatory allowances.
The growing attraction of mountain areas as tourist destinations has led to an expansion of leisure activities, with an increase in accommodation facilities, amenities and infrastructure. However, such works can undermine the natural and cultural environment of mountain ecosystems. In an effort to remedy this situation, legislators have placed certain restrictions on mountain tourism. In France, the 1985 Act devotes an entire chapter to the running of tourism facilities and the management of ski lifts and ski runs, which must be operated under the supervision of the local authorities. For all new operations, contracts must be drawn up between the promoters and the local authorities, thereby allowing for some control over tourism development.
In Georgia, where tourism is one of the high priority areas for the country’s socio-economic development, the mountain law provides for aid to investment and subsidized loans for the promotion of mountain tourism that respects historical monuments and nature sites. The Ukrainian law similarly makes provision for subsidies and loans for tourism development in mountain regions. In Switzerland, the 1995 law of Vaud Canton provides for state preferential loans for the construction of tourist accommodation facilities. Another example is Viet Nam’s policy for socio-economic development in highland areas (Decision 184 of 1998), which provides for the promotion of tourism by both improving existing tourism facilities and creating new tourist centres with a view to developing international tourism.
Mountain communities face many challenges when competing on the market place, including high production costs, limited credit facilities, and unequal or unfavourable access to markets. On the other hand, mountain environments and cultures often permit the production of high-quality goods, particularly foodstuffs and handicrafts, which provide significant revenues for mountain communities. Labelling these goods is an important tool for promoting their marketing.
Thus, some laws deal with local products, usually crafts, from mountain areas. For example, France awards a special label to such products as a guarantee of their quality and to promote local production (1985 Act). Awarding of the “mountain label” is subject to conditions set out in Decree 1231 of 2000. In Italy, a similar label is awarded to products made in mountain areas (1994 Act). In Switzerland, under the cantonal law of Vaud, the state guarantees the quality and authenticity of products originating from Vaud through appellations of origin and geographical indications.
In addition to labelling, local products of mountain regions may be promoted by means of economic incentives. For example, the Georgian law promotes local crafts by providing loans on preferential terms. Similarly, the Ukrainian law mandates the state to pay higher prices for agricultural products produced in mountain areas.
The climatic and geographic characteristics of mountain regions may result in isolation, poverty and precarious living conditions. National and sub-national laws seek therefore to improve the living standards of mountain communities. The law of North Ossetia-Alania, for example, states that mountain peoples can expect the same socio-economic benefits as lowland inhabitants. In this context, legislation typically provides for the improvement and development of infrastructure and the enhancement of public services in mountain areas.
Owing to their configuration, mountains often constitute barriers to communication. The isolation of mountain populations is also frequently due to the lack or weakness of means of communication - hence the measures put in place by legislators in this respect. Switzerland’s 1997 Act on aid to investment makes provision for loans for mountain infrastructure development. To be eligible for these loans, projects must aim at enhancing living standards, economic potential and industrial competitiveness in the region.
Under Ukraine’s law, subsidies and loans may be granted for the development of public transport, roads and telecommunication and broadcasting facilities, while the Georgian law provides for a change in mountain road construction standards. The Bulgarian bill, too, aims to promote the construction and use of technical and social infrastructure in mountain regions. In France, the 1985 Act provides for improving the efficiency of radio and television broadcasting techniques in mountain zones. In Italy, local public services in mountain communities must open information offices to remedy communication shortcomings and must give their inhabitants free access to non-confidential information (1994 Act).
The relevant Vietnamese policies also address the issue of infrastructural development. Government Decision 184 of 1998 emphasizes the responsibility of the state for infrastructure development in mountain areas. The Politburo Decision of 27 November 1989 also stresses the need to develop infrastructure, particularly the network of roads in high mountain areas and in isolated and remote areas.
In the area of culture and education, mountain dwellers’ needs include reduction of illiteracy, vocational training and integration of research, conservation and development policies. Mountain peoples have an unrivalled knowledge of their environment. However, they must be in a position to capitalize on and transmit that knowledge using the adequate tools, including appropriate training and financial aid (Mountain Agenda, 1997).
To this end, the law of North Ossetia-Alania states that mountain peoples have priority rights to use the natural resources in the mountain area, and the law also makes provision for public financing of scientific research and teaching activities in mountainous regions. The Ukrainian law provides for state loans and subsidies for health and education in mountain areas. In France, school and university education and teaching programmes must take into consideration the specific environmental, economic and social conditions of mountain ranges (1985 Act).
The Georgian law does not contain explicit provisions on education or training. However, after its entry into force in 1999, the law on education was amended to specifically address the particular needs of mountain regions, stipulating that primary and secondary education is free of charge in these areas, and that the state is responsible for school management and funding in those regions.
Mountain laws also seek to improve the living conditions in mountain areas. For instance, some laws address the relations between highland and lowland populations. In general, lowland populations enjoy higher standards of living than mountain communities. Moreover, highland and lowland people are often economically interdependent (e.g. mountain-to-lowland contribution in terms of natural resource-based production and lowland-to-mountain contribution in terms of tourism); therefore, when the socio-ecological balance is disturbed, this usually has unfavourable consequences for mountain populations (Mountain Agenda, 1997).
National laws seek to reduce the gap between the standards of living in highland and lowland areas. For example, Viet Nam’s Decision 184 of 1998 acknowledges existing inequities between highland and lowland populations and provides for the improvement of living conditions in highland, deep-lying, remote and border areas, mainly through the reduction of unemployment and through settlement programmes. Likewise, the French mountain law explicitly aims at creating equality of living conditions in mountain and other areas.
In addition, mountain laws usually grant mountain dwellers priority rights and privileges based on their resident status. Ukraine’s law, for example, envisages special privileges for citizens living in mountain settlements, such as better labour conditions and wages or pensions 20 percent higher than the country average. The law of North Ossetia-Alania, too, as noted above, grants privileges to mountain communities, including priority rights in natural resource use and wood harvesting rights.
In the same vein, some laws contain specific measures to limit out-migration from mountain areas. An example is the Italian legislation, which authorizes regions to provide financial incentives for persons remaining or settling in mountain regions (Law 97 of 1994).
On the other hand, some important social issues are not addressed by national laws. For instance, none of the laws reviewed contains provisions dealing specifically with gender. This is a significant gap, since although women are responsible for most of the agricultural and food-related activities in mountain areas, they face greater obstacles than men in access to land and other assets, education, social services, credit and technology (Mountain Agenda, 1997).
Mountain areas are home to biodiversity-rich ecosystems which often host unique fauna and flora. At the same time, mountain regions are among the bio-geographical areas most vulnerable to environmental degradation. Therefore, their protection should be a significant dimension of mountain laws. In practice, however, provisions to protect mountain ecosystems are more commonly found in related texts, such as laws governing the environment, forests, water, soils and land use planning. Nonetheless, mountain legislation may include general provisions on the mountain environment which deal, in particular, with the protection of forests, soils and water.
Multi-functionality is the term often used with regard to mountain forests, because of the role they play in capturing and storing water, in protecting against natural hazards, and in contributing to the livelihoods of local communities through wood and non-timber resources. In addition to their wealth of biodiversity, mountain forests are also an important component of the landscape.
Countries with no mountain-specific legislation usually have provisions on mountain forests in their forest legislation. This is the case, for example, of Burundi, China, Nepal and Uganda. On the other hand, the Italian mountain law of 1994 contains specific provisions on the management of mountain forests, whereby Mountain Communities must promote forest management through conventions between forest owners and, to this end, may encourage the formation of forest associations. The Bulgarian bill mandates local forest authorities to set logging quotas and makes provision for financial support to these authorities to undertake forestation and reforestation activities.
Mountain laws may contain provisions addressing soil erosion. For instance, the Bulgarian bill requires that programmes promoting mountain agriculture include specific measures on soil fertility and soil erosion. The Italian Law 1102 of 1971 allows expropriation of land by regions, mountain communities and communes when it is needed to combat soil erosion and to protect the environment in mountain areas.
In other cases, measures on soil erosion are found in more general environmental or natural resource legislation applicable to mountains. For example, Burundi’s Forest Code of 1985 regulates soil conservation and restoration in mountain areas. Under the 1995 National Environment Statute of Uganda, each District Environment Committee must identify the hilly and mountainous areas threatened by environmental degradation; those areas prone to soil erosion must be considered as threatened by environmental degradation.
Mountains store large quantities of fresh water, both as ice and snow and in lakes and reservoirs, and therefore play a crucial role in water supply. However, specific legal provisions for the protection and sustainable management of mountain water resources are still rare. For instance, in Viet Nam, the Prime Minister’s Instructions on Policies and Methods for Sustained Economic and Social Development in Mountain Areas of 1993 provide for efforts to consolidate or construct small irrigation systems and for state grants for domestic water supply in highland areas.
In the law of North Ossetia-Alania, fresh and mineral water may be used for commercial purposes in accordance with relevant legislation and subject to the payment of a fee. On the other hand, use for domestic purposes is free of charge for mountain communities. The Bulgarian bill also provides for a reduced tax on water supply for mountain populations.
After nearly a decade of implementation of Chapter 13 of Agenda 21, only a limited number of mountain-specific legal instruments are in place, both at the international and the national level. With the exception of a regional accord, the Alpine Convention, which represents a significant collaborative effort among countries sharing a mountain range, there is no other global or regional, legally-binding agreement that specifically deals with mountain areas.
Similarly, most countries have not adopted mountain-specific laws, preferring to focus on the protection and development of mountain regions through their existing sectoral, mountain-related laws. However, a few countries such as France, Georgia, Italy, Switzerland and Ukraine have enacted legal instruments focusing specifically on mountain areas, and other countries are in the process of developing similar legislation. These converging efforts seem to signal an emerging trend towards a progressive increase in mountain law-making in the years to come.
Existing national and sub-national laws address similar mountain-specific problems and, therefore, have some common characteristics:
they typically aim at promoting the socio-economic development of mountain communities, while at the same time protecting the mountain environment;
they all determine their coverage by defining mountain areas, using altitude as the main criterion;
they generally make provision to assign administrative responsibilities for mountain development;
they promote economic activities in mountain zones through special funds, loans, subsidies, labelling and other incentives;
they pursue social objectives, in particular by improving infrastructure, education, health and other services; and
finally, they seek to protect the mountain environment, mostly through provision for the conservation of forest, soil and water resources in mountain regions.
Promising as they may be in view of sustainable mountain development, such laws still have some gaps and need to more fully address the particular interests of mountain ecosystems and inhabitants. For example, mountain laws should provide for greater participation of mountain communities in decision-making processes affecting them, for better coordination with related laws and for the creation of more suitable institutional mechanisms.
In broader terms, mountain-specific legal frameworks should:
address in a coordinated, integrated, balanced and coherent manner the various aspects of sustainable mountain development such as forestry, agriculture, transportation, culture, education, health, economy, environment, biodiversity, tourism and mining;
respect the cultures, protect the rights, promote the well-being and ensure the participation of local communities in mountain areas;
establish institutional settings that promote and facilitate dialogue and consensus among various stakeholders and interests in a multisectoral context;
provide suitable mechanisms for conflict resolution and dispute settlement in mountain regions; and
promote and facilitate bilateral and multilateral cooperation, particularly in transboundary mountain regions, taking account of relevant international instruments.
Such legal frameworks should be based on and supported by comprehensive national policies and strategies for the sustainable management of mountain ecosystems. They should also be supplemented, where appropriate, by regional agreements such as the Alpine Convention, which provide for transfrontier collaboration among countries sharing mountain ranges.
African Mountains Association. 1997. African Mountains and Highlands - Declaration of Antananarivo. International Workshop of the African Mountains Association, 26 May - 1 June 1997, Antananarivo Madagascar (www.mtnforum.org/resources/mpl/73africanmtns.htm).
Commission on Sustainable Development. 2001. Sustainable Mountain Development. Report of the Secretary-General. E/CN.17/2001/PC/14.
Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe. 1995. Recommendation 14 (1995) (1) on the European Charter of Mountain Regions (www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/clrae95a.htm).
Conseil International Associatif pour la Protection des Pyrénées. 1995. Charter for the Protection of the Pyrénées. English summary (www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/ciapp95a.htm).
Egerer, H. 2002. Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable Management of the Carpathians: Going to Bishkek (www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/egerh02b.htm).
Euromontana. 2000. Final Declaration for the Second European Mountain Convention. Trento, Italy, 17 and 18 March 2000 (www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/eurom00c.htm).
Euromontana. 2002. Short Report of the Third European Mountain Convention. Inverness, Scotland, 16-18 May 2002.
Fatiga, J. 2002. Policy of the Republic of Poland towards a Sustainable Development of Mountainous Areas (www.mtnforum.org/emaildiscuss/discuss02/052202557.htm).
FAO. 2002. Law and Sustainable Development Since Rio: Legal Trends in Agriculture and Natural Resource Management. Legislative Study No. 73, Rome.
Fodella, A. & Pineschi, L. 2000. Environment Protection and Sustainable Development of Mountain Areas - Preliminary Report. Mountains and the Environment: Ten Years after Rio, Courmayeur, 16-17 June 2000.
Fourth International Conference on Sustainable Mountain Development. 2001. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Sustainable Mountain Development: Regional and Transboundary Cooperation and Policy Issues. Vladikavkaz, Russian Federation, 23-26 September 2001.
International Union of Alpinist Associations (UIAA). 1997. UIAA Kathmandu Declaration (www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/uiaa 97c.htm).
International Workshop on Sustainable Mountain Development. 2001. Cusco Declaration. International Workshop on Mountain Ecosystems: A Vision of the Future. Cusco, Peru, 25-27 April 2001 (www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/iwsmd01b.htm).
Lynch, O. & Maggio, G. 2000. Mountain Laws and Peoples: Moving towards Sustainable Development and Recognition of Community-based Property Rights. Washington, DC, Center for International Environmental Law.
Maglia, S. & Santoloci, M. 1998. Il codice dell’ambiente (9th ed.). Editrice La Tribuna, Piacenza.
Mountain Agenda. 1997. Mountains of the World. Challenges for the 21st Century. A Contribution to Chapter 13, Agenda 21.
Pradhan, K. 1999. The Altai Declaration (www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/mfb99b.htm).
Servon, F. 1997. La Convention alpine (la montagne et la souris), Revue juridique de l’environnement, No. 3.
Resolution of the First Meeting of the Authorized Representatives on Development of a Legal Instrument for the Protection of the Caucasian Mountain Ecosystems. 2001. Yerevan, Armenia, 26 and 27 June 2001 (www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/ragrf01a.htm).
United Nations. 1997. Natural Resource Aspects of Sustainable Development in Greece. Agenda 21 - National Information (www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/greece/natur.htm).
UNEP. 2001. European Mountain Initiative - News (www.unep.ch/roe/emi.htm).
Villeneuve, A., Talla P. & Mekouar M.A. 2002. The Legal Framework for Sustainable Mountain Management: An Overview of Mountain-specific Instruments, UNASYLVA 208.
World Mountain Forum. 2000a. Draft World Charter for Mountain Populations, 9 June 2000, Chambéry, France (www.forum-mondial-montagne.org/ouvangl.html).
World Mountain Forum. 2000b. Final Declaration, 5-9 June 2000, Paris and Chambéry, France (www.forum-mondial-montagne.org/ouvangl.html).
Zakrevsky, A. 1995. Status of Mountain Human Settlements [Ukraine]. Letter to Mountain Forum (www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/zakra95a.htm).
Main Examples of Domestic Legislation Specific to Mountains
|
Country |
Mountain-specific Legal Texts |
|
Bulgaria |
· Bill on the development of mountain regions, 1993 |
|
Cuba |
· Decree No. 197 of 17 January 1995 on the Commissions of the Turquino-Manati Plan |
|
France |
· Act No. 85-30, 9 January 1985, on mountain
development and protection |
|
Georgia |
· Act of 8 June 1999 on the socio-economic and cultural development of mountain regions |
|
Greece |
· Act No. 1892/90 encouraging the economy and development of mountain regions, amended by Act 2234/94 |
|
Italy |
· Act 991, 25 July 1952, on woods, forests
and mountain areas |
|
Russian Federation |
· Act, 30 December 1998, on mountain territories of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania |
|
Switzerland |
· Federal Act, 21 March 1997, on aid to
investment in mountain regions |
|
Ukraine |
· 1995 Act on the status of human mountain settlements |
