99

Towards Sustainable Land Management in Mountain Areas inCentral Asia
Libor JANSKY1, 2 and Nevelina I. PACHOVA1
1

Environment and Sustainable Development Programme (ESD)
United Nations University (UNU)
53-70, Jingumae 5-chome, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo 150-8925, Japan
2
Faculty of Natural Sciences, Commenius University, 842 15 Bratislava, Slovakia
e-mail: Jansky@hq.unu.edu

Abstract
Decades of research on mountains have brought a general recognition that mountain ecosystems
are extremely fragile and are host to some of the most marginalized people in the world today. Increased
understanding of the complexly inter-related factors and processes determining the vulnerability ofmountain ecosystems and peoples has highlighted the role of land as a critical link in the fragile balance
between man and nature in mountains. This paper presents the results of an integrated and participatory
assessment of the scope and causes of land degradation in the Pamir and Alai Mountains in Central Asiaand a strategic framework for mainstreaming sustainable land management in the region, which wasdeveloped based on multi-level and multi-stakeholder consultations. It illustrates how mountain research can be integrated in development projects so as to help generate tangible improvements in human
livelihoods and security and preserve fragile mountain ecosystems.
Key words: Alai Mountains, Central Asia, land degradation, livelihoods, Pamir, sustainable land
management, sustainable mountain development

1. Evolving Mountain Research and Development Framework
Sustainable development, the concept put forth in
the Brundtland Report of the World Commission on
Environment and Development in 1987 to designate
development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations tomeet theirs, has gained widespread recognition andacceptance over the past several decades (Brundtland,
1987). Major international commitments to sustainable development were made at the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development(UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992
(UNCED, 1992) and at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg,
South Africa a decade later (WSSD, 2002a). The needfor sustainable development was also reflected in theMillennium Development Goals (MDGs), the set oftime-bound and measurable global development targets, agreed to by world leaders at the United Nations
Millennium Summit in September 2000 (UN, 2000).
Finding appropriate mechanisms for balancing
conflicting economic, social and environmental objectives in line with the principles of sustainable developGlobal Environmental Research
10(1)/2006: 99-115
printed in Japan

ment, however, is a challenging on-going endeavor.
The difficulties in moving from commitments toon-the-ground improvements are exemplified by attempts at bringing about sustainable development in
the world’s mountains.
Mountains are recognized as crucial sources offood; freshwater for drinking, irrigation, energy andtransportation; minerals; biological diversity; andphysical and spiritual recreation. They are essential
not only to the close to 600 million people living inmountains but for more than half of the world’s population. Unsustainable use and management of the ecosystems and natural resources of the world’s mountains threaten the livelihoods of people who are directly and indirectly dependent on mountain resources,
the regional security of inter-linked upland-lowland
interactive systems, as well as the global value ofmountain ecosystems as a resource base for the future
generations.
In light of the above, mountain development issues
were given special attention at the Rio Summit, and anaction framework for addressing them was included in
Agenda 21, the overarching action plan on sustainable
development (UNCED, 1992). Chapter 13, the Mountain Chapter of Agenda 21, emphasized the need for©2006 AIRIES

100

Libor JANSKY and Nevelina I. PACHOVA

generating and strengthening knowledge on the ecology of mountains and for promoting integrated watershed development and alternative livelihood opportunities in the world’s highlands. Progress in the implementation of the mountain development framework
proposed at the Rio Summit was reviewed at theWorld Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002
and an updated mountain development agenda emphasizing the need for promoting on-the-ground improvements in resource use and human livelihoods in mountain areas through integrated and participatory approaches was highlighted in paragraph 40 of the
WSSD Implementation Plan (WSSD, 2002b). To support its implementation, a Global Mountain Partnership, a network of multi-level stakeholders working
on mountain development issues, was established as a‘tier 2’ outcome of the WSSD (GMP, 2006). A framework for different stakeholders to contribute to sustainable mountain development in line with the mountain priorities set at the WSSD and the broader Millennium Development Goals was agreed on shortly afterwards, at the Bishkek Global Mountain Summit heldin 2002 on the occasion of the International Year of
the Mountains (Bishkek Mountain Platform, 2002).
Mountain research has played an important role inhighlighting the importance of mountains in sustainable development and in shaping the mountain development framework. Disciplinary investigations ofmountain issues have resulted in the accumulation of a
wealth of knowledge in the fields of mountain climatology, geology, glaciology, freshwater and watershedhydrology, and all branches of biology, as well as inmountain geography, ethnography and demography,
among others. This knowledge has provided a basis
for pioneering interdisciplinary research on humanecosystem interactions through initiatives such as
UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Project 6
on the ‘Impact of Human Activities on Mountain and
Tundra Ecosystems’ launched in 1973 (Price, 1995),
and the United Nations University (UNU) project on‘Highland-Lowland Interactive Systems’ launched in1978 (Jansky et al., 2002). Such initiatives have increased understanding and awareness of the multiple
values of mountains, of the fragility of humanenvironment interactions in highlands, of the multiple
threats to their stability and thus of the need forspecial policy attention (Ives & Messerli, 1989; Stone,
1992; Messerli & Ives, 1997).
Moving from policy development to policy implementation in the context of growing complexity anduncertainty driven by the processes of global climatechange and globalization, however, has exacted achange of the original mountain development research
agenda and approaches in response to the emerging
mountain development issues and needs. Analyzing
problems and developing solutions in an integrated
framework and adaptive, participatory manner has
become widely recognized as essential for bringing
about sustainable on-the-ground changes in mountains.

As a result, mountain research themes, have become
increasingly organized around policy-relevant issues,
cutting not only across the traditional divide between
natural and social science disciplines but also acrossthe outer boundaries of what has been traditionallycalled research (The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, 2002; Price et al., 2004). Furthermore, partnership-based, trans-disciplinary research approaches
have been increasingly employed in applied development work as tools for bridging the gap between scientific research and development needs (Becker &Bugmann, 2001; Ramakrishnan et al., 2003; Hurni
et al., 2004; CIP, 2006; ICIMOD, 2006).
Over the past decade, the Global Environment
Facility (GEF), among other agencies, has played amajor role in catalyzing partnerships among various
stakeholders in mountain development and bringing
research to bear on the needs of mountain inhabitants.
Established in 1991 as an independent financial
mechanism to support developing countries’ efforts toimplement the major Multilateral Environmental
Agreements (MEAs), and most notably the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC), the UN Conventions on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) and the UN Convention to Combat
Desertification (UNCCD), GEF has committed morethan US $620 million and leveraged additional funding of about US $1.4 billion for a total of US $2.02
billion in support of at least 107 mountain-related
projects in 64 countries (Walsh, 2002). In the courseof its operations GEF has provided funding for projects aimed at conserving mountain biodiversity,
maintaining water flow and resources in mountains,and preserving mountain landscapes, while sustaining
local livelihoods. Most recently, mainstreaming sustainable land management in mountain regions
through targeted interventions, capacity development
and demonstration of best practices has emerged as apromising approach to promoting sustainable mountain development in an integrated and participatory
framework (UNEP, 2004).

2. Advancing Understanding of Land andLand Use Changes in Mountains
Land is the primary resource base on which mountain communities build their livelihoods. At the sametime, it provides the structural and nutritional basis forthe development and maintenance of mountain ecosystems, whose goods and services in turn are significant determinants of human well-being and security,
both in the mountains and in the adjacent lowlands.
The high exposure, sensitivity and limited resilienceof land in mountains to both environmental and anthropogenic pressures makes it a fragile link in thedelicate balance between man and nature in highlands.
Mountains are high energy environments, characterized by geophysical conditions and processes conducive to ecosystem and land degradation. Often situ-

Towards Sustainable Land Management in Mountain Areas in Central Asia

ated along the boundaries of continental plates, mountains are prone to seismic activity, and thus to mass
wasting (land slides, mud and debris flows) and fires
triggered by earthquakes and volcanic eruptions(UNEP, 2002). High altitudes, high relief, steep slopes
and large variability over time and space tend to magnify the effects of climatic and hydrological processes
in the mountains, thus increasing both the intensity of
the continuous pressures on their land resources andthe associated risks from natural disasters (Hewitt,1995). Global temperature increases observed over the
past century have been found to be higher in mountainareas than in lowlands (IPCC, 2001; Yoshino, 2006).
This has added to the environmental pressures affecting the structure and functions of mountain ecosystems through changes in vegetation, as well as in thewater cycle, driven by modifications in precipitationand evopotranspiration patterns and the melting ofmountain glaciers, among another factors (Price &Barry, 1997).
The high exposure of mountain ecosystems andland to environmental pressures is coupled with a highsensitivity and limited resilience to stress. Soils on
sloping lands, as are most lands in the mountains, areinherently prone to erosive degradation from water,
wind, glacial melting and gravitation, among othernatural phenomena. The ability of mountain soils torecover from erosion is limited by the slower rates ofsoil formation processes in mountains, relative to thenatural rates of different types of environmental
degradation to which they are subject, due to various
soil profile forming factors, such as climate, geomorphology, parent material, soil organisms, etc. Furthermore, changes in soil structure and content, as a resultof erosion, reduce its water holding capacity and nutrient content, and make it more prone to further degradation through various soil mass movements (Sidle
et al., 1985). Forests and other vegetative cover provide mountain soils with valuable protection. The
generally shallow soils and low soil fertility, coupledwith a short growing season for vegetation and characteristic variations in precipitation associated withmountain climates, however, make vegetation, particularly in high mountain areas, a scarce resource and
one which is slow to recover and resume its ecological
functions once degraded.
The impacts of environmental pressures on mountain land and ecosystems are often exacerbated byunsustainable anthropogenic uses of mountain resources. While mountains are rarely densely populated,
except in parts of Africa and Latin America, where
living conditions in uplands are more favorable thanin the dry and disease-prone lowlands, poverty, whichis the rule, rather than the exception in the mountains,often leads to overexploitation of local resources bylimiting the scope of available livelihood options.
Land suitable for sustainable crop agriculture in highlands is limited and with low productive potential,
mountain communities have thus most often come to101

specialize in livestock breeding. Even that occupation,
however, is often rendered economically unsustainable due to different combinations of environmental
and socio-economic conditions typical of mountainareas. These include frequent natural disasters, poor
infrastructure, distance from market centers, and suppressed market prices of agricultural products, distorted by unchecked failures to incorporate the environmental costs of production, oligopolistic local traders, or national and international trade and policy distortions. At the same time, limited access to information, knowledge, capital and technology, as well as
inadequate physical and institutional infrastructure,hinder the initiation and undertaking of higher
value-added agricultural and alternative income-generating activities outside the agricultural sector by
local mountain communities. As a result mountainpeople have been most often forced into a life of poverty based on subsistence agriculture, and extreme
dependence on local resources for meeting the food,energy, and other basic needs of growing populations,
often augmented by influxes of refugees at times ofpolitical turmoil.
Paradoxically, the wide range of attractive resources for non-agricultural development that mountains provide has also made mountain land and ecosystems susceptible to degradation from overexploitation and inappropriate uses due to industrializationand over-development, alongside poverty. Hydropower development, mining, and tourism, including
trophy hunting, most often undertaken by external
investors with limited concern for local livelihoods
and their potential environmental impacts, have frequently resulted in resource degradation and thus disruption of the productive and protective functions of
the scarce and fragile land and ecosystem resources inmany mountain areas. In addition to their direct impacts, such enterprises unchecked by appropriate policies have often exacerbated the poverty-driven pressures on the natural environment by increasing inequalities, thus reducing the social capital necessary fordesigning and implementing sustainable resource use
and management solutions.
Poverty and inequality, in combination with othersocio-economic and political conditions characteristic
to mountain regions make it difficult for local populations to ensure the sustainable use and management of
natural resources. As a result, overgrazing, deforestation and in some regions, salinization have become
widespread phenomena in many mountain ranges.
Given the fragility of mountain soils, land degradation
further reduces their inherently low productivity
through loss in depth, nutrients and water holding capacity among other factors. At the same time, the reduction and destruction of mountain vegetation makes
mountain communities more vulnerable to increased
frequency and intensity of floods and mass wastinghazards. As a result, mountain communities are often
locked in a vicious cycle of further impoverishment

102

Libor JANSKY and Nevelina I. PACHOVA

and insecurity which in turn beget more degradation.
The consequences of land degradation in mountains, however, are not limited to the local level. At thenational and regional level its impacts are felt throughincreased costs for infrastructure maintenance andresettlements of people affected by the exacerbatedeffects of natural disasters, reduced quantity and quality of water supplies for drinking and irrigation, andthus reduced health and food security of lowland
populations, as well as increased out-migration tourban centers and neighboring states, with broader
socio-economic and political security implications.
The cumulative effects of land degradation at thewatershed level are also increasingly recognized at the
global level through the reduction and loss of significant carbon sinks, i.e., mountain pastures and forests,
and globally important biodiversity gene pools, ecosystems and landscapes, threatening the resource baseof both current and future generations.
Land degradation in mountains, however, is not an
inevitable process. In the course of time mountaincommunities have often developed successful adaptation mechanisms that have allowed them to establish
and maintain their livelihoods in a sustainable manner,despite the harsh environmental conditions and thelimited available financial, physical and natural resources. Innovation has allowed for the developmentof ingenious technical solutions for increasing marginally the productivity of the scarce land resources,
while maintaining the integrity and resilience of local
ecosystems by capitalizing on the characteristics andresources of mountain environments (Brookfield,
2001; Stocking, 2006). Experimentation in the conditions of mountain fragility can be a risky undertaking
and one that individual farming families, living in
relative isolation, may not be able to afford to undertake (Baetzing & Messerli, 1992). The strong kinshipties and community structures that have most often
developed in mountain regions, however, have beenshown to have provided an effective mechanism for
distribution of individual risk among social groups
which has not only facilitated technical innovation
conducive to sustainable land use but has allowed
individuals to cope with the frequent risks and disasters of mountain regions without reverting to shortterm resource degradation as a survival strategy, in thecontext of limited available access to savings andcredit. Trust and kinship ties have also been found to
reduce the high transaction costs (e.g., for obtaining
information, bargaining, monitoring and enforcing
agreements) involved in economic barter/trade transactions in mountain regions and in the development
and maintenance of community-based arrangements
for avoiding the most commonly cited cause of resource degradation, namely, the ‘tragedy of the commons,’ i.e., the degradation of common pool resources(Prakash, 1997). Furthermore, social structures haveprovided the basis for the development and preservation of indigenous religious beliefs and cultures which

have, in many regions, played a vital role in the longterm conservation of mountain resources (Bernbaum,1997).
The development, enhancement and adaptation of
local capacities conducive to sustainable land use andresource management in mountainous, as well as otherrural regions, however, depends largely on the broader
socio-economic, policy and institutional context
within which local resource use and livelihood strategies evolve and develop in response to various exogenous and endogenous trends, shocks, and pressures(DFID, 1999). Communities that have not been given
the necessary rights and responsibilities, e.g., throughsecure land tenure and decentralization of decisionmaking on the use of land and other resources, haveoften failed to develop the necessary adaptive capacities and strategies, essential for coping with the challenges of life in the mountains in a sustainable manner(Prakash, 1997). Those that have, are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the centuries-old wisdom and traditions that have made it possible to establish and maintain their livelihoods in mountains, in thecontext of wide-ranging technical, socio-economic
and political changes and pressures, which are increasingly affecting even isolated mountainous regions through free-trade agreements, market expansions, the development of global tourism and otheraspects of globalization, such as the development of
global tourism (Mountain Agenda, 1999). Global
warming, to which mountains are particularly sensitive, adds to other pressures pushing for developmentof new modes and mechanisms of sustainable resource
use and management in the mountains (Nilsson & Pitt,
1991; Price & Barry, 1997; IPCC, 2001).
Past attempts by external parties to help address
the problem of land degradation in the mountains havefocused on the development and implementation ofexogenous, technical and primarily sectoral solutions
that have often exacerbated rather than alleviatedhuman and environmental pressures in mountains.
Well-guided development interventions, e.g., supporting the improvement of transportation and other infrastructure, are well-known for their direct and indirect
deleterious human and environmental security impacts
in mountain regions. Similarly, policy interventions,such as the designation of valuable mountain ecosystems as conservation areas, have at times resulted inadverse effects, e.g., increased degradation of the land
resources in the surrounding settlement areas, due tothe disruption of traditional land use practices without
appropriate consideration of their implications andcorresponding provisions. The failure to recognize thecomplex nature and multiple interrelated processes
and factors that give rise to land degradation in mountains is increasingly noted as a major cause of pastintervention failures, thus the development and implementation of integrated resource use and management
strategies is seen as a promising solution.
Years of trials and errors, have also led to the rec-

Towards Sustainable Land Management in Mountain Areas in Central Asia

ognition that the multi-level and multi-faceted causesof land degradation most often do not coincide with
their impacts, and thus give rise to situations in which
the costs and benefits of land degradation are notjustly shared among the different stakeholders. Theinterplay of interests among winners and losers fromland degradation can hinder the successful design andimplementation of relevant policy measures and development interventions for mitigating the causes andconsequences of land degradation if conflicts of interest are not openly recognized and resolved. Mountaincommunities, given their physical and informational
isolation and policy marginality, especially during theearly stages of economic development, when governance is usually characterized by a high level of centralization, have been particularly susceptible to exclusion from decision-making in response to land degradation in the past. Participatory land use planning andmanagement have thus emerged as essential elementsin the process of mainstreaming sustainable land management in an integrated resource use framework inmountain areas.
Building upon the accumulated knowledge and experience, over the past several years the Global Environment Facility (GEF), through its new Operational
Programme (OP#15) on Land Degradation, has supported the initiation and development of several pioneering initiatives for mainstreaming sustainable land
management in mountain areas in an integrated framework, based on participatory research, planning andimplementation. One of these initiatives focuses on
the High Pamir and Pamir-Alai Mountains in Central
Asia. It is aimed at mainstreaming sustainable land
management as a basis for improving human wellbeing, reducing the environmental security threats tothe fragile mountain region and generating a program-

103

matic model replicable in similar mountain ranges. A
description of the baseline research methodologies
employed in the process of identifying the scale,causes and possible responses to the problem of landdegradation in the project area, and a summary of theresults are presented below as an illustration of how
integrated and participatory research tools can be applied in the design of sustainable land management
projects.

3. Towards Sustainable Mountain Development in Central Asia
The mountains of Central Asia are among theworld’s major centers of unique cultural (Badenkov,
1992) and biological diversity (Fig. 1, Conservation
International, 2002). Mountain rangelands in theregion constitute carbon sinks of global importance,
while the ice-capped peaks of the Central Asian
mountains store and regulate the freshwater supply tothe adjacent lowlands. Over the past several decades,
mountain people and resources in the region havebeen exposed to significant environmental as well associo-economic and political changes and pressures,
which have triggered a downward spiral of impoverishment, growing socio-economic inequality and resource degradation. This process has turned theCentral Asian mountains into breeding-grounds forsocial and political conflicts, militant religious movements, organized crime and drug trafficking, and has
threatened to disrupt the flow of regional and global
goods and services provided by the unique mountainecosystems.

Fig. 1 Global biodiversity hotspots. (Source: Conservation International, Feb. 2005)

104

Libor JANSKY and Nevelina I. PACHOVA

3.1 Local challenges with global implications in
the Pamir and Alai Mountains
The Pamir Mountains in Tajikistan and the adjacent Alai and Chon-Alai mountain ranges in neighboring Kyrgyzstan represent a significant proportion of
the mountains of Central Asia and are a notable example of the challenges facing mountain areas in the region (Fig. 2). The Tajik Pamirs and the Alai mountain
ranges contain a unique set of natural formations withhigh mountain peaks (Peak Communism, the highest
in the former USSR, at 7,465m), continental glaciers(Fedchenko Glacier, one of the largest outside thepolar regions), mountain lakes, alpine and sub-alpine
meadows and mountain forests and are characterisedby an arid to sub-humid climate. The combination of
topographic and climatic conditions in the region has
made it home to rich and endemic flora and fauna.
The Pamir-Alai mountain ranges are home to some
2,000 endemic plant species, among which are theancestors of domestic fruit and nut tree varieties, aswell as 120 endemic animal species, including someglobally endangered ones, such as the Marco Polosheep (Ovis ammon polii) and the snow leopard(Uncia uncia). In addition to their biodiversity value,
mountain ecosystems, and particularly the vast rangelands in the Pamir and Alai Mountains, store a significant part of the estimated 84 gigatonnes of carbon(Gt C) accumulated in rangeland vegetation and afurther 750 Gt C in rangeland soils globally (IPCC,
2001). Furthermore, the Pamir and Alai mountains areamong the ‘Water Towers’ of Central Asia. It isestimated that they store and provide approximately
65% of the freshwater reserves of the region, which
are almost exclusively released through the Amu
Darya river to the densly populated agricultural
lowlands of Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan andUzbekistan.
The growing manifestations of climate changeover the past decades, however, have begun to disrupt
the established water supply regime in the region. In
the Tajik Pamirs, between 1961 and 1990, averagetemperatures have increased by 0.5°C and if present
trends continue, by 2050 it is estimated that air temperatures will rise by a further 2-3°C (Novikov &Safarov, 2002). Rising temperatures have increased
the melt rate of the region’s 9,000 glaciers, which are
believed to have lost over 25% of their ice reserves
during the period from 1957-2000 (UNCCD, 2003).
The Fedechenko Glacier alone, with a current lengthof 70 km, has shrunk by almost 1 km, losing 11 km2
of its area and 2 km2 of its ice volume in the second
half of the 20th century. If these trends continue manyof the numerous smaller glaciers at lower altitudes
will disappear completely and the total ice volume
will decline by a further 25%-30%.
The consequences of these climate changes are al-

GEF Pamir-Alai
Overview Map
LegendPilot study sites
Shitkarv
JelondiAlichur
Yar-Mazar
Lenin
Josholu
Kashka-Suu
AlaikuState borders
Major rivers
Surface water bodies
Background themes:
Colored classified elevation
layer: yellow = low ,• white = highGrey scale hillshaded relief
Projection information
Geographic Grid: 1 degree intervals
Projection: Transverse Mercator
Zone: Gauss-Krueger 13
Datum: Pulkovo 1942
Spheroid: Krassovsky
Scale Factor: 1
Longitude of origine: 75 E
Latitude of origine: 0
False easting: 500,000 m
False northing: 0 m

Disclaimer
Any boundaries should not be consideredauthoritative. In no event shall the
publisher be liable for any incidental orconsequencial damages resulting fromthe use of the map.

Fig. 2 Pamir-Alai Project areas. (Source: Breu & Hurni, eds., 2005)

Towards Sustainable Land Management in Mountain Areas in Central Asia

ready, directly or indirectly, felt at the local level
through increased frequencies and intensities of natural disasters, such as avalanches, glacier lake outbursts,
floods, mudflows, landslides and rock falls, and secondary impacts such as water-logging and salinization.
Since the melt-water peak in summer coincides withthe growing period of cotton in the Tajik and Uzbek
lowlands, and with the driest season in this region,
however, changes in the storage capacity and seasonal
regulation of stream-flow in the High Pamir and Alai
Mountains are likely to affect not only local security
and land use systems, but also the ecological andsocio-economic welfare of downstream users. The
currently observed initial increase in glacial melt rates
has increased stream flow in some rivers, partiallycompensating for the decrease of stream flow inothers. In the mid- to long-term future, however, a significant reduction of water flow in many rivers should
be anticipated. The crucial role of water in the arid
and semi-arid areas of the region, combined with thegeopolitical location of the Pamir and Alai mountain
ranges at the meeting point of seven countries(Afghanistan, China, India, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan,
Tajikistan and Uzbekistan), makes the sustainable use
and management of water and ecosystem resources in
the uplands a critical prerequisite for ensuring socioeconomic stability and political security in the volatileregion.
Adapting to climate changes while maintaining thestructural and functional integrity of the unique mountain ecosystems and their regional and global environmental services and value, however, is a challenging
task both for the local communities in the Pamir andAlai Mountains, and for the governments ofKyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, which are still recoveringfrom the shock of the disintegration of the former
USSR in the early 1990s and struggling with the challenges of the unexpected advent of independence(Rumer & Zhukov, 1998). Indicative of those challenges is the fact that the Gross Domestic Product(GDP) of Kyrgyzstan dropped by 49 % in the periodof 1990-1995, while the economic collapse in
Tajikistan was exacerbated by a civil war which ravaged the country between 1992-1997. The crisis in theregion had bottomed out by 1996-1997 and the economies of the two countries have begun to recover. Yet,
Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are still the poorest countries of Central Asia, due to a combination of factors,
including their predominantly mountainous terrains(mountains cover more than 90% of the territories of
the two states), their landlocked location in a politically unstable region, and the reform and development
strategies undertaken by the governments of the twostates. Despite successes in promoting economic
growth, poverty rates have continued to increase overthe past decade. This indicates growing inequalities inthe two countries. In Kyrgyzstan between 1996 and2000, while GDP grew annually by more than 5%, thetotal percentage of the population falling below the105poverty line increased from 43.5% to 55% (NPRS,
date unknown). In 2001, Tajikistan’s GDP grew at a
rate of 10.2%, while 83% of the population lived below the poverty line.
Isolated from the capital centres by high mountainous ranges and limited, dilapidated transportation infrastructure, as well as by ethnic boundaries and corresponding political power divisions, the GornoBadakhshan Autonomous Oblast (GBAO) in Tajikistan,where the major part of the High Pamirs is situated,
and the southern provinces of Kyrgyzstan, which hostthe Alai range, are among the regions that have been
most seriously affected by the growing poverty andinequality in the two countries. The disintegration of
the previously state-organized system of agricultural
production and export, and the discontinuation of state
employment, social benefits, and provision of subsidized fuel and other goods to the strategically important for the Soviet regime mountainous region, coupled with the scarce production resources and harshliving conditions at an elevation of 1,200-3,500 m,
gave rise to a humanitarian crisis in some parts of the
Pamir-Alai ranges in the early years of the transition.
Food security threats in the region have been alleviated through humanitarian and development aid, drastic reductions in available livestock resources to meet
local consumption needs and money transfers fromseasonal and permanent migrants from the region,
who have found employment in Russia and otherneighbouring countries and regions offering better
economic opportunities. In the course of the struggle
for survival over the past two decades, however, themountain ecosystems and resources, particularly in thevicinity of the settlement areas in the Pamir and Alai
Mountains, have been severely degraded, thus further
reducing their limited productivity and making mountain communities more vulnerable to the growing frequency and intensity of natural disasters in the region(Breu & Hurni, 2003). The implications of the vicious
cycle of poverty and resource degradation in the
Pamir-Alai Mountains for human and environmental
security at the national as well as at the regional andglobal levels have given rise to a search for solutions
among stakeholders from various sectors and levels.
Under the initiative of the governments ofKyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, and with the support of the
GEF, UNEP, UNU, and Center for Mountain Development and Environment (CDE) at the University ofBern among other international agencies, a project
developed aimed at addressing the interlinked problems of poverty and resource degradation in the region.
In the course of multi-level and multi-stakeholder consultations, which were undertaken in the process ofdevelopment of the overall project concept, sustainable land management was identified as a promisingentry strategy for breaking the vicious cycle of poverty and resource degradation in the region. In order todevelop a suitable and effective strategy for mainstreaming SLM in the Pamir and Alai Mountains, the106

Libor JANSKY and Nevelina I. PACHOVA

scope, intensity and causes of land degradation in theregion were assessed through a set of integrated andparticipatory research approaches, developed in linewith the accumulated knowledge and recent advances
in applied transdisciplinary research for sustainable
land management and mountain development. Below
is presented a summary of the methodological framework and the results from those baseline studies used
as a basis for the preparation of the GEF/UNEP Full
Project Brief on ‘Sustainable Land Management in theHigh Pamir and Pamir Alai Mountains’ (UNU, 2006).
3.2 Scoping the problem
Research Methodology
In light of the complexity of the problem of landdegradation, particularly in mountain areas, a set ofcomplementary research approaches were employedin the project development process. They included
Sustainable Development Appraisals (SDA) at selected pilot sites, assessment of the capacities of thepolicy, legal and institutional frameworks in the twocountries, and development of an integrated GIS database for the project area. The overall research goal
was to assess the scope and intensity of land degradation in the Pamir and Alai Mountains, its direct androot causes, and the possibilities for addressing the
problem so as to improve the social and economic
well-being of the rural communities and households
utilizing the region’s resources to meet their livelihood
needs, while restoring, sustaining and enhancing the
productive and protective functions of the uniquetrans-boundary ecosystems.
Sustainable Development Appraisal (SDA) is atransdisciplinary methodological framework that enables intercultural teams of specialists to develop
baseline information, identify options for intervention
and initiate activities in the field of sustainable development. This tool allows for compilation of baseline
inventories of physical and social information, which
are pooled and processed by means of public discourse among relevant actors (CDE, 2006). SDA differs from conventional baseline studies and participatory approaches in that it integrates ‘external’ (scientific) and ‘internal’ (local) views in a multi-level andmulti-stakeholder dialogue for sustainable development. For the purposes of the project, the SDA methodology was presented to two teams of inter-disciplinary experts in the bio-physical and social scienses
from Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan through hands-ontraining at one of the selected pilot sites. The local
experts then employed the SDA methodology to
conduct similar assessments at another seven study
areas.
The project pilot sites (Fig. 2) were selected inview of the dual strategy of promoting both sustainable land management and improved rural livelihoods.
Hence each study area corresponds to an area of land
within which a rural community exploited the local

natural resources (soils, vegetation, water, etc.) for the
purpose of meeting its primary welfare and livelihood
needs. The pilot sites were also selected so as to bebroadly representative of the different geo-physicalregions found in the project area, with their corresponding socio-economic and land-use characteristics.
Thus they cover the dominant mountain ecosystems;
the typical range of resource use systems (crop, livestock and tree based) pursued by the mountain communities; the type and severity of resource degradation processes occurring; and the major socioeconomic differences (e.g., ethnic/cultural diversity,
isolation, access to the external market economy, etc.)
within the Pamir-Alai region.
While understanding the geophysical and socioeconomic environment and processes at the local levelis essential to understanding the extent and causes ofland degradation and to identifying possible measures
for addressing it, past studies and experiences haveshown that it is insufficient. To obtain a comprehensive view of the root causes of resource degradationand the barriers to mainstreaming sustainable land
management, the study undertook an assessment of
the capacities of the existing national and regional
legal, policy and institutional frameworks. Like the
SDA assessments, the policy, institutional and legislative framework reviews were conducted by interdisciplinary groups of national and local scientific andpolicy experts, in line with the requirements of acommon methodological framework. The reviews
were premised on the common understanding that allelements of the natural and human environment areinter-linked and inter-dependent and needed to betreated as such by the legal, policy and institutionalframeworks, so as to ensure the desired coupled benefits of environmental sustainability and human security. The methodology employed was based on the
integrated approach initially developed for assessmentof land and water management policies in Asia
(Hannam, 2003).
To support analysis of the findings and decisionmaking on promising intervention strategies, an integrated GIS database for the project area was developed by the CDE, University of Bern, based on an
existing GIS database for the Tajik Pamirs (CDE,2005). The database brought together geo-referenced
data on the natural resources and topographic featuresof the area, including information on slope, land cover,soil, river bodies and rainfall, as well as on thesocio-economic characteristics of the region, such as
roads, transportation lines and political boundaries tothe sub-district level. Data were derived from existing
maps with a scale of 1:200,000, remote sensing data,tabular data collected in the course of the baseline
studies and field data. The integration of the different
types of information allowed for development of different degradation risk assessments and spatial distribution models, which provided a basis for priority
setting and planning.

Towards Sustainable Land Management in Mountain Areas in Central Asia

Results: Characteristics of the High Pamir andPamir-Alai Region
The High Pamir and Alai Mountains of Tajikistan
and Kyrgyzstan constitute a highly diverse region,
containing within its borders a great variety of climatic, topographic and ecological conditions, leading
to different forms of land use and natural resource
based livelihood systems. The area can be divided into
three broad sub-regions differentiated on the basis of
topographic and climatic differences, as well associo-cultural and land use differences (Fig. 2):
The Western Pamir Mountains – covering an
area of approximately 25,700 km2, are characterized
by deeply incised valleys separated by glaciated highmountain ranges with peaks rising to altitudes of over
7,000 m. Annual precipitation drops steeply fromabout 500 mm in the northwest to less than 100 mm in
the southeast. The bulk of the sub-region’s water supplies come from melting snow and glaciers, withmaximum discharges from June to August. Arable
land comprises only 240 km2, less than 1% of the total

107

land area, and is located in pockets in the valley bottoms (on alluvial fans and river terraces) at altitudes of
1,200-3,500 m (Fig. 3). Much of the rest of the
sub-region comprises barren rocky land, snow and ice.
Vegetation cover is mostly sparse scrub or meadow
plant communities on mountain slopes, with patchesof mesophyllic riparian forests in the valley bottoms.
The sub-region is inhabited by mostly Tajik Ishmaeli
people in permanent valley floor settlements. Their
livelihoods are predominantly based on mixed mountain agriculture involving subsistence-oriented irrigated crop cultivation and livestock husbandry(Fig. 4).
The Western Pamir Mountains correspond to theterritory covered by the seven western districts of theGorno Badakshan Autonomous Oblast (GBAO),
Tajikistan, namely, Darvaz, Vanchi Rushan, Shugnan,
Khorog, Roshtkala and Ishkashim. The population ofthis sub-region is approximately 196,000. Although
the population density is low (7.6 per km2), there ishigh pressure on the very limited land resources in theFig. 3 Arable land in the Western Pamirs comprises less than 1% of the total land area. It is located in pockets in deeply incisedvalley bottoms at altitudes of 1,200-3,500 m. The harsh and hazardous environment poses a constant threat to humansecurity and livelihoods in the remote mountainous region.
(Photos by Malcolm Douglas & Brigitta Stillhardt)

Fig. 4 The Western Pamirs is inhabited by mostly Tajik Ishmaeli people, whose livelihoods are predominantly based on mixed
mountain agriculture involving subsistence-oriented irrigated crop cultivation and livestock husbandry.
(Photos by Malcolm Douglas & Brigitta Stillhardt)

108

Libor JANSKY and Nevelina I. PACHOVA

area suitable for crop and livestock production.
The Eastern Pamirs – covering an area of
38,000 km2 are characterized by a series of arid, high,gently sloping plateaus, at an average altitude of
3,500-4,500 m, from which rise a number of rocky,
and in places snow capped, ridges and mountain peaks,
reaching a little over 5,500 m. Annual precipitation isvery low, averaging only 70 mm, falling as light
winter snow, while the annual potential evaporation
exceeds 1,000 mm. The predominant vegetation consists of dwarf shrubs, with areas of richer alpine
meadow vegetation and willow trees along the meandering rivers. High altitudes, low temperatures andminimal precipitation severely limit plant growth andmake the area unsuitable for crop production. The
Eastern Pamirs are very thinly populated by traditionally semi-nomadic people of Kyrgyz origin who primarily depend on livestock farming. Land use is characterized by transhumance with the migration of people and animals between summer, autumn and winterpastures (Fig. 5).

The Eastern Pamir Mountains fall within the
Murgab district of the GBAO with a population of justover 14,000. Due to the harsh nature of the environment, the population density is very low (0.37 per
km2).
The Alai Mountain Ranges – covering an area ofapproximately 35,000 km2 in the south of Kyrgyzstan
and northern parts of central Tajikistan. The subregion comprises three principal geological formations: (i) the Alai mountain range with a maximum
elevation of 5,500 m; (ii) the Trans-Alai mountain
range with glaciated peaks rising to over 7,000 m; and(iii) the Alai Valley, a plateau at an altitude of around2,800 m, lying between the Alai and Trans-Alai mountain ranges. Annual precipitation amounts to some300-550 mm (mostly falling between autumn andspring). Summers are dry with water supplies comingfrom melting snow and glaciers. The predominant
vegetation is high mountain meadow steppe andmountain forest meadow steppe. Remote valleys still
have areas of juniper forest growing at altitudes ofFig. 5 The Eastern Pamir Mountains is characterized by a series of arid gently sloping plateaus, at an average altitude of
3,500-4,500 m, thinly populated by semi-nomadic people of Kyrgyz origin, primarily dependent on livestock farming
and the home-based processing of animal products.
(Photos by Malcolm Douglas & Nevelina Pachova)

Fig. 6 The Alai and Trans-Alai mountain ranges and the Alai valley, lying between them, are home to Kyrgyz and Tajik people,
living in permanent settlements at altitudes between 1,200-3,300 m and sustaining their livelihoods from irrigated andrain-fed forage and crop production and livestock breeding with transhumance.
(Photos by Malcolm Douglas & Nevelina Pachova)

Towards Sustainable Land Management in Mountain Areas in Central Asia

3,000 m. Crop land amounts to only 0.5%-1.1% of thetotal land area, while mountain slopes with scrub andmeadow plant communities suitable for pasturing
cover between 35%-55%. The sub-region is inhabitedby both Kyrgyz and Tajik people living in permanent
settlements at altitudes between 1,200-3,300 m. Landuse is dominated by subsistence-oriented agriculture,
and animal herding. In the Tajik Alai, irrigated crop
production and livestock breeding with transhumance
pasturing defines the typical land use system, whereas
in the Kyrgyz Alai, people are mainly engaged intranshumance livestock raising, combined with rainfed forage and crop cultivation, with only minor
irrigated areas (Fig. 6).
The Alai Mountains straddle the border between
southern Kyrgyzstan and northern Tajikistan. In southern Kyrgyzstan the Alai Mountains fall within the districts of Chun Alai, Alai, Kara Kula and Nookat in
Osh Oblast and the Batken district of Batken Oblast.
While in northern Tajikistan they cover the districts ofTavildara, Jirgatol, Tojikobod, and Rasht. The total
population of this sub-region is 218,000 with mostliving in Tajikistan (150,000). The population density
varies between different oblasts and districts from 2.9
to 22.4 per km2.
The geo-physical, socio-economic and demographic conditions and related land use systems thathave evolved over the years in the Western and Eastern Pamirs and the Alai mountain ranges have givenrise to certain characteristic land degradation processes in the three geographic sub-regions. Their nature,extent and intensity are summarized briefly below.
Results: Current Status of Land Degradation in theHigh Pamir and Pamir Alai Mountains
The 1994 Global Assessment of Soil Degradation(GLASOD) found that much of Central Asia was already adversely affected by land degradation, in particular by water erosion in the early 1990s (Oldeman,1994). A 1998 UNCCD report identified Central Asia
as the region of Asia worst affected by desertification(with more than 60% of the region’s drylands affected) (UNCCD, 1998). The critical issue of landdegradation in Central Asia was also highlighted in
the Desertification Synthesis report in Ecosystem andHuman Well-Being, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment – UNEP/GEF, which presents the findings of thefour Millennium Assessment Groups in the area. Overthe last 10 years the situation is believed to have deteriorated further in parallel with the decline in the economic conditions of the rural populations following
the collapse of the Soviet Union (Karejeh et al.,2002).
Presently land degradation processes affect an estimated 88% and 98% of the arable lands in Kyrgyzstan
and Tajikistan respectively (UNCCD, 2003). So far nocomprehensive studies have been undertaken into thecurrent degradation status of ecosystem resources ofthe High Pamir and Alai Mountains. As a result there109

is no base-line quantitative information on the areal
extent or severity of the different types of land degradation that are believed to have occurred in the past,or are currently occurring. The results from the Sustainable Development Appraisals conducted at theeight selected pilot sites, in combination with otherrelevant information drawn from related studies inother parts of the project area, integrated and analyzed
in the framework of the broader GIS-based project
database covering the whole area of the High Pamir
and Alai Mountains, however, provide strong evidence
that degradation is occurring and has gotten considerably worse in the last 10 or so years. Table 1 is derived
from such sources and serves as a qualitative estimateof the current nature and severity of land degradation
within the three sub-regions of the High Pamir andAlai Mountains of Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.
The status of the region’s land resources can bebroadly summarized as follows:(i) Vegetation is the land resource most affected bydegradation. Particularly forest and pasture land,
as well as dwarf-shrub plant communities, suffer
badly from high pressure and unsustainable land
use and show signs of severe degradation.
(ii) Areas with agricultural soils are scarce and although they form an essential resource for sustaining rural livelihoods, they have undergone
high use intensity, unadapted land use practices
and a moderate degree of degradation.
(iii) Although concrete figures on wildlife are unavailable, continuous hunting activities and habitat destruction are believed to have caused a considerable decrease in animal populations.
(iv) Changes in the seasonal availability and distribution of water within the region, rather than its
quality, are a major concern, although there are
local exceptions.
More detailed description and analysis of the statusof land resources and the observed land degradation
processes in the High Pamir and Pamir-Alai area canbe found in the synthesis report prepared by CDE
based on the pilot site field studies (Breu & Hurni,
2005). The report also provides in-depth analysis of
the causes of land degradation in the project area
which are briefly summarized below.
Results: Causes of Land Degradation within theHigh Pamir and Alai Mountains
There are a variety of natural factors, related to theharsh bio-physical environment within the High Pamir
and Alai Mountains that increase the risk of humaninduced land degradation, and reduce the potential forrecovery through natural processes. Steep slopes, shallow soils and large areas of bare rock increase the riskof water erosion during seasonal rain storm events ofhigh intensity. Strong winds combined with asemi-arid to arid climate increase the risk of wind erosion when dry soil is exposed. Geological instability,
periodic intensive seismic activity and unconsolidated

110

Libor JANSKY and Nevelina I. PACHOVA
Table 1 Land Degradation within the High Pamir and Alai Mountains (GEF Full Project Brief on Sustainable Land
Management in the High Pamir and Pamir-Alai Mountains).
Degradation
Degradation Processes
Type
Soil
Water erosion
degradation
Wind erosion
Mass wastingFertility decline
Salinization
Vegetation
Deforestation (reduction in area
degradationof forest and decline in numberof tree species)
Reduction in vegetative coverprovided by shrubs (teresken &other species)
Reduction in vegetative coverin pastures
Decline in pasture quality withincrease in proportion of
non-palatable species
Bio-diversity Decline in wildlife diversity
degradation
Decline in the population ofindividual wildlife species
Decline in plant diversity
Decline in the population ofindividual plant species
Decline in habitat quality
Water
Decline in seasonal availability
degradation
Decline in water quality
Increased flood frequency andseverity
ClimateIncreased risk of glacial lakedeterioration outbursts, avalanches androckfalls
Increased glacial melting
Rising permafrost boundary

Severity

Western Pamirs

Eastern Pamirs

Alai Mountains

Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
High

Moderate
Low
Locally High
Moderate
Low
High

High

Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Locally highLow (trees never asignificant part of
the area’s naturalvegetation)High

Low for distantpastures, high for
pastures close tosettlements
Low for distantpastures, high for
pastures close tosettlements
ModerateHigh

Low for distantpastures, high for
pastures close tosettlements
Low for distantpastures, high for
pastures close tosettlements
ModerateHigh

Low for distantpastures, high for
pastures close tosettlements
Low for distantpastures, high for
pastures close tosettlements
Moderate
High

Moderate
High

Moderate
High

Moderate
High

High
Low
Low
Moderate

High
Low
Low
ModerateHigh
Low
Moderate
Moderate

High

Low

Moderate

Moderate overall
but locally highModerate

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Moderatematerials on steep valley sides, all increase the risk oferosion by mass wasting. Low and erratically distributed seasonal precipitation and cold temperatures
make the vegetation of the mountain ecosystems particularly susceptible to degradation and slow to recover from improper land use interventions. The highrate of natural ‘geologic’ erosion is a major contributory factor to the high sediment loads in many of theregion’s rivers.
Various types of human activity can be identified
as the direct causes of land degradation within theHigh Pamir and Alai Mountains. The most important
are believed to be:(i) over-reliance on fuelwood, shrubs, dung and peat
to meet household energy needs;(ii) poor pasture management, in particular, overgrazing of pasture areas close to villages;(iii) poor soil and water management in plots used for
irrigated and rainfed crop production;(iv) poor construction and maintenance of irrigation
systems, especially distribution canals located on
steep, and unstable slopes; andModerate(v) poorly regulated hunting, combined with grazing
competition and habitat destruction impacting
negatively on wildlife numbers.
The regional root causes of land degradation, or
the underlying reasons for the above direct causes, canbe found within the wider social, cultural, economic,
policy and legislative environment in which the farmers, herders and forest users operate. Tackling the direct causes requires an understanding of the root
causes, as they need to be addressed through appropriate corrective and mitigative measures before improved land management practices can be adopted at
the field level, and degraded ecosystems can recover.
The followings are believed to be some of the key root
causes of land degradation in the region:
Bringing about a positive on-the-ground change inresource use and management practices requires thatthe key direct and root causes of land degradation are
addressed in an integrated framework (Fig.7). The
capacities of the existing policy and institutional context in the two countries and in the region to support
the development and implementation of such a frame-

Towards Sustainable Land Management in Mountain Areas in Central Asia

111

Fig. 7 Teresken, one of the few woody species that grow in the harsh environment of the High Pamirs, has been increasingly used
for heating and cooking since the collapse of the centralized provision of fuel in the early 1990s. While such local livelihood
strategies are among the direct drivers of land degradation in the area, it is widespread poverty and the lack of appropriate
physical, institutional and market infrastructures for over-coming it that constrain the development of alternative livelihoods
based on more sustainable resource use and management approaches. (Photos by Nevelina Pachova & Malcolm Douglas)

work were assessed in the course of the project development process as a basis for defining what if any
external assistance would be needed. A summary of
the results is presented next.
(i) active promotion of settlement and population
growth in the Soviet era (beyond the carrying
capacity of the natural resources) to increase thehuman presence in a strategically important border area;(ii) lack of adequate and affordable alternative energy supplies, forcing people to rely on locallyavailable biomass fuels (firewood, shrubs, peatand dung) for cooking and heating, leading toover-harvesting of woody plants, ‘mining’ of valley floor marshes for peat, and deprivation ofmanure for fertilising crop lands;(iii) collectivization of agriculture during the Soviet
era, when rural people employed as workers on
state farms, lost their previous indigenous knowledge on how to manage mountain ecosystems as
part of traditional natural resource-based livelihood strategies;(iv) loss of state subsidized goods and services andincreased unemployment, following the change
from a centrally planned economy to a market
economy, causing a sharp decline in people’s
standard of living and a return to subsistence-oriented agriculture with the emphasis on
maximizing short term returns at the expense oflong-term sustainability;(v) poor communications infrastructure (roads,
phone network, etc.), increasing the costs of external farm inputs, making marketing surplus
produce expensive and limiting the scope of cash
crop production to non-perishable products, withthe lack of phones hindering access to market information;(vi) the civil war in Tajikistan, from 1992 to the signing of the peace treaty in June 1997, which led toincreasing pressure on the region’s natural re-sources as refugees, fleeing from fighting in theadjacent areas of the country, moved into therelative safety of the Tajik Pamirs;(vii) central and local (Oblast) level government technical agencies’ limited financial and trained manpower capacity, which restricts their ability toprovide effective advisory support services (research, extension and training) to rural land users,
particularly with regard to the control and management of land degradation, and protection of
ecosystem resources;(viii)conflicting mandates and contradictory policies
amongst institutional support services, leading togaps and contradictions in field level efforts tocombat land degradation and sustainably manage
ecosystem resources;(ix) inadequate policies and legislation for the sustainable management of mountain ecosystems
with extensive gaps, an absence of key elements
required to address the specific ecological andland management problems of mountain ecosystems, and an inability to enforce existing laws
and regulations;(x) undervaluing of the region’s natural resources,
notably water, pasture, forest and wildlife products, leading to failure to encourage sustainable
land management;(xi) trans-boundary trade, market opportunities andinformation exchange hindered by customs andmilitary regulations, in part, a legacy of the former geo-strategic importance of the region to the
USSR, and partly due to more recent politicalsensitivities;(xii) given that all land resources are legally the property of the state, unclear private user rights for individual farm plots and de facto common property resources (e.g., pastures, wildlife, woodlands), encouraging short-term resource exploitation rather than long-term conservation.

112

Libor JANSKY and Nevelina I. PACHOVA

Results: Current Environmental Policy, Regulatory
and Institutional Frameworks
The capacities of the existing national and regional
legal, policy and institutional frameworks for promoting and ensuring sustainable resource use and management in the Pamir and Alai Mountain areas arelimited according to the analysis of national policy
and legal expert teams (Hannam, 2005). The existing
environmental laws and policies of Kyrgyzstan andTajikistan cover a wide range of environmental interests relevant to sustainable land management within
the High Pamir and Alai Mountains. However, limited
attention has been given to the development of a specific legal and policy framework for the sustainableutilization of mountain natural resources and ecosystems, and, particularly, protecting them from the effects of land degradation. It can be noted that:(i) important natural resource management activities,
such as equitable resource utilization, environmental protection, sustainable ecosystem management, and land degradation prevention arepoorly recognised and inadequately dealt with incurrent national policies and legislative frameworks;(ii) while both countries have a body of relevant national level legislation (e.g., laws for nature protection and water, soil and forest management),
at the regional (trans-boundary) and local levels,
existing land management regulations are inadequate and poorly enforced;(iii) national policies and legislation do not adequately address each country’s regional obligations as signatories (accession rights) to the
UNCCD, CBD and FCCC;(iv) while there are national policies for the development of the agricultural, water and forest sectors
and for environmental management, their implementation and effectiveness is limited by poorly
defined and overlapping, institutional responsibilities and inadequate skilled manpower andfinancial resources within individual agencies;(v) uncertainties over land tenure in the High Pamir
and Alai Mountains and, particularly, concerning
individual land use rights and the status of ruralcommunities in relation to land ownership, meanthat farmers, herders and forest users feel legally
insecure of their long-term resource user rights,
hence have little private incentive to assume
stewardship responsibilities for protecting andconserving their local mountain ecosystem resources;(vi) as land use decision-making and rural land management activities for the High Pamir and Alai
Mountains are not effectively linked to the national environmental legislative and policy systems, they operate largely outside any statutory
and regulatory control and direction;(vii) the institutional capacity (i.e., trained manpowerwith the required legal and natural resource man-agement skills, inter-agency coordination mechanisms, etc.) to review and revise the legal, policy
and regulatory framework required for sustainable land management within mountain ecosystems is limited, particularly for the managementof trans-boundary ecosystems;(viii)there are few effective administrative mechanisms at the central or regional levels within
Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan to coordinate the efforts of the various institutes and sector agencies
involved in sustainable mountain area development;(ix) there are no ‘common’ trans-boundary rules toensure uniformity in approach in both countries
for the management of the High Pamir and Alai(particularly for the protection of globally threatened fauna and flora) as a distinct biogeographical and ecological unit;(x) the current national-based law and policy regulatory framework provides inadequate support for
integrated trans-boundary ecosystem management, hindering effective promotion of sustainable land management practices within the region
as a whole; and(xi) in both countries there has been limited development of local level legislative instruments, which
are generally weak and lacking in the land use
standards, targets and priorities contained in central level legislation, and there is little flexibility
under current national legal and policy systems
to allow for local modifications to meet area specific ecosystem resource needs and circumstances.
In both countries responsibility for overseeing themanagement and utilization of the natural resources ofthe High Pamir and Alai Mountains rests with a number of different ministerial agencies operating at thecentral and/or local government levels. Each institution has its own (often narrowly defined) mandate
according to its specific sectoral economic and ecological concerns. There are often overlapping, and attimes conflicting, sectoral development policies, roles
and responsibilities, so issues related to agriculture,
forestry and the environment may be dealt with by
separate ministries and departments with little or nointer-agency coordination. While Kyrgyzstan has a
specific Mountain Development Institute, establishedunder the country’s Mountain Territories Law, it operates separately from the sectoral technical line agencies. The end result is that crop and livestock production, soil and water conservation, forest management,
ecology and wildlife protection are dealt with separately rather than as inter-linked components of integrated sustainable mountain ecosystem management.
It is rare for the respective policies and programmes ofthe different departments to complement each other,leading to gaps and contradictions in field level efforts
to combat land degradation and sustainably manage
ecosystem resources.

Towards Sustainable Land Management in Mountain Areas in Central Asia

3.3 Developing an integrated response framework
The results of the participatory baseline researchsummarized above were brought to the attention ofvarious stakeholders at a series of local, national andregional consultations which were conducted in thecourse of developing the project. Those consultations
helped generate a shared vision of the causes as well
as of possible solutions to the problem of land degradation in the High Pamir and Alai Mountains in
Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. They also provided aforum for reaching an agreement on an overall framework for integrated action to begin to address the
problem jointly over the coming years. In view of theinter-linked developmental and environmental aspectsof the problem of land degradation in the region, twomain targets were agreed on, namely:
1) To address the links among poverty, vulnerability and land degradation at the community level,
through the promotion of sustainable land management practices that contribute to improving the livelihoods and economic well-being of the inhabitants ofthe High Pamir and Alai Mountains.
2) To mitigate the causes and negative impacts ofland degradation on the structure and functional integrity of the ecosystems of the High Pamir and Alai
Mountains through mainstreaming sustainable land
management tools and practices at the household,community, local government, national and regional
levels.
To realize the above objectives, it was agreed on as
essential to develop and implement targeted activities
aimed at the achievement of the four main outcomesgiven below:
Outcome 1: Enhanced regional cooperation between
Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan enabling regional strategicplanning, and national legislative, policy, institutional,
technical, and economic incentives, for the sustainable
management of the High Pamir and Pamir-Alai Mountain ecosystems.
Outcome 2: Improved capacity of Tajikistan’s andKyrgyzstan’s public and private sector agency research and advisory support service providers to promote sustainable land management within the High
Pamir and Alai Mountains.
Outcome 3: Reduction in rural poverty and economic
vulnerability through restoration and enhancement of
the productive and protective functions (ecologicalgoods and services) of the High Pamir and Alai Mountain ecosystems.
Outcome 4: Generic guidelines for up-scaling andreplication of the lessons learnt, from the project’s
experience with sustainable land management, withincomparable trans-boundary mountain regions within
Asia and elsewhere.

113

The identified strategic framework provides thebasis for undertaking integrated multi-level andcross-sectoral actions for promoting sustainable
mountain development in the Pamir and Alai Mountains. Concrete activities to be undertaken over the
coming years include:• development of an integrated strategy and action
plan for natural resource use and management in
the High Pamir and Alai Mountains;• harmonization of national policy, legislative andinstitutional frameworks in line with the requirements for sustainable mountain development identified and agreed on in a concrete regional context;• enhancement of the capacities of national and local
research, advisory and support agencies, which isessential for supporting the implementation of the
improved national policy and legislation so as tocontribute to local development needs;• development of community-based resource use andmanagement plans at selected sub-district units,
identified as hot spots of vulnerability;• preparation and implementation of a portfolio of
micro-projects with development and environmental benefits initiated and designed by the local
stakeholders in line with the community-based resource use and management plans;• up-scaling of the best practices in the project area;• development of a generic model for land degradation and vulnerability assessment in mountains
based on relevant on-going work (Bogardi &Birkman, 2004); and• assessment of the project’s experience in view of
replicability of its lessons in similar mountainareas in the broader region of Central Asia.
The above mentioned activities are envisioned to
be implemented in the course of two four-year-longphases with financial support from GEF and otherinternational donors and national agencies. It is expected that the commitment for action generated on
the part of all relevant stakeholders in the course of
the participatory baseline research and project development process will allow for the generation of tangible and sustainable on-the-ground improvements in
the Pamir and Alai Mountains, while contributing to
the implementation of global commitments to sustainable development.
References
Badenkov, Y. (1992) Mountains of the Former Soviet Union.
In: B. Stone, ed., The State of the World’s Mountains: A
Global Report, Zed Books Ltd., London and New Jersey.
Baetzing, W. and B. Messerli (1992) The Alps: An Ecosystem
in Transformation. In: B. Stone, ed., The State of theWorld’s Mountains: A Global Report, Zed Books Ltd.,
London and New Jersey.
Becker, A. and H. Bugmann, eds. (2001) Global Change andMountain Regions, The Mountain Research Initiative,
Stockholm: International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme

114

Libor JANSKY and Nevelina I. PACHOVA(IGBP).
Bernbaum, E. (1997) Sacred Mountains of the World, University of California Press, Los Angeles and London, Berkley.
Bishkek Mountain Platform (2002) Global Mountain Summit,
Bishkek, 28 October - 1 November 2002.
http://www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/bgmsp02a.htm.
Bogardi, J.J. and J. Birkman (2004) Vulnerability assessment:
the first step towards sustainable risk reduction. In: D.
Malzahn and T. Plapp, eds., Disasters and Society – From
Hazard Assessment to Risk Reduction, Logos Verlag Berlin,
Berlin.
Breu T. and H. Hurni (2003) The Tajik Pamirs: Challenges of
Sustainable Development in an Isolated Mountain Region,
Geographica Bernensia for Centre for Development andEnvironment, Berne, Switzerland.
Breu T. and H. Hurni, eds. (2005) Baseline Survey on Sustainable Land Management in the Pamir-Alai Mountains: Synthesis Report, Centre for Development and Environment,
University of Bern, Switzerland.
Brookfield, H. (2001) Exploring Agrodiversity: Issues, Cases
and Methods in Biodiversity Conservation, Columbia
University Press, New York.
Brundtland, G. (1987) Our Common Future, World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), Oxford
University Press, London.
CDE (2006) Sustainable Development Appraisal, University ofBern, Switzerland.
http://www.cde.unibe.ch/Tools/SDA_TS.asp
CDE (2005) Spatial Information System of the Tajik Pamirs(Pamir Webgis). http://cdegis.unibe.ch/pamir/
CIP (2006) Dembner, S.A., ed. (1998) Moving Mountains,
Unasylva No. 195, Vol. 49, FAO, Rome.
http://www.cipotato.org/news_index.asp
DFID (1999) Sustainable Livelihood Guidance Sheets, Department for International development, London.
http://www.livelihoods.org
GMP (2006) http://www.mountainpartnership. org/default.asp
Government of the Republic of Tajikistan (2002) Poverty
Reduction Strategy Paper. Government of the Republic of
Tajikistan, Dushanbe.
Hannam, I. (2003) A Method to Identify and Evaluate the Legaland Institutional Framework for the Management of Water
and Land in Asia: The Outcome of a Study in Southeast Asiaand the People’s Republic of China, Research Report N. 73,
Colombo, International Water Management Institute, Sri
Lanka.
Hannam, I. (2005) The Legal, Policy and Institutional Aspectsof Sustainable Land Management in the High Pamir andPamir-Alai Mountain Environment, Report prepared for the
GEF/UNEP/UNU Project on Sustainable Land Managementin the High Pamir and Pamir-Alai Mountains.
Hewitt, K. (1995) Hazards and Disaster in Mountain Environments: Problems in the Geography of Risk. In: Allan, N., ed.,Mountains at Risk: Current Issues in Environmental Studies,
Manohar Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi.
Hurni H., U. Wiesmann and R. Schertenleib, eds. (2004)
Research for Mitigating Syndromes of Global Change. A
Transdisciplinary Appraisal of Selected Regions of the Worldto Prepare Development-Oriented Research Partnerships,
Perspectives of the Swiss National Centre of Competence in
Research (NCCR) North-South, University of Berne, Vol. 1.
Geographica Bernensia, Berne.
International Center for Integrated Mountain Development(2006) http://www.icimod.org/index.htm
International Mountain Society (2006) Journal of MountainResearch and Development. http://www.mrd-journal.org
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2001) Climate
Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Third
Assessment Report.

Ives, J. and B. Messerli (1989) The Himalayan Dilemma:
Reconciling Development and Conservation. London and
New York, Routledge and UNU Press, Tokyo.
Jansky, L., K. Furuyashiki and J. Ives (2002) Mountain
Momentum: Agenda for Today and Policy Beyond IYM
2002, United Nations University Press, Tokyo.
Karajeh, F., J. Ryan and C. Studer, eds. (2002) On-Farm Soiland Water Management, Proceedings of the International
Workshop, 17-19 May 1999, Allepo: ICARDA/SANIIRI.
Messerli, B and J. Ives, eds. (1997) Mountains of the World: A
Global Priority, Parthenon Publishing, New York andLondon.
Mountain Agenda (1999) Mountains of the World: Tourism andSustainable Mountain Development Berne: Paul Haupt AG.
Nilsson, S and D. Pitt (1991) Mountain World in Danger:
Climate Change in the Forests and Mountains of Europe,
London: Earthscan Publications Ltd., Alp Action and IIASA.
Novikov, V. and N. Safarov (2002) State of the Environment
Report of the Republic of Tajikistan.
NPRS (date unknown) Bishkek: Government of the Kyrgyz
Republic.
Oldeman L.R. (1994) The Global Extent of Soil Degradation.
In: D.J. Greenland and T. Szaboles, eds., Soil Resilience andSustainable Land Use, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau
International, Wallingford.
Prakash, S. (1997) Poverty and Environment Linkages inMountains and Uplands: Reflections on the ‘Poverty Trap’
Thesis. CREED Working Paper No12.
Price, M. (1995) Mountain Research in Europe: An Overview
of MAB Research from Pyrenees to Siberia, UNESCO andParthenon Publishing Group, Paris.
Price, M. (1998) Chapter 13 in Action 1992-1997, A TaskManager’s Report, Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (FAO), Rome.
Price, M. and R. Barry (1997) Climate Change. In: B. Messerli
and J. Ives, eds., Mountains of the World: A Global Priority,
Parthenon Publishing, New York and London.
Price, M., L. Jansky and A. Iatsenia (2004) Key Issues for
Mountain Areas, United Nations University Press, Tokyo.
Ramakrishnan, P.S., K.G. Saxena, S. Patnaik and S. Singh, eds.
(2003) Methodological Issues in Mountain Research: A
Socio-Ecological Systems Approach, UNESCO, Oxford and
IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
Rider, P. and J. Wyder (1997) Economic and Political Framework for Sustainability of Mountain Areas. In: B. Messerli
and J. Ives, eds., Mountains of the World: A Global Priority,
Parthenon Publishing, New York and London.
Rumer B. and S. Zhukov, eds. (1998) Central Asia: The Challenges of Independence, M.E. Sharpe, New York.
Sidle, R.C., A. J. Pearce and C.L. O’Loughlin (1985) Hillslope
Stability and Land Use American Geophysical Union, Water
Resources Monograph 11, American Geographic Union,
Washington, D.C.
Stocking, M., F. H. Obando and A. Tengberg (2005) Soil
Degradation and its Impact on Plants in Drylands. In: A. F.
Cano, R. Ortiz and A.R. Mermut, eds., Sustainable Use andManagement of Soils, Advances in GeoEcology (follow-up
series of CATENA Supplements), 36.
Stone, P., ed. (1992) The State of the World’s Mountains: A
Global Report, Zed Books Ltd, London and New Jersey.
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (2002) The Abisko
Agenda: Research for Mountain Area Development. Rethinking Agenda 21, Chapter 13: Managing Fragile Ecosystems;
Sustainable Mountain Development, Ambio A Journal of the
Human Environment, Special Report No. 11, Feb 2002.
UN (1997) Report of the Secretary-General on Overall
Progress Achieved since the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development: Managing Fragile Ecosystems: Sustainable Mountain Development (E/CN. 17/

Towards Sustainable Land Management in Mountain Areas in Central Asia
1997/2/Add. 12), prepared by FAO for the fifth session of theCommission on Sustainable Development.
UN (2000) Millennium Declaration, New York, 8th Plenary
Meeting, 8 September 2000.
UNCCD (1998) The Social and Economic Impact of Desertification in Several Asian Countries: Inventory Study, Geneva:
Interim Secretariat of the Convention to Combat Desertification.
UNCCD (2003) Discussion Paper presented at the Subregional
Partnership Building Forum for the Central Asian Republics:
Confronting Land Degradation and Poverty throughEnhanced UNCCD Implementation, held in Tashkent,
Uzbekistan, 30 June – 4 July 2003.
UNCED (1992) Agenda 21, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, 3-14 June
1992.
UNEP (2002) Mountain Watch: Environmental Change andSustainable Development in Mountains, Cambridge: UNEPWCMC Biodiversity Series 12.
http://www.ourplanet.com/wcmc/12.html
UNEP (2004) UNEP’s Strategy on Land Use Management andSoil Conservation: A Strengthened Functional Approach,
Policy Series, UNEP Division of Policy Development and
Law.

115

UNU (2006) Sustainable Land Management in the High Pamir
and Pamir-Alai Mountains. http://palm.unu.edu
Walsh, S., ed. (2002) High Priorities: GEF’s Contribution to
Preserving and Sustaining Mountain Ecosystems, Washington:
Global Environment Facility. www.gefweb.org
WSSD (2002a) Plan of Implementation.
www.johannesburgsummir.org
WSSD (2002b) WEHAB Working Papers.
www.johannesburgsummir.org
Yoshino, M. (2006) Global Warming and Mountain Environment, Global Environmental Research, 10: 3-12.
UN
United Nations
UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat
Desertification
UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment andDevelopment
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNU
United Nations University(Received 24 April 2006, Accepted 19 July 2006)