49

People and Mountains: Perspectives on the Human Dimension of
Mountain Development
Hermann KREUTZMANN
Zentrum für Entwicklungsländerforschung (ZELF)
Institut für Geographische Wissenschaften
Fachbereich Geowissenschaften FU Berlin
Malteserstr. 74-100, Haus K, D-12249 Berlin, Germany
e-mail: hkreutzm@geog.fu-berlin.de

Abstract
The growing interest in mountain regions in recent times has stimulated a discussion about
research directions and the need for comparative approaches. The human dimension in development
processes in high-mountain areas regularly fails to be replicated by appropriate analysis because of alack of applicable methods and relevant information. It is difficult to obtain comparative data and todifferentiate mountain societies within nation states from other parts of the country’s aggregated data, so
characteristic of national censuses, for instance, inhibits comparative mountain research. In the present
contribution case studies from the South and Central Asian high-mountain regions are introduced. Aninterpretative approach is outlined, which makes use of and projects widely known human development
indicators onto different levels of regionalization. In this manner, a better understanding of the specificproblems in mountain regions can be approached.
Key words: Afghanistan, Central Asia, development indicators, human development in mountainregions, India, Nepal, Pakistan, South Asia, Tajikistan

1. Introduction
The perception of high-mountain regions has
undergone a significant change over time. The International Year of Mountains (IYM 2002) commemorated the tenth anniversary of the Rio conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED), in which
Chapter 13 of Agenda XXI addressed mountain issues
and received substantial international attention andacceptance. In former times, mountains were perceived as fearful areas, intimidating people who had totravel across them. They aroused feelings of insecurity
and their sheer mass and the huge dimensions of thestructures and catastrophic processes terrified thetraveller. With the advent of romanticism this perspective changed to one of intense admiration. The nineteenth century in particular produced numerous
expressions of admiration, even rapture, in literatureand the arts. The 20th century saw the emergence of asearch for a ‘Shangri-la’ characterized by extreme
longevity. Different remote mountain worlds, such as
Tibet and Hunza, have been linked to this myth. At thesame time mountaineering and trekking developed acomparable appeal to people from the industrialized
world as a search for esoteric stimulation: well-being
Global Environmental Research
10(1)/2006: 49-61
printed in Japanthrough closeness to nature in remote locations,
Lamaist monasteries and hermit retreats (Fig. 1).
Academic research underwent a change of paradigm when the ‘Himalayan Dilemma’ (Ives &Messerli, 1989) was interpreted as much for demonstrating inadequacy of perception of complex problems as the failure of appropriate concepts and methods, and the interpretation of results. Consequently,
Jack Ives titled his recent book ‘Himalayan Perceptions: Environmental change and the well-being ofmountain peoples.’ The interrelationship between
humankind and environment, between culture andnature, needs to be established before new approaches
can be tested by empirical studies on different scales.
There is an urgent need to discuss the situation ofpeople in mountains and to highlight recent developments in scientific research.
“As we have seen, the mountains resist themarch of history, with its blessings and its burdens,
or they accept it only with reluctance. And yet life
sees to it that there is constant contact between
hill population and lowlands. None of theMediterranean ranges resembles the impenetrable
mountains to be found in the Far East, in China,
Japan, Indochina, India, and as far as the Malacca©2006 AIRIES50

H. KREUTZMANN

peninsula. Since they have no communication withsea-level civilization, the communities found there
are autonomous” (Braudel, 1972: 41).
A wide-spread perception of high-mountain regions has led to the interpretation of observed phenomena mainly as the result of their natural foundation rather than as the visible effects of human actionand environmental manipulation. This perception is
encountered especially when mountain regions of the
non-industrialized world are the focus of attention, as
the above quotation from Fernand Braudel indicates.
The mountainous exceptionalism is linked primarily
to the availability of natural resources and the greater
exposure to hazardous processes compared to lowland
regions.1) This leads to the assumption that highmountain ecology and the interrelated economic
sphere are controlled by ‘verticality’ (Funnel & Parish,2001). Human utilization strategies are linked to thenatural potential of their zonal location and/or altitudinal stages. Other characteristics include high-relief(or potential) energy, significant incidence of natural
catastrophes, such as rock falls, avalanches, mudflows, earthquakes, and glacier-lake outbursts. Accessibility is qualified as being restricted by environmental conditions. Thus, high-mountain regions are
generally described as quite remote from the centresof economic activity such that their participation in
exchange relations is impaired. Exceptions have been
cited: the Inca and Maya empires and Abyssinia(Ethiopia) were centred on tropical mountain regions;Tibet, Nepal, Sikkim, and Bhutan managed to accumulate considerable wealth from the vantage of theirFig. 1 Mount Everest: Profile from top to bottom.
(photograph by Hermann Kreutzmann)

subtropical mountain bases and were able to competewith low-lying empires of monsoon Asia. These examples of mountain bastions of comparative strengthand affluence vanished with the close of colonial
times.
Verticality seems to have been employed as theprime indicator for the explanation of mountain exceptionalism. Mountain communities were often described as the relics of archaic populations, secluded
from mainstream developments and preserving
autochthonous patterns of behaviour. Probably James
Hilton’s novel ‘Lost Horizon’ (1933) stimulated thequest for a ‘Shangri-la’ (cf. Brauen, 2000) and thesearch for the remote valleys where longevity prevailed in contrast to the world at large. This phenomenon is attributed, yet never convincingly proved, tothe Hunza Valley in the Karakoram, some valleys of
the Caucasus (cf. Tierney, 1990), northwestern Yunnan,
and the Peruvian Andes. Persons living in the mountains, and thus closer to the gods, represent a constantfeature of a wide range of belief systems. The sacred
mountains,2) such as Kailash in Tibet, Mount Meru in
Hindu belief, Palitana and Girnar for Jains of Gujarat,
Burhan Haldun in Mongolia, Miwa-noyama and Fuji
San in Japan, Emei Shan and Tai Shan among othersin China, Mount Athos, Parnass and Mount Olympus
of Greece, Mount Sinai, Mount Ararat (Azat Masis)
and Adam’s Peak in Sri Lanka and many others are
the destination of pilgrimages. These are the locationsof topographically perceivable purity and of mythicalascriptions and narratives (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2 For large numbers of people mountains are
sacred and contain places of worship.
(photograph by Hermann Kreutzmann)

Perspectives on the Human Dimension of Mountain Development

2. The Refuge Model in Mountain Research:
Traditional and New Approaches
Cultural geography preserves its own myths:
mountains are featured quite prominently as ‘regionsof refuge’ (Skeldon, 1985) when mountain people are
addressed and when their difference to other communities is to be highlighted. The genesis of the refuge situation is explained as having two steps. Initially,
the specific communities are presumed to have fledfrom the lowlands or from other conflict-prone mountain regions to their ‘refuge.’ The newly acquired
secure location is then cut-off from external influences.
The search for security thus becomes the catalyst for
seclusion from outside influences and leads to thecreation and persistence of a community characterized
by unique religious belief systems, relict or archaic
languages, and certain behavioural patterns. According to the refuge concept, these communities havechosen their life-style but, in doing so, have become
marginalized in the context of nation states and market
participation.
Cultural diversity is regarded as one of the prime
descriptors of the mountain regions of High Asia.
Although detailed empirical studies are rare thishypothesis is regularly put forward.3) The mainstream
interpretation of the observed cultural diversity employs inaccessibility and lack of communication as the
responsible factors in the preservation for such distinct
mountain differentiation (Grötzbach & Stadel, 1997).
This theme has a remarkable record of continuity inmountain research. The originator of the geo- andethnographical refuge model in mountain regions wasFriedrich Ratzel. He described mountain communities
as isolated, peculiar groups without any desire for exchange with the outside world. In his view the seclusion facilitated the preservation of archaic rituals andcustoms as well as the emergence of new autochthonous cultural expressions (Ratzel, 1909: 282-283).
Since then, mountain research has widely embraced
the refuge model. A conceptual renewal of Ratzel’s
ideas was provided by Skeldon (1985) who emphasized the considerable distances between population
centres in the lowlands and the less densely settled
mountain regions. Extended periods of isolation were
held responsible for pre-industrial living conditions inmountain communities and their comparatively low
socio-economic status. According to Skeldon (1985:234), this was also an important factor in the maintenance of ethnic diversity.
The cultural anthropologist, Frederick Barth, previously had refuted such attributions: ‘Though the naiveassumption that each tribe and people has maintained
its culture through a bellicose ignorance of its
neighbours is no longer entertained, the simplistic
view that geographical and social isolation have been
critical factors in sustaining cultural diversity persists’(Barth, 1969: 9). His name is connected with a paradigm shift: socio-cultural factors were analyzed in

51

order to understand the persistence of ethnic boundaries despite culture contact. Consequently, exchange
relations, patterns of mobility and communication
between settlements of different groups need to beinterpreted as expressions of social processes operating among them. These social groups are flexible andact in such a manner that persistent patterns might be
the result of exclusion and the creation of corporations
and solidarity groups. Exchange between groups
seems to depend predominantly on difference, but
might also support their stability (Barth, 1969: 9-10).
Thus, ethnic and cultural diversity is perceived as difference, which influences socio-spatial interpretations.
These aspects feature less prominently in traditional
geo-ecological studies which highlight environmental
assets.
People and their cultural expressions come moreclearly into focus when human intervention is regarded as the agent of change. Cultural-ecologicalinterpretations emphasize utilization practices of different zones or altitudinal stages by mountain farmers
and pastoralists.4) Frequently, the available resourcesin a particular mountain region are simply comparedwith resident population in order to establish a measure of the regional carrying capacity. Possible differences in interests and strategies of local actors andexternal influences and interventions are often
neglected. The apparently overwhelming visibility andforce of natural phenomena seem to deter mountainresearchers from analyzing societal processes and economic exchange relations, not to speak of politicalinterferences, such as legislation and administrative
regulation. The obvious participation of peripheral
societies, in general, and mountain communities, inparticular, in world market relations implies that
greater attention must be afforded to actors and their
arena. The effects of distant world market forces on
local and regional levels need to be linked to overall
multi-level conditions in order to understand complex
livelihood strategies.5) The scope for understanding
development trends in high-mountain regions has tobe expanded beyond the linkages between population
growth and potential food production by addressing
social processes and politico-economic interrelationships.
Returning to the traditionalist concept of ‘regionsof refuge’ the main point of criticism is the neglect ofhistorical transformations entailed by the model.
Peripheral mountain communities are inadequately
characterized when they are described as isolated andremote ethnic minorities which preserved their peculiar traditions and cultural distinction because of thelack of exchange relations and the domination of subsistence strategies for the provision of daily goods.
Eric Wolf criticized the suggested dichotomy between
actors and excluded communities in the course of history:“In the process [of expanding global exchange,HK], the societies and cultures of all these people

52

H. KREUTZMANN

underwent major changes. These changes affected
not only the peoples singled out as carriers of ‘real’
history but also the populations anthropologists
have called ‘primitives’ and have often [been]studied as pristine survivals from a timeless past.
The global processes set in motion by European
expansion constitute their history as well. There
are thus ‘no contemporary ancestors’, no people
without history, no peoples – to use Lévi Strauss’s
phrase – whose histories have remained ‘cold’”(Wolf, 1982: 385).
Consequently, the existence of ethno-linguistic
diversity in mountain regions (Fig. 3) is less importantly the result of spatial distance than that of societal
marginality. The incorporation of mountain societies
into global exchange relations is dependent on theireconomic and strategic potentials. This statement iseasily accepted when mountain tourism, arms trafficking, drug production and proliferation are highlighted
as expressions of global communication and international exchange. It is further reinforced when participatory approaches in mountain development andproselytizing of ‘pagan’ communities are brought into
focus as expressions of universalism. The broadened
perspective implies that:– mountain societies could participate in power andrule quite differently;– the degree of integration might be linked to state
control and administrative structures;– their function as a region of minorities might be theresult of historical processes and is not necessarily astagnant state.
Based on a modified perception of mountainregions ‘participating in the world economy’ and their
inhabitants ‘acting in their own regard and responding
to externalities’ it is useful to nominate important topics for further research and to attempt an evaluation of

the position of high-mountain regions in developing
countries by applying common indicators of humandevelopment.

3. Contemporary Approaches and Concepts
The International Year of Mountains 2002 may be
regarded as a climax for mountain research, at least interms of publicity. The last decade, however, has seena growing expansion of actual mountain research6) andsome of the widely attended discussions now takeplace on the internet, for example the ‘Mountain
Forum’ and its derivatives. Following the beginning of
UNESCO’s ‘Man and the Biosphere’ (MAB) programme and the proclamation of the ‘Munich Mountain Environment Manifesto’ more than thirty years
ago research interests were primarily focused on theinterrelationships between human beings and theirenvironment (UNESCO, 1973; DSE, 1974). Nevertheless, key issues relating to mountain development
were also addressed. Today, human manipulation ofhigh- mountain regions is receiving a great amount ofattention. Such studies range between two extremes:
resource utilization and creation of the cultural landscape on the one hand, and environmental degradationand destruction of natural resources on the other.
Immediate remedies are recommended, such as the
exclusion of land from uncontrolled human interference as conservation zones and/or protected areas,such as biosphere reserves, national parks, and World
Heritage designations (IUCN, 1996; Doempke &Succow, 1998; Funnell & Price, 2003). Contemporary
high-mountain research addressed in this interface
includes the following:(i) Population dynamics and mobility
Demographic growth in high-mountain regions
cannot be explained by fertility and mortality pat-Fig. 3 Linguistic diversity in the Eastern Hindukush and Karakoram.

Perspectives on the Human Dimension of Mountain Development

53

terns alone. Intra-montane migrations and extramontane mobility are significant contributors topopulation processes. The expansion of community territories and the participation in seasonal
and/or year-round economic activities beyond thesettlement region also need to be considered.7)(ii) Land-use and land-cover change
Competition for limited communal resources isa growing element of social conflict in the context
of accessibility in mountain regions (Fig. 4). The
loss of the commons and territorial disputes overcultivable land and pastures bind substantial resources in less productive activities (for the
Karakoram, see Kreutzmann, 2005c). The importance of space is addressed by different commissions of the International Geographical Union(IGU), especially by the Land Use/Land CoverChange (LUCC) project (Lambin et al., 2001)
which compiled a data base and implemented a research programme for the Hindukush-Himalaya(see also, Blaikie & Sadeque, 2000 and Teklea &Hedlund, 2000, amongst others).
(iii) Survival strategies in the mountain periphery
High-mountain research in developing countries prominently features aspects of survival underperipheral conditions. The utilization of marginal

resources, the supply of basic food items for local
communities, and the exploitation of niche production are well represented. Market access within theframework of deregulation and globalisation is another important focus. ‘Growth, poverty alleviationand sustainable resource management in the mountain areas of South Asia’ was the topic of a conference held in Kathmandu. Local activists, bureaucrats, development experts and researchers discussed various aspects. 8)(iv) Decreasing entitlements of marginal groups
Competition for limited resources can be
accentuated by private and state interference leading to the loss and/or expropriation of community
assets. Thus along with the deprivation of property
rights the local population loses control over theirtraditional entitlements. This is especially true forthe least privileged and marginal groups (Fig. 5).
At the same time ‘aid’ actors arrive on the scene
and identify projects for regional planning that aim
at improving the living conditions of mountaincommunities according to the development fashionof the day. Property rights, especially in areas
without cadastral surveys and with weak, or
non-existent, institutions should be secured for the
local mountain communities. Aspects of ‘mountain

Fig. 4 Human utilization of mountain slopes has contributed to a significant change in land cover in the
middle mountain region of Nepal.
(photograph by Hermann Kreutzmann)

Fig. 5 High pastures are interpreted as marginal lands bysome and constitute vital livelihoods for others:
Pamirian pastures in the Afghan Wakhan.
(photograph by Hermann Kreutzmann)

54

H. KREUTZMANN

laws and peoples’ were discussed ‘on-line’ withinthe ‘Mountain Forum’ platform and the results
published by Lynch and Maggio (2000).
(v) Resource management and energy provision
Sustainable utilization of available fuel resources needs to be compared with the local energy sector, present consumption of fossil assets
and the potential future growth scenario (Rijal,
1999). In line with a growing population andchanging living conditions an increase in demandby local consumers for natural resources and energy is anticipated. In addition, external players arecompeting for the natural resource potential: forexample, to exploit timber resources and to generate and export energy by construction of high dams
(McCully, 1996). Deforestation, transport of logs
along modern traffic infrastructure, utilization ofpotential hydraulic energy for extra-montane consumption, are all fields of conflicting interests(Fig. 6). An electronic conference addressed theseissues and the results were published under the title‘Mountain people, forest and trees: Strategies forbalancing local management and outside interests’(Butt & Price, 2000).
(vi) Water as the prime resource of competition
Water has been highlighted as a resource asset
and problem for high-mountain regions. Several
studies introduced this issue as an example for
localized resource potential which is traditionallyutilized locally or by transport of rivers in the fore-

Fig. 6 Timber logging and transportation in the
Indus Valley reflect the exploitation ofnatural resources.
(photograph by Hermann Kreutzmann)lands.9) Political-economic conflicts can occur
when external players introduce large-scale projects that give no profits or only marginal benefits
to local residents. Often, they have significant local
impacts while profits are controlled from outside
the mountain region. Consequently, the integrationof marginal regions into the national and global
market economy threatens local control of traditionally accessible resources. The World Commission on High Dams was established in 1998 to settle disputes and to enhance communication among
different interest groups in the style of ‘roundtables’. It aimed at optimizing project planning anddevelopment.10) The controversial water issue features prominently in the ‘Cusco declaration on sustainable development of mountain ecosystems’(http://www.condesan.org) and illustrates the problem of competing interests over resources in mountain regions and strategies for their utilization(Fig. 7). Key phrases in the Cusco declaration of
2001 are: integrated watershed development; participation of communities; civil society and governments on all levels; responsibilities for regulation; control and conservation; respect for the organizations; cultural traditions and customary
rights; economic compensation policies for mountain populations for the services rendered to develop lowlands.11)
The high-level aims here proclaimed and the envisaged development strategies for mountain regions lead
towards sustainable development and participation in
globalized economies, whatever the meaning of thismight be. Conflict of interest among different actors,
power struggles, economic and political intervention,
external and, in certain cases, inappropriate development models fill the spectrum in which mountain
development takes place. If mountain regions andtheir inhabitants are treated as part of the worldsociety then it is necessary to assess what we reallyFig. 7 Nanga Parbat ‘the killer mountain’ provides water and othervaluable resources for the mountain farming households.
(photograph by Hermann Kreutzmann)

Perspectives on the Human Dimension of Mountain Developmentknow about the development deficits and potential ofthese areas. The hypothesis presented here is thatmountain regions are singled out for their specificity
without appropriately considering their incorporation
into nation states, administrative structures, andeconomic networks. There are manifold experiencesfrom the industrialized countries where regional
planning and domestic subsidiarity required detailed
information and data bases (for example, the Swiss‘transformation’ study by Brugger et al., 1984). In thecontext of mountain regions in developing countries
where uncountable mountain-related NGOs are based
and where numerous development programmes are
implemented there remains a significant lack of basic
knowledge for the assessment of perceived deficits.
How do development actors know where to alleviate
poverty by initiating a programme? On a global scale
we are used to different systems of indicators which
are structuring the world on a country by country basis.
What information do they contain about mountainareas?

4. The Human Development Index (HDI)and Its Application to Mountain Areas?
Indicators of quality of life are now introduced toillustrate regional disparities, deficiencies in infrastructural assets and inequalities in access to socioeconomic resources and opportunities. A widely usedindicator is the Human Development Index (HDI)
emanating from a United Nations initiative to reduce
short-comings of the one-dimensional per capita
income, an indicator preferred by the World Bank andglobally operating financial institutions. The HDI
acknowledges non-monetary transactions as part ofdomestic economies and highlights development effects which cannot be linked in any causal manner to55monetary incomes. Nevertheless, the first of three
HDI dimensions is the identification of per capita income in units of purchasing power parity (PPP $), theother two address quality of education and life expectancy. For our discussion about the standard of development in mountain regions these parameters must be
tested.12) HDI data are mainly available in the format
of nation states; this immediately imposes a practicalproblem.13) Statistical enumeration entities are very
rarely congruous with relevant units of investigation.
In a number of cases the available data are merely the
result of rough estimates, which renders their quality
questionable (UNDP 2004a, b, 2005; World Bank
2005).
In the case of mountain regions of developing
countries we often only have access to aggregate data
representing the entire area of the nation state inwhich the mountain areas are located (Table 1). The
range extends from some of the poorest countries,
such as Afghanistan and Ethiopia, to the states in the
Latin American Cordilleras. In a similar category wefind the post-Soviet transformation countries. None isrecorded above the middle level (= 0.500 up to 0.800)
of the HDI; most African countries are in the lower
category (Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda), also Afghanistan,
Bhutan, and Nepal. Such statistical data permit thecomparison between nation states, but they fail toprovide the required information about regional disparities within mountain regions and about highland-lowland differences. The dilemma of data evaluation is obvious. What knowledge is available formountain regions and what kind of conclusions can be
drawn?
Regionalized data can be obtained for discussionof a few mountain areas (Fig. 8 upper left diagram). In
Tajikistan the difference between the nation state as awhole and the mountain district of Gorno-Badakhshan

Table 1 Development indices for selected nation states with high-mountain regions.
RegionCountryLife
Area in Population
expectancy
103 km2 (millions)at birth
1133
73.8
47.6
242
26.9
47.3
580
32.7
47.2
26
8.8
43.9

Adult
literacyrate (%)
41.5
68.9
73.6
64.0

Enrolment
PPPratio (%) (US $)

HDI

HDI
rank

GDI

GDI rank

Ethiopia36
711 0.367
170
0.355
134
Uganda741457 0.508
144
0.502
109
AfricaKenya
521037 0.474
154
0.472
117
Rwanda551268 0.450
159
0.447
122
Papua New
463
5.7
55.3
57.3
41
2619 0.523
137
0.518
103
Guinea
677
49.5
60.2
89.7
48
1072 0.578
129
no data not listed
South and Myanmar
Southeast
Bhutan
47
2.1
62.9
74.0
49
1969 0.536
134
no data not listed
Asia
Nepal
147
26.1
61.0
48.6
61
1310 0.471
136
0.452
106
India
3288
1,070.8
63.3
61.0
60
2892 0.602
127
0.586
98
Pakistan
796
151.8
63.0
48.7
35
2097 0.527
135
0.508
107
Afghanistan
652
27.0
46.0
28.7
39
822 0.346
173
0.352
143
CentralKyrgyzstan
199
5.1
66.8
98.7
82
1751 0.702
109
0.700
85
Asia
Tajikistan
143
6.4
63.6
99.5
76
1106 0.652
122
0.650
93
Guatemala
109
12.0
67.3
69.1
61
4148 0.663
117
0.649
94
Colombia
1142
44.2
72.4
94.2
71
6702 0.785
69
0.780
55
Latin
Ecuador
256
12.9
74.3
91.0
75
3641 0.759
82
0.721
79
America
Peru
1285
27.2
70.0
87.7
87
5260 0.762
79
0.745
67
Bolivia
1099
8.8
64.1
86.5
87
2587 0.687
113
0.679
89
Sources: data mainly given for the years 2001-2003 based on statistics provided by UNDP 2004a, b, 2005; World Bank 2005.

56

H. KREUTZMANN

Fig. 8 Human Development Index (HDI) for nation states and mountain districts in High Asia.

appears negligible. Similar observations can be madeabout India and Pakistan when provinces are compared. The Himalayan state of Himachal Pradesh
attains similar HDI values to the average for the
Indian Union; the newly created union state of
Uttaranchal attains even higher HDI values (Fig. 8
bottom left diagram). Deviations from this pattern,
however, become obvious when the Karakoram
district of Gilgit is compared with the North-West
Frontier Province (incorporating most of Pakistan’sshare of the Hindukush) and the entire nation state.
Gilgit scores much lower in all components, but
especially when the standard of living is considered(Fig. 8 upper left diagram). In China, the provincesof Qinghai, Tibet (Xizang), and Xinjiang, which
incorporate major mountain areas, range below thecountry’s average for life expectancy and educational
attainment (Fig. 8 upper right diagram). The value forthe standard of living, however, is above average inXinjiang and Qinghai (UNDP, 2002). Xinjiang’ssignificant deviation is due to intra-provincial regional
disparities. The industrialized northern part of theprovince ranks high; the mountainous south and west
attains much lower levels. Taking size and diversity ofsome provinces into account, no reliable information
can be derived for the Tien Shan, Kun Lun Shan, andQilian Shan Mountains. The Tibetan Plateau isrepresented by Xizang. China and India, in their
entirety, differ by a considerable margin, while Tibet
compares closely with Uttaranchal (Fig. 8 bottom left
diagram). The interpretation of these data requires
great care. Nevertheless, a growing database and arefined regional approach allow for some conclusions
which approach the problems of poverty measurement

Fig. 9 Orography, administrative structure, and regional
disparities in human and gender-related development
for Nepal in 1996.

in mountain regions more closely.
The latest Human Development Report for Nepal(2004) indicated a low HDI value (0.471) at thenational level while the high-mountain rating of 0.386
is significantly lower than the country’s average.
Major differences also occur within the high-mountain
districts (Fig. 9). For instance, there is a wide gap
between the low end (Mugu: 0.304) and the top level
performance (Manang: 0.502).
Nepal provides such data on a district-level comparative scale so that it is possible to test the hypothesis that mountain regions are always poorer than therest of the country.14) Accordingly, it would be expected that the three zones - Terai, middle mountains,high-mountain region (Fig. 10 (a)) - would demonstrate progressively lower HDI values along a southwest-to-northeast orographic transect. Nevertheless,Perspectives on the Human Dimension of Mountain Development

the results differ significantly from the hypotheticalprediction: the most central districts, such as
Kathmandu and Kaski (Pokhara), but also Rupandehi
and Morang in the Terai, have the highest scores while
Mugu, in the mountainous northwest, remains at thebottom. This gap is underscored with a life expectancy
which is more than a third higher in Kathmandu (69years) compared with that of Mugu (44 years). Estimates for level of education differ even more: only
24% of Mugu’s adults are literate compared with 73%
in the capital. The GDP per capita is more than threetimes higher in Kathmandu than in the poorest districts in the periphery (UNDP, 2004a: 141-142).
Rhoades (2001) has argued that this information does
not reflect the ‘real’ condition of development. This
we believe to be self-evident. Nevertheless, the approach introduced here is a tool widely used in development practice for the diagnosis of shortcomings andscope for improvement. If activities in that field are atstake, then it needs to be discussed what interpretations are possible and what else is required from otherindicator systems. Indicators are introduced for different purposes, alternative approaches are welcome andit would support high mountain research if they can beapplied for comparative analysis.
The supposition that mountain regions are always
poorer than lowland regions was put forward repeatedly during several conferences in the course of the
IYM 2002 (Papola, 2004). A closer examination ofregionalized data will contest this simplification. If theavailable data from all districts are aggregated into
Nepal’s three orographic categories, then the middle
mountains obtain the highest HDI value (0.512: that is,above Nepal’s average). This is closely followed by
the Terai (0.478) while the high-mountain districts are
significantly lower (0.386: UNDP, 2004a: 141).
The interpretation of Nepal’s regionalized data also
demonstrates a difference between the western partsof the country, irrespective of orography, and the urban (and tourism) centres and the southeast. The western districts invariably have lower scores. The urbanrural bias, as well as the East-West disparity, seems to
be more prominent than will emerge from an analysis
based upon orography (Fig. 10 (b)). Similar disparities
are displayed when the gender-related development
index (GDI) is applied to Nepal’s districts (Fig. 10 (c)),
although caution is necessary concerning the qualityof the data and the appropriateness of indicators used.
The exercise presented here is intended to stimulate
discussion about how to illustrate development gaps,
regional disparities and, consequently, the eventual
uniqueness of regions in the context of mountaingeography. Explanations for development gaps need
to be sought in the overall economic and sociopolitical context of a country such as Nepal. The
neighbouring Himalayan districts of Himachal
Pradesh in India fare significantly better than Western
Nepal.
The Hindukush, and especially Afghanistan, ap-

57

pear as blank spots on the development map. Nevertheless, data are available from the first ever Human
Development Report (UNDP, 2004b) for Afghanistanthat has never previously experienced a population
census. Nevertheless, the data, in effect, are guesstimates, so they must be used with great care. Tajikistan
and Pakistan as its neighbours have mountain ranges
in common, although both have different HDI values(cf. Fig. 8). The Pamirian administrative unit (oblast)of Gorno-Badakhshan compares with the rest of
Tajikistan and rates significantly above Pakistan’s
average. In Tajikistan the Soviet model of modernization accounted for basic infrastructure, sufficient supplies of food and fuel, and overall education, even to
the remotest corners. This explains the high values forlife expectancy and level of education. The significant
difference in the standard of living category demonstrates the socio-economic pauperization of the majority of people following the collapse of the Soviet
Union. The economic transformation attempted by the
newly independent state did not change this situation
to any degree. To date, Tajikistan ranks lowest
amongst the group of post-Soviet transformation polities.15) The current supply situation is extremely poorin contrast to that of the Gilgit District in Pakistan’s
Northern Areas, although the standard of living index
is even lower there. The share of subsistence production in Tajikistan compensates for overall supply deficits. The gaps in the values for Pakistan, as a whole,when compared with Gilgit (cf. Fig. 8), are mostsignificant in terms of life expectancy and standard ofliving. Both reflect the overall deprivation of theNorthern Areas in respect to adequate social infrastructure and business opportunities. The mountainpeople of the Karakoram feature as marginal groups
when entrepreneurship and market participation arehighlighted. Only the level of education has improved;
this came close to Pakistan’s average due to communal, national, and international literacy and education
programmes (Kreutzmann, 1996). The scope and limitations of interpretation are illustrated by this brief
analysis of a set of available data. Nevertheless, certain conclusions can be drawn. Regional disparities
are much too important to be reduced only to a limited
set of physical properties. The set of explanations
which is needed has to draw mainly from the interaction of humankind with its environment. Surprisingly,
the conditions of human action space are shaping themountain landscape significantly. ‘Region’ in thiscontext means location within a nation state and its setof rules and regulations, provision of subsidies andwelfare. At the same time, ‘region’ refers to a position
within a given mountain area which might be modified by accessibility, incorporation into market relations, exchange patterns and political processes.16)
Therefore, specific sets of indicators might help toprovide a more differentiated picture of development
patterns in mountain regions.

58

H. KREUTZMANN

Fig. 10(a) Orography and administration of Nepal.

Fig. 10(b) Regional disparities in human development in Nepal 2001.

Fig. 10(c) Regional disparities in gender-sensitive development in Nepal 2001.

Perspectives on the Human Dimension of Mountain Development

Notes1) For the Hindukush-Himalayas, see Li Tianchi, Chalise andUpreti (2001).
2) Bernbaum (1990, 1997), Gratzl (1990).
3) For fieldwork evidence from the Hindukush-Karakoram,
see Kreutzmann (1994, 2003, 2004a, 2005a, b, c; for the
Himalaya, Gellner, Pfaff- Czarnecka and Whelpton (1997),
Bickel and Gaenzsle (1999); for the Caucasus, Joffé (1996),
Sahni (1997).
4) For recent case studies on pastoralism in the HindukushKarakoram, see the collection in Ehlers and Kreutzmann(2000), where the linkages to overall developments are explored.
5) For the general discussion of livelihood strategies, seeAshley and Carney (1999).
6) Messerli and Ives (1997), Kreutzmann (2000), Price andButt (2000), Funnell and Parish (2001), Parish (2002).
7) For Nepal, see Ortner (1989), van Spengen (2000); for theindustrialized world, the case of Japanese mountain regions
prominently illustrates the trans-regional interrelationships(Ajiki, 1993; Okahashi, 1996).
8) The key papers and results were published by Banskota,
Papola and Richter (2000).
9) Horta (1995), Kreutzmann (1998, 2000), Nüsser (2001).
10)The results were presented and are available at
http://www.dams.org.
11) The Mountain Forum structured an electronic discussion on‘mountains as water towers’; the results are available in its
on-line library and include further links to other valuable
sources: http://www.mountainforum.org/resources/library/kraua03e.htm, last accessed 24.10.2005.
12)Here I omit a necessary and most probably enlightening
discussion about the theoretical and methodological justification and interpretational implications of quality of life
indicators: for controversial appreciations, see Kreutzmann(2001, 2004b), Rhoades (2001), and Papola (2004).
Practical information about the definition, configuration andmathematical base of the HDI can be found in
http://www.undp.org/undp/hdroanatools.htm.
13)The availability of Human Development Reports has gained
considerable momentum in recent years: national reports are
now available for Afghanistan, Bhutan, China, Tajikistan,
Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, all of which are used in the discussion
here. Reports for a number of Indian provinces, including
Assam, Sikkim, Nagaland, and Himachal Pradesh are now
also available, and regional reports for South Asia havebeen published by the Human Development Centre in
Islamabad, Pakistan.
14)Data are taken from Nepal Human Development Report
2004.
15)For a more detailed account of the transformation in postSoviet Gorno-Badakhshan, see Mamadsaid and Bliss (1998),
UNDP (2003), Bliss (2005).
16)Bohle and Adikhari (1998), Blaikie and Muldavin (2004),
Breu, Maselli and Hurni (2005), Byers (2005), Kreutzmann(2005 b, c, d).

References
Ajiki, K. (1993) Household composition and its reproduction
process in remote mountain villages in the Kitakami Mountains, Northeast Japan. Geographical Review of Japan, 66A:
131-150.
Ashley, C. and D. Carney (1999) Sustainable livelihoods:
Lessons from early experience. DFID, UK Department forInternational Development London.

59

Banskota, M., T. S. Papola and J. Richter, eds. (2000) Growth,
poverty alleviation and sustainable resource management in
the mountain areas of South Asia. DSE, Kathmandu.
Barth, F. (1969) Introduction. In: F. Barth, ed., Ethnic Groups
and Boundaries. The Social Organization of Culture
Difference, George Allan and Unwin, Oslo: Universitets
Forlaget, London, pp.9-38.
Bernbaum, E. (1990) Sacred mountains of the world. Sierra
Club Books, San Francisco.
Bernbaum, E. (1997) The spiritual and cultural significance of
mountains. In: B. Messerli and J. Ives eds., Mountains of theWorld. A global priority, Parthenon, New York, London,
pp.39-60.
Bickel, B. and M. Gaenzsle, eds. (1999) Himalayan Space:
Cultural Horizons and Practices. Völkerkundemuseum derUniversität Zürich, Zürich.
Blaikie, P. and S. Z. Sadeque (2000) Policy in high places:
Environment and development in the Himalayan region.
ICIMOD, Kathmandu.
Blaikie, P. and J. Muldavin (2004) Upstream, Downstream,
China, India. The Politics of Environment in the Himalayan
Region. Annals of the Association of American Geographers,
94: 520-548 .
Bliss, F. (2005) Social and economic Change in the Pamirs.
London.
Bohle, H.-G. and J. Adikhari (1998) Rural livelihoods at Risk:
How Nepalese farmers cope with food insecurity. MountainResearch and Development, 18: 321-332.
Braudel, F. (1972) The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean
World in the Age of Philip II, Vol. I. Collins, London.
Brauen, M. (2000) Traumwelt Tibet. Westliche Trugbilder. Bern,
Stuttgart, Haupt, Wien.
Breu, T., D. Maselli and H. Hurni (2005) Knowledge forsustainable development in the Tajik Pamir Mountains.
Mountain Research and Development, 25: 139-146.
Brugger, E. A., G. Furrer, B. Messerli and P. Messerli, eds.
(1984) The transformation of Swiss mountain regions. Berne.
Butt, N. and M. F. Price (2000) Mountain people, forest andtrees: Strategies for balancing local management and outside
interests. Synthesis of an Electronic Conference of theMountain Forum April 12 - May 14, 1999. Harrisonburg.
Byers, A. (2005) Nature and Society. Contemporary Human
Impacts on Alpine Ecosystems in the Sagarmatha (Mt.
Everest) National Park, Khumbu, Nepal. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers, 95: 112-140.
Deutsche Stiftung für Entwicklung (DSE) (1974) Munich
Mountain Environment Manifesto. Munich.
Doempke, S. and M. Succow (1998) Cultural Landscapes andNature Conservation in Northern Eurasia. Nabu, Bonn.
Ehlers, E. and H. Kreutzmann (2000) High mountain ecology
and economy. Potential and constraints. In: E. Ehlers and H.
Kreutzmann, eds., High Mountain pastoralism in Northern
Pakistan. Stuttgart: Steiner, pp.9-36 (= Erdkundliches Wissen
132).
Funnel, D. and R. Parish (2001) Mountain environments andcommunities. Routledge, London and New York.
Funnell, D. and M. Price (2003) Mountain geography: a review.
The Geographical Journal, 169: 183-190.
Gellner, D., J. Pfaff-Czarnecka and J. Whelpton, eds. (1997)
Nationalism and Ethnicity in a Hindu Kingdom. The Politics
of Culture in Contemporary Nepal. Harwood Academic
Publishers, Amsterdam.
Gratzl, K. (1990) Die heiligsten Berge der Welt. Verlag fürSammler, Graz.
Grötzbach, E. and C. Stadel (1997) Mountain peoples andcultures. In: B. Messerli and J. Ives, eds., Mountains of theWorld. A global priority, Parthenon, New York, London,
pp.17-38.
Hilton, J. (1933) Lost Horizon. Macmillan, London.

60

H. KREUTZMANN

Horta, K. (1995) The Mountain Kingdom’s White Oil. The
Lesotho Highlands Water Project. The Ecologist, 25:
227-231.
IUCN (World Conservation Union) (1996) Conservation andthe Future: Trends and Options towards the Year 2025. World
Conservation Congress Document.
Ives, J. D. and B. Messerli (1989) The Himalayan Dilemma.
Reconciling Development and Conservation. Routledge,
London and New York.
Joffé, George (1996) Nationalities and borders in Transcaucasia
and the northern Caucasus. In: J. F. R. Wright, S. Goldenberg
and R. Schofield, eds., Transcaucasian boundaries. London:
UCL Press, pp. 15-33.
Kreutzmann, H. (1994) Habitat conditions and settlement processes in the Hindukush-Karakoram. Petermanns Geographische
Mitteilungen, 138: 337-356.
Kreutzmann, H. (1996) Ethnizität im Entwicklungsprozess. Die
Wakhi in Hochasien. Dietrich Reimer, Berlin.
Kreutzmann, H. (1998) From water towers of mankind to
livelihood strategies of mountain dwellers: approaches andperspectives for high mountain research. Erdkunde, 52:
185-200.
Kreutzmann, H. ed. (2000) Sharing water. Irrigation andWater Management in the Hindukush-Karakoram-Himalaya.
Karachi, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York.
Kreutzmann, H. (2001) Development Indicators for Mountain
Regions. Mountain Research and Development, 21: 34-41.
Kreutzmann, H. (2003) Ethnic minorities and marginality in the
Pamirian knot. Survival of Wakhi and Kirghiz in a harshenvironment and global contexts. The Geographical Journal,
169: 215-235.
Kreutzmann, H. (2004a) Accessibility for High Asia. Comparative perspectives on Northern Pakistan’s traffic infrastructure
and linkages with neighbours in the HindukushKarakoram-Himalaya. Journal of Mountain Science, 1:
193-210.
Kreutzmann, H. (2004b) The importance of development
indicators for assessing mountain development. In: N. S.
Jodha, et al., Hrsg., Poverty alleviation in mountain areas ofChina. Feldafing, pp.119-134. (the volume was publishedsimultaneously in Chinese language)
Kreutzmann, H. (2005a) Linguistic diversity in space and time:a survey in the Eastern Hindukush and Karakoram.
Himalayan Linguistics, 4. Web-Journal (http://www.uwm.
edu/Dept/CIE/HimalayanLinguistics/Journal_2005/Kreutzma
nn_HLJ4.pdf).
Kreutzmann, H. (2005b) The Karakoram Landscape and the
Recent History of the Northern Areas. In: S. Bianca, ed.,Karakoram. Hidden Treasures in the Northern Areas ofPakistan, Allemandi, Turin, pp.41-76.
Kreutzmann, H. (2005c) Pastoral practices and theirtransformation in the North-Western Karakoram. Nomadic
Peoples, 8: 54-88.
Kreutzmann, H. (2005d) Poppy cultivation in Afghanistan andthe opium world market. Geographische RundschauInternational Edition, 1: 22-29.
Lambin, E.F., B.L. Turner II, H. Geist, S. Agbola, A. Angelsen,
J.W. Bruce, O. Coomes, R. Dirzo, G. Fischer, C. Folke, P.S.
George, K. Homewood, J. Imbernon, R. Leemans, X. Li, E.F.
Moran, M. Mortimore, P.S. Ramakrishnan, J.F. Richards, H.
Skånes, W. Steffen, G.D. Stone, U. Svedin, T. Veldkamp, C.
Vogel and J. Xu (2001) The Causes of Land-Use and LandCover Change. Moving beyond the Myths (= Global Environmental Change Human and Policy Dimensions. Vol. 4).
Li Tianchi, S. R. Chalise and B. N. Upreti, eds. (2001)
Landslide hazard mitigation in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas.
ICIMOD, Kathmandu.
Lynch, O. J. and G. F. Maggio (2000) Mountain laws andpeoples: Moving towards sustainable development andrecognition of community-based property rights. A general
overview of mountain laws and policies with insights from
Mountain Forum’s electronic conference on mountain policy
and law. Harrisonburg.
Mamadsaid, M. and F. Bliss (1998) Socio-economic change in
Gorno-Badakhshan. Khorog.
McCully, P. (1996) Silenced Rivers. The ecology and politics oflarge dams. London.
Messerli, B. and J. Ives, eds. (1997) Mountains of the World. A
global priority. Parthenon, New York, London.
Nepal South Asia Centre (1998) Nepal Human Development
Report 1998. Kathmandu.
Nüsser, M. (2001) Ressourcennutzung und externe Eingriffe imperipheren Gebirgsland Lesotho. Geographische Rundschau,
53: 30-36.
Okahashi, H. (1996) Development of mountain village studies
in post-war Japan: depopulation, peripheralisation andvillage renaissance. Geographical Review of Japan, 69B:
60-69.
Ortner, S. (1989) High Religion. A cultural and political historyof Sherpa Buddhism. Princeton University Press.
Papola, T. S. (2004) Poverty in mountain areas: nature, causes,
and alleviation strategy. In: N. S. Jodha et al., eds., Poverty
alleviation in mountain areas of China. Feldafing: 93-117.
Parish, R. (2002) Mountain Environments. Pearson Education,
Harlow.
Price, M. F. and N. Butt, eds. (2000) Forests in sustainable
mountain development: A state of knowledge report for 2000.
Oxon, New York: CABI Publishing (= IUFRO researchseries 5).
Ratzel, F. (1909) Anthropogeographie. Erster Teil: Grundzüge
der Anwendung der Erdkunde auf die Geschichte. Stuttgart,(first edition 1882, revised edition 1899).
Rhoades, R. (2001) Mountain Views: Development indicatorsfor mountain regions. Mountain Research and Development,
21: 307-308.
Rijal, K., ed. (1999) Energy use in mountain areas: Trends andpatterns in China, India, Nepal and Pakistan. ICIMOD,
Kathmandu.
Sahni, K. (1997) Crucifying the Orient. Russian Orientalism
and the Colonization of Caucasus and Central Asia. White
Orchid Press, Bangkok.
Skeldon, R. (1985) Population pressure, mobility, and socioeconomic change in mountainous environments: regions ofrefuge in comparative perspective. Mountain Research andDevelopment, 5: 233-250.
Spengen, W. van (2000) Tibetan Border Worlds. A geohistoricalanalysis of trade and traders. Kegan Paul International,
London, New York.
Teklea, K. and L. Hedlund (2000) Land cover changes between
1958 and 1986 in Kalu District, Southern Wello, Ethiopia.
Mountain Research and Development, 20: 42-51.
Tierney, J. (1990) The three secrets of Shangri-La. Health(July-August 1990), pp.38-48.
UNDP (1999) Human Development Report. Globalization witha human face. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York.
UNDP (2000) Human Development Report 2000. Humanrights and human development. Oxford University Press,
New Delhi.
UNDP (2002) China Human Development Report 2002.
Making green development a choice. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, New York.
UNDP (2003) Tajikistan Human Development Report 2003.
Water resources and sustainable development. Dushanbe.
UNDP (2004a) Nepal Human Development Report 2004.
Empowerment and Poverty Reduction. Kathmandu.
UNDP (2004b) Afghanistan National Human Development
Report. Kabul.
UNDP (2005) Human Development Report 2005. International

Perspectives on the Human Dimension of Mountain Development
Cooperation at a Crossroad: Aid, Trade and Security in an
Unequal World. New York.
UNESCO (1973) Programme on Man and the Biosphere.
Working Group on Project 6: Impact of Human Activities on
Mountain and Tundra Ecosystems (MAB Report Series 8).
Paris.

61

Wolf, E. R. (1982) Europe and the people without history.
University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles,
London.
World Bank (2005) World Development Report. Oxford
University Press, New York.

(Received 9 November 2005, Accepted 9 May 2006)