The first is policy as process, which examines how policy is made and takes the view that the rational policy model of policy making is inappropriate and simply does not explain how policy is, or should, be made. Policy is often messy and diffuse, and outcomes often unintended. Secondly, the idea of stakeholders in environmental policy was introduced to identify the unequal distribution of political power of stakeholders, and to draw attention to those who, while in a large majority, had little say in policy, and sometimes became victims of it, rather than beneficiaries. This is not to say that the majority of farmers and pastoralists in the regions have a monopoly of virtue, merely that their interests and knowledge are seldom represented in policy. Thirdly, the idea of access to resources and sustainable livelihoods treated as a material necessity and right were used to draw attention to them in the inevitable conflicts that will arise in adjudicating between conservation agendas, the 140 million resource users, and other interests.
Ecological modernisation is the term used to imply a number of salient policy reforms.
All these points pose serious challenges to any society, but especially in the HKH region. New initiatives have been taken too, but their cumulative impact, both environmental and social, is still quite small. Different countries have responded differently, the more powerful able to resist international pressures, although in India internal pressures through the free press from intellectuals, social movements, and even political parties have also been effective in pushing certain environmental agendas. In China, too, the impacts of land degrading and polluting policies also have generated internal pressure for reform. It cannot be expected that a study based on evidence of the impact of international and national environmental policies will produce much in the way of discernible impact on the ground.