Leading up to the World Mountain Forum meeting that took place this June in France, the scientific community from the Grenoble and Chambéry regions organized the International Mountain Research Workshop in Autrans and Grenoble. Among the participants were approximately 70 scientists from 5 continents, representing a diverse array of disciplines in the natural and social sciences, 2 observers from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and other special guests. Facilitated by the outstanding hospitality of our hosts, the workshop ran for 3 very intense days, with discussions centering on the general but rarely addressed question of exactly what constitutes a mountain in terms of scientific research. These discussions focused on 3 main topics.
The specificity, unifying characteristics, and diversity of mountain regions
Everyone present seemed to agree that the issue that generated the most intense debate was the lack of a single satisfactory definition of a mountain region. (As R. Rajamani put it, “a mountain is like an elephant,” referring to the blind man's description of a pillar, a snake, or a wall, depending on what part of the elephant's body he touched.) Nor is there a unified discipline for the study of mountains. However, the participants thought it possible to devise a conceptual model (synthesized by Bernard Debarbieux) consisting of 2 main axes. The vertical axis would comprise the unique or unifying characteristics of mountains: the altitudinal gradients of temperature, atmosphere, oxygen and carbon dioxide pressure, radiation (specifically UV), potential energy, etc. The horizontal axis would comprise the elements that confer diversity on mountain environments and cultural landscapes around the world, such as latitudinal gradients, location in the developing or developed world, etc. These are the factors that can make daily reality so incredibly different for inhabitants of a village in the Swiss Alps, residents in a shantytown on the outskirts of a metropolis like Bogotá, and nomadic herders on the Tibetan Plateau. Superposition of these two axes defines the unique set of characteristics, problems, and opportunities (something we often overlook) of each particular mountain region. An important conclusion can be derived from this perspective: the most pressing problems identified in different regions (poverty, rural exodus, lack of empowerment, loss of traditional knowledge, land degradation and erosion, loss of diversity, etc) are not unique to mountain areas. But in a mountain context, these problems usually pose challenges of magnified proportions (eg, erosion becomes particularly acute). However, the often extremely creative responses of actors in mountain regions are also fundamental sources of diverse and original perspectives in the search for positive and constructive solutions.
The natural and social dimensions of mountain regions: Challenges for understanding
Discussions at the workshop placed much emphasis on this dual nature of mountains — “the yin–yang of mountain research,” as P.S. Rama krishnan put it. In the face of this complexity, the participants argued the need for an approach to mountain research that
Is integrative by being more problem-oriented than discipline-oriented.
Is pluralistic and open-ended, incorporating local perspectives and nonscientific (ie, local or traditional) perspectives and knowledge.
Uses participatory and multiscale strategies.
Establishes lowland-highland linkages.
Focuses on policy design.
Recognizes the diversity and very dynamic nature of mountain cultural landscapes and questions the simplistic view of mountain communities as isolated, “traditional,” and backward-looking societies at the margins of the globalization process.
Mountains—A laboratory for science and society?
There seemed to be a consensus about the importance of mountains in challenging established views in science and society. Mountains can serve as laboratories (or more appropriately, as observatories, as was suggested at the workshop) for environmental change, as strongholds of resistance, as integration axes, and as sources of alternative models of development. When we listen, we find that the voices of change also flow down from the mountains.
The International Mountain Research Workshop was a unique meeting precisely for the reason that it forced participants to challenge and rethink concepts usually taken for granted. On the road to the International Year of Mountains 2002 and in the context of increasing advocacy of the International Mountain Agenda, it is important to stop for a moment and critically examine our notions of mountain environments, mountain inhabitants, mountain research, and mountain priorities. We stopped, opened the black boxes, and out jumped an incredible rainbow of multicolored elephants, mythical beasts, and mountain spirits. Should we attempt to close the boxes again?
Acknowledgments
The workshop proceedings will be published in late 2000 or early 2001 with the support of the European Commission. For more information, contact Bernard Debarbieux, Directeur du laboratoire TEO, Université Joseph-Fourier, 17 rue Maurice Gignoux, 38031 Grenoble Cedex. bdebarbi@ujf-grenoble.fr.
