For my master-dissertation I’m doing a survey on sustainable development in mountain ranges (worldwide) and the –possible- influence of the larger Alpine Clubs (including the UIAA (International Mountaineering and Climbing Federation)) on this process of sustainable development in mountain regions (outside their own countries).

Some contributions to a more sustainable way of life in mountain areas and a more sustainable approach towards mountaineering have been made by Alpine associations .
For example the UIAA has created over the years some documents and declarations about ethics and values of mountaineering in order to promote social development, cultural understanding and environmental awareness.
(Documents like the Kathmandu-Declaration (1982), the Summit Charter (2001), the Tyrol-Declaration on Best Practice in Mountain Sports (2002), the Mountain Ethics Declaration (2009), etc.)

Now, I would like to see how much influence these documents have on a more sustainable approach towards mountaineering. Do they actually influence people (mountaineers) to behave and think in a more sustainable –and ecological- way? Did they improve the lives of indigenous people in for example the Andes or Himalays? Did they have any real impact on the environment in mountain ranges? Or not? Maybe they don’t have any impact on all this at all?

That’s why I would like to ask whether you have heard of these (and other, similar documents) before, or not? And if you’ve heard of them: how well do you know these, have they raised more awareness about the need of a more sustainable development in mountain areas and, thus, a more ecological approach of mountaineering, and do you actually apply these values and principles -while mountaineering or even in your everyday lives?

I’m asking this because it’s hard to judge on my own. Some –honest- positive as well as negative responses would be really appreciated!

Thanks in advance!

Koen

In the American Alpine Journal I've read the Tyrol Treatise (2002). I have nothing against a vision of how and where things should be going. Without a vision, there is nothing to strive for. Has it made any impact. In terms of the ethics of how climbers treat other climbers and I doubt it. Since then people (and the media) havee still treated Sherpa's like 2nd class citizens- when the death toll on Everest they usually state the facts like 11 climbers for year XXXX, but forget to include the Sherpa deaths, or they say 5 climbers and 6 sherpas. Like Sherpa's aren't climbers. Hell, on Everest they are among the very few real climbers, who fix the fixed ropes, set up the various camps....

In the Himalayas, have climbers started to come to the aid, or atleast assistance of other climbers. Not really.

So what has improved?

I don't recall having heard of these specific documents, but maybe I have, and forgot about them. I'm aware that the various mountain federations are involved in discussions about sustainability and about promoting fair involvement of local populations, and I think that that's a good thing. If there wouldn't be any effort at all, people venturing into the mountains for the first time might not know how fragile these environments can be.

That said, from what I've seen on my travels, I conclude that often it's not the mountaineers or hikers that cause the greatest damage, but either some of the locals, or larger economic developments that disregard the environment.
I mean, most mountaineers don't cut down a tree, don't even use dead wood to make a fire - yet a local farmer may slash and burn a tract of forest to grow some crops, then move on to the next plot.

Most serious outdoor enthusiasts carry all their garbage back out, yet locals dump trash all over the place in some countries. A few months ago, I went to a trailhead with a collectivo, drank some yogurt on the way and asked the driver to drop the empty bottle in a waste bin back in town. What did he do? He dropped it by the side of the road. And that wasn't an isolated case. I suppose his thinking is that everybody does it, so what's one more bit of plastic? When I hire a porter or mule driver, I make sure that we bring down our trash, and take time to explain why. Most of them understand, others just don't get it, but at least on my trip, the trash comes back down. Every little bit helps.

As to industrial developments, in the Cordillera Negra in Peru I did't dare to use water from any of the streams or lakes, because there are mining operations all over the place, mostly small, some bigger. Any lakes or streams near mining sites usually had unnatural colors - contaminated with heavy metals, I guess - and while further away the streams look better, heavy metals in lower concentration are still unhealthy so I won't use it. Despite that, quite a few people live on the lower slopes, and grow crops. The local authorities have bigger problems than worry about these things.

On the other hand, the local population in northern Peru have recently protested against a huge new mining operation being developed, fearing that their water supply will be contaminated (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16026619). I don't know how it will work out, or even whether their concerns are justified or not, but at least the locals realize that it's not just new jobs at stake, but also possibly destroying their lands. Hopefully, some sort of compromise can be reached, so Peru can enjoy the economic benefits of mining without the damaging side effects.
A big complication in all this is one Peru's major problems: corruption in all layers of government. Many are honest, but some people don't care at all about others or the environment, as long as they get bribes or large kickbacks. And, of course, with rampant corruption, I don't take it at face value when I read that the official studies show that the mine will not damage the enviroment.

I hope that the current leadership is honest, I simply don't know. I do know that, a few months ago, the presidential elections were only narrowly won by Hollanta Humala, beating Keiko Fujimori. At the time, I didn't know anything about their respective political programs, but Keiko's father, former president Fujimori, is in prison, first convicted on charges of abuse of power, later also for ordering killings and kidnappings (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7986951.stm). Now, I'm not judging Keiko on the deeds of her father, but here's the thing: she repeatedly said that, if elected president, she would pardon her father. For that alone, I would never vote for her. Nevertheless, she almost won the vote! That says something about how much people care about integrity, or perhaps how resigned they are to corruption being part of life. Where do you start tackling environmental issues and sustainable development, if you have problems like this?