Can the green economy enhance sustainable mountain development? The potential role of awareness building

Transnational governance in mountain regions: Progress and prospects

“…In terms of territoriality, the examples include groups of nation-states (e.g., the CAN), parts of nation-states (e.g., the Alpine and Carpathian Conventions) and many thematically defined regions (e.g., for biodiversity conservation and related goals, including peace and security). Many of the examples of transnational governance cited above are also referred to in a recent report prepared for the Rio + 20 conference in the context of its two themes: the institutional framework for sustainable development, and 'green economy' (Kohler et al, 2012; see also Rueff et al, 2014). The latter concept has many commonalities with the other integrative concepts mentioned in this paper, and whether its use will continue much longer is not certain (Bina, 2013).…”

Institutional challenges in pastoral landscape management: Towards sustainable land management in Ngamiland, Botswana

“…We examined policy stances that provide for cross-sectoral and collaborative management of communal lands. Cross-sectorial initiatives can occur only if government actors are aware of (a) the complexity of socio-ecological systems, (b) that cross-sectorial approaches yield better results than fragmented approaches, and (c) that interagency collaboration will result in cross-sectorial policy for SLM (Rueff, Kohler, Rahim, Mahat, & Ariza, 2015). Barley and Tolbert (1997: 6), define institutions as 'shared rules and typifications that identify categories of social actors and their appropriate activities or relationships.'…”

A new Himalayan crisis? Exploring transformative resilience pathways

“…As a result, the knowledge they produce and the policy prescriptions they propose become fragmented and disconnected. Such fragmentation also reflects disconnected and layered policies by government agencies, which tend to hold particular agendas and have no incentive to collaborate (Rueff et al, 2015;Forsyth, 1998). Due to the lack of an interdisciplinary approach, and the dominance of a monopolistic hard science and bureaucracy-heavy policy-making culture, research and development activities often fail to 15 understand and address the interrelated nexus among water-land-energy-livelihoods and politics, and thus Himalayan challenges go unabated.…”

“…Over the past five decades, international environment and development agencies have consistently sought to understand and address the challenges of the Himalayas with a number of policies and practical experiments, but without any effective impacts on the livelihoods of local people or the mountain ecology (see Rueff et al, 2015;Blaikie et al, 2002;Ives and Messerli, 1989;Ives, 2012;Satyal, 2013 for a review of past interventions).…”