WHY THE WORLD CANNOT IGNORE ITS MOUNTAINS
Published: 05:07 PM,Jul 31,2026 | EDITED : 10:07 PM,Jul 31,2026
The taps of South Asia are running dry, and the disaster is unfolding not in our cities, but in the silent, melting heights of the Hindu Kush Himalaya. Referred to as “The Third Pole” for the enormity of the ice and snow it contains, it is also known as the “Water Tower of Asia”, serving as a source of ten of Asia’s largest rivers, including the Indus, Ganges, Brahmaputra, Mekong, and Yangtze.
Yet, the rapid degradation of this massive cryosphere is far from just a localised or regional crisis. The Third Pole shapes climate far beyond its peaks, and research shows that disruptions to its delicate balance alter atmospheric circulation patterns that can influence weather extremes across the Northern Hemisphere. No nation or region is truly shielded from the compounding impacts of a destabilised mountain system.
Despite this profound global reliance, mountain biodiversity is barely visible in international environmental policy and high-level negotiations. This blind spot affects mountain regions worldwide. Mountains cover roughly 24 per cent of the Earth’s land area, yet account for nearly half of the planet’s biodiversity hotspots. Studies show that an alarming 70 per cent of the original biodiversity in parts of the region has been lost over the last century due to unchecked climate pressures and human encroachment. Mountain species are among the most vulnerable to extinction as warming pushes their habitats upward, until there is nowhere left to go.
When a region is missing from global frameworks, it is effectively overlooked in negotiating rooms, leaving targets, indicators, finance, and reporting systems blind to its unique fragility. Without specific indicators or mountain-centric monitoring protocols, these high-altitude regions get lost in administrative noise, leading to catastrophic consequences on the ground.
That is why the Convention on Biological Diversity matters. It is the main global agreement through which countries set biodiversity goals and report progress. If mountains are not reflected in it, national action and investment are less likely to follow. But the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework has no dedicated target for mountains, and its implementation and monitoring frameworks do not sufficiently recognise or track mountain biodiversity.
Ahead of the 28th meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, the key scientific advisory body shaping the agenda for the upcoming UN Biodiversity Conference (COP17), regional experts gathered to address this glaring omission. Convened by the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), representatives from Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal and Pakistan noted that current national strategies are constrained by a blanket lack of mountain-specific metrics, technical capacity, and institutional coordination. Ambition alone cannot close this structural gap. Watersheds, invasive species, and shifting wildlife ranges ignore political boundaries, so no single country can protect its mountain systems in isolation.
The path forward requires a deliberate revival of the Programme of Work on Mountain Biodiversity, aligning this thematic framework with the present Global Biodiversity Framework. This must be accompanied by agreements on effective ecological indicators and sustained cooperation among mountain nations.
Countries do not need to wait for a new global decision to act. They can start by making mountains explicit in their national biodiversity strategies and action plans, with targets reflective of their ecological importance. National commitments must be backed by finance and local leadership, directing resources toward long-term monitoring and conservation led by indigenous peoples and local communities.
Regional cooperation is equally important. Countries need harmonised data collection methods and robust metrics capable of capturing mountain-specific ecological shifts, tracking implementation progress, and protecting critical cross-border ecological corridors. We must strengthen the science-policy interface to ensure that the scale, climate vulnerability, and downstream relevance of mountain ecosystems are clearly communicated within global agendas.
Naming mountains explicitly in these frameworks is not an administrative burden, but a necessary correction to fill a dangerous void. As these countries head towards upcoming global summits, their message must be clear: we cannot protect the world’s biodiversity or secure global climate stability while ignoring the vital pulse of the planet.