The recent revelation of the number of permits to climb
Mount Everest (Chomolungma) this spring, an increase of 28% on last year’s
allocation, made me think about the classic question: how do you prevent
tourists destroying the very place that attracted them in the first place?
While
it took 30 years for the first 150 climbers to reach the summit of Everest, this
was exceeded in a single day in May 2010, with 169 climbers making the top, and
with them come the problems associated with increased accessibility to the
world’s highest mountain.
Its
growing reputation as “the world’s highest garbage site” describes what is
arguably the most notorious issue; litter from the hundreds of people leaving
oxygen tanks, food packaging and tents in their wake. But this is not the only
problem affecting the sustainability of ecotourism on Everest, which is part of
Sagarmatha National Park UNESCO
World Heritage Site.
Successful
management of ecotourism is defined as creating a relationship between people, resources and tourism,
in which each can contribute positively to the other.
In terms of socio-economic benefits, the
permit alone, which allows entry to the Everest area from the south via Nepal,
costs between $10,000 and $25,000 per person. There are approximately 2,500
Sherpa people living within the national park, who rely on tourism to make
their living and whose cultural heritage is also valued under the park’s UNESCO
World Heritage status. Reducing visitor numbers would compromise their
livelihoods, but is it right that they should continue to endanger their lives
for the increasing number of less experienced climbers attempting to conquer
the mountain?
A recent article in The Guardian also brought up concerns over the “overcrowding” of Everest. Every May,
several hundred inspired people will try for the summit in one of the weather windows, resulting in dangerous
bottlenecks packed with climbers, the reality of which was sadly demonstrated
by the death of four climbers in May, raising the question: has the mountain
become too accessible?
We are often told to “take only photographs
and leave only footprints”, but is that actually one of the problems here? Besides
the rubbish left behind by climbers, the degradation caused by increased
footfall is also evident, threatening biodiversity as well as the aesthetic
value of this area of “stunning natural beauty”, as described by Sir Chris
Bonington.
Where to draw the line? Balancing tourism
and conservation.
Not everyone believes huge numbers of
visitors will be detrimental to Everest: “Unquestionably Nepal wants the money
and locals want the money - they want people to come” (George Martin, EverestNews.com).
Indeed, small scale tourism elsewhere has been found to be inappropriate or
unsustainable socio-culturally in the wrong circumstances. For example in the
Tufi region of Papua New Guinea, inter-clan balance was disrupted when one clan
began to profit materially from the operation of traditional-style guest houses.
Conflicts intensified further when well-meaning foreign agencies provided the
operators with motor boats and other aid. In contrast, large scale tourism may
in some circumstances prove sustainable. Some of the major European tour
operators, for example, successfully endeavor to ensure that their clients do
not contribute to negative socio-cultural and environmental impacts in the
destinations that they visit.
Carrying capacities can be raised through appropriate
management and some believe that the best strategies are those which concentrate
large numbers of visitors in a small area. In South Africa’s Kruger National
Park, for example, the 700,000 annual visitors are restricted almost entirely
to just 4% of the land. Although limiting visitor numbers by permit undoubtedly prevents wide-spread
degradation, concentrated visitation to the prime sites used in ecotourism often
still results in an unacceptable level of degradation. The absence of adequate
environmental assessments and site audits can lead to “self-destructive
ecotourism”.
“The assessment of a particular tourist product as
good or bad does not depend on scale, but rather on the effectiveness of the
management practices that are applied to the circumstances of each individual
destination”
(Weaver, 2001)
