Keywords

1 Introduction

Mount Everest, the highest point on earth, 8848 m above sea level, is known as Sagarmatha by the Nepalese. The magnificence of this matchless peak, an incomparable icon of nature’s splendour, has inspired human longings and attracted mountaineers from all over the globe. Since the first successful summit expedition in 1953, the stream of visitors to the surrounding Khumbu region has grown exponentially. In 1976, the Government of Nepal established Sagarmatha National Park (SNP) to conserve its unique diversity of flora, fauna and culture. In 1979, UNESCO’s justifications for including SNP on the World Heritage Site (WHS) List were geological, biological, aesthetic and based on humanity’s interaction with its environment alongside the peculiar evolutionary relationship of the indigenous Sherpa people with their own natural environment (UNESCO, 2009).

Settled for centuries by the Sherpa ethnic group, about 7000 people now live in 20 villages within SNP’s 1148 km2 and adjacent buffer zone (SNPBZ). As Buddhists, Sherpas interpret the Khumbu as a sacred valley (Sherpa, 2008), and their indigenous natural resource management has been a major contributing factor to conserving the Khumbu region (Daconto & Sherpa, 2010).

Nepal is a developing country with weak social and technical infrastructure and is among the poorest countries in the world with a per capita GDP of US$3417 (United Nations Development Program, n.d.) Over the last 40 years, tourism has become a key driver in the local Sherpa economy through increased house construction and infrastructure with indirect improvements to the standard of health and education systems but has deprecated traditional agropastoral practices (NPC, 2017).

SNP’s extraordinary Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) lies in the world’s highest ecologically characteristic flora and fauna, intricately blended with rich Sherpa culture. This inter-relationship is the foundation of the sustainable protection and management of the park for the benefit of local communities (UNESCO, n.d.). SNP management, which is also responsible for WHS management, relies on state measures and local support through the SNP and Wildlife Conservation Office (Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Ministry of Forests). Additionally, about 4.7% of the park is covered by glaciers that provide freshwater benefits to millions of people downstream (Salerno et al., 2017). Therefore, in addition to conservation, monitoring the impacts of global warming and climate change on the hydrological regime is another priority for the park.

The addition of a buffer zone to form the SNPBZ in 2002 was deemed necessary to reduce biotic pressure on SNP and introduce a revenue plough-back system to improve the socio-economic status of local communities (DNPWC, n.d.). As in other countries, inhabited protected areas require a preservation policy that must be supported by the population and inherently contain the potential for conflict. Without reconciling conflicts and mitigating impacts, sustainability-oriented development in the sense of the 2030 Agenda is impossible.

2 The Challenge of Climate Change

Climate change, which is becoming increasingly evident, has been casting a threatening shadow over the Khumbu region for years. Reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, n.d.) and the Hindukush Himalaya Assessment (ICIMOD, 2019) document rapid and pronounced climate change in the Himalaya since the mid-1970s. Progressive warming with elevation is resulting in substantial glacial melt and reduced snowfall, turning the ‘abode of snow’ into bare, grey, rocky mountains. The most devastating impacts concern the hydrological regime, with melting glaciers increasing the magnitude and frequency of catastrophic glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs). From 1962 to 2003, the number and area of glacial lakes in SNP increased (ICIMOD, 2019), and three major GLOF events have occurred. In August 1985, the Digtso Lake GLOF completely destroyed the previous Namche Hydropower Station, infrastructure, farming land and livestock and killed at least 20 people (UNESCO, 2009). The most recent GLOF occurred in September 1998. Changes in atmospheric temperature and rainfall patterns are affecting the equilibrium between the amount of precipitation stored in the winter and summer thaw. These impacts are reducing the Himalaya’s ability to serve as water towers for those living downstream, thus causing water scarcity that will impoverish lives and may breed conflicts at local and regional scales.

WHSs are obligated to implement the SDGs and their respective educational programs (World Heritage Centre, n.d.). A major target of SDG13 is to integrate measures that strengthen resilience and adaptive capacities to climate-related hazards and natural disasters. The need for climate adaptation approaches is recognised by SNP in the SNP State of Conservation (SoC) Reports (SNP, 2017, 2019), which confirm that climate change is seriously challenging biodiversity conservation. One of the most likely impacts of climate change is a shift in spatial and temporal patterns to the availability of suitable habitats for terrestrial species (UNESCO, 2009). The risks are considered so significant that the potential impact of climate change might create devastating losses to SNP and its OUV if the appropriate measures are not taken.

Issues like the lack of a comprehensive tourism management plan, site-specific tourism problems and inequitable benefits, unregulated and concentrated tourism, poaching of wildlife, poor sanitation capacity, waste management, helicopter overuse, inappropriate or inadequate zonation within SNP and poor goods transportation capacity were raised in studies and advisory missions (SNP, 2016; WNF, 2013; UNESCO Advisory Mission, n.d.). Directly or indirectly, these issues impact a range of SDG goals within SNP, particularly poverty alleviation, good health and well-being, gender and social equity, access to affordable and clean energy, responsible consumption and production, and partnerships to achieve SDGs.

3 Problem Identification and Research Question

Even if the Sherpa people in the Khumbu region cannot be held responsible for climate change in general, it must be their concern to get negative impacts under control as much as possible. These impacts are exacerbated by tourism, which contributes to the environmental burden. Therefore, we concentrate on the impacts of climate change and tourism that can be countered by measures at the local level. Our research asks, are the multi-stakeholder linkages between SNP management and Sherpa residents sufficient protection against current challenges, and could they be used more effectively?

The ‘Pentagon of Sustainable Tourism’ (Luger & Ripp, 2021) aligns with UNESCO’s Sustainable Tourism Programme imposed in 2011 (UNESCO, STP, n.d.) and introduces sustainability principles into the mechanism of WHS management SNP WHS management is committed to the overarching goal of sustainability (SNP, 2016), and a comprehensive sustainable tourism development strategy is, therefore, necessary. Tourism is on a sustainable path when it is

  1. (1)

    possible in the long term through enhanced stakeholder responsibility and community resilience;

  2. (2)

    culturally compatible and focused on reconciliation, such that local residents are fully involved in negotiations and decisions and accountable for their behaviour;

  3. (3)

    socially balanced by spreading benefits and disadvantages equally and regional disparities are avoided;

  4. (4)

    ecologically viable by placing the lowest possible pressure on the environment, preventing biodiversity damage and promoting environmental awareness; and

  5. (5)

    economically sensible and productive because it is profitable for the local and national economy.

We, therefore, take tourism as our central starting point because almost the entire population live directly or indirectly from it, and it has contributed significantly to changes in lifestyles and culture over the years. In particular, we focus on aspects of tourism activities, house building culture, transport, ecology, conservation and cultural adaptation. Our findings incorporate empirical studies that contribute to the overall understanding and assessment of the situation, as well as our own field research on how the impacts of climate change and tourism development are perceived by resident Sherpa people conducted in 2020 (Boustead & Bhatta, 2021).

We consider SNP development over a 10-year period in which there have been considerable improvements to residents’ living conditions. For example, a basic solid waste management system was implemented in SNP (EcoHimal SAME, n.d.), and the Thame hydropower plant was upgraded to one Megawatt (EcoHimal Hydro, n.d.). A number of micro-hydro projects now serve villages along the main trekking route to Everest Base Camp (EBC) (André-Lamat & Sacareau, 2019) and, with the expansion of telecommunication infrastructure through FM radio, mobile phones and internet, there is now an extensive communication system. However, tourism poses increasing threats to vulnerable landscapes and reduces livelihood-adaptation and risk-mitigation options and cultural identity and traditional practices (Sherpa, 2021).

4 Methodology

Our study consists of two components. Firstly, voluntary-participation community (group meetings) and individual surveys in 8 villages and with 49 residents along the main EBC trekking route (Fig. 22.1). Participants included community leaders, business owners and individuals associated with the tourism value chain. Referring to the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach, the survey was developed by the MyGHTi Project (established by the Great Himalaya Trail program) to collect data on resident Sherpa knowledge and perceptions of socio-cultural and climate change indicators relating to quality of life and liveable environment (Boustead & Bhatta, 2020). The survey used both closed and open-ended questions combined with semi-structured interviews and community discussions. Muccione et al. (2019) consider this a co-production of knowledge for sustainability, where researchers, policy makers and civil society actors cooperate in the production and dissemination of knowledge that is based on mutual recognition and learning. Secondly, we integrated data from other studies, including SNP State of Conservation Reports (SNP, 2019;2017) and the World Nature Forum (WNF, 2013) SNP benchmarking analysis based on research data collected in 2011 and ideally suited for comparison.

Fig. 22.1
A survey map represents glaciers and rivers, surveyed community and trekking route.

Survey route (following the main EBC trail). (Source: Boustead R. & Bhatta S. (2021). Assessment of the Social Impacts of Community Based Tourism. https://doi.org/10.1515/tw-2021-0010)

Full size image

According to local municipal records, the current resident populations within the SNPBZ totals 7161 (comprising Khumjung, Namche, and Chaurikarka VDCs; Sagarmatha Next, 2018), many of whom reside elsewhere during the off-season periods (winter and monsoon months). The district administration office estimates that annually about 120,000 tourist guides and porters visit the SNPBZ as well as 4000 local immigrants working in hotels and in restaurants. For the purposes of the study, tourism support staff, immigrant and seasonal labour were not included in community meetings nor individual interviews.

In the year 2018–2019 (July to June), SNP received 57,289 tourists. Tourists visit SNP during two significant peak seasons, April–May (32%) and October–November (42%), for mountaineering, trekking and learning about Sherpa communities (MoTCA, 2020). Visitors are not evenly distributed throughout SNP, with the majority focused on the trail to and from the airport at Lukla to EBC (Fig. 22.2).

Fig. 22.2
A graphical representation of S N P, annual foreign visitor arrivals.

SNP, annual foreign visitor arrivals. (Note: Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation (MoTCA), Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, 2020)

Full size image

The survey was conducted during October and November 2020, which is normally peak season. However, due to Covid-19, tourist numbers were less than 5% compared to the same period in 2019, which gave communities and individuals the time and the will to voice their concerns.

All interviews were conducted using the offline KoBoConnect (KoBoConnect n.d.) survey tool. Communities included in the survey represent 2850 Sherpa residents within the SNPBZ (approximately 40% of the population).

5 Results and Comparative Analysis

Survey responses for a range of criteria were assessed against the baseline study (WNF, 2013), including Sherpa resident awareness of WHS status, awareness of climate change, satisfaction with tourism, cultural erosion, waste and litter management and illegal activities. One criterion that was not identified by residents but frequently observed by the research team and mentioned in the SoC reports was the use of helicopters in SNP and is therefore included in our findings. These selected criteria correspond with site-specific issues identified by park management (SNP, 2016) relating to inequitable tourism benefits, unregulated and concentrated tourism, poor capacity for sanitation, waste and garbage management, poaching of wildlife, overuse of helicopters, inappropriate or inadequate zonation within the park and buffer zone and poor goods transportation capacity.

  • Awareness of World Heritage Status

During community and individual surveys, the WHS status of SNP was considered to be of little or no benefit and thought of as a form of restriction or control in local management committees. A female Sherpa from Dingboche succinctly summarises a common sentiment in all communities surveyed: “Park management and WHS do nothing for us, they only make more rules to stop us from doing business.” (respondent 15, Field Study, 2021, p. 12).

This indicates that site management is failing to communicate the importance of WHS status to conservation efforts and tourism development. This finding concurs with Sherpa (2021) and the baseline assessment of WNF (2013), which both noted little or no understanding of the significance of SNP’s WHS status among locals.

  • Awareness of Climate Change

Climate change was considered a threat and resource constraint in all community surveys and 30% of individual surveys. This opinion of a Sherpa lady was shared by many villagers: “Farming is changing, more insects, less harvest, rain at different times, there are many problems.” (respondent 20, Field Study, 2021, p. 14).

Specific issues identified included reduced irrigation water flows, especially during dry seasons; the increase in forest fires; irregular rainfall and unpredictable seasonality (impacting sowing and harvesting); decreasing grazing land; reduced harvest volumes and quality; and a reduction in the mountain aesthetic (reduced snowfall and receding glaciers). This finding concurs with both Sherpa (2021) and Nyaupane et al. (2014), who reported that residents perceive climate change as the single greatest threat to the region and livelihoods.

  • Satisfaction With Tourism

Community and individual surveys indicated an overwhelmingly positive satisfaction level with tourist flows and a general desire for even more tourists. Potential overcrowding on trails during the high season was not mentioned. All survey respondents ranked supplemental income as the greatest perceived benefit derived from tourism, followed by the ability to interact with tourists, a process often considered a source of learning and knowledge sharing. Sacareau (2009) also notes the positive development impacts of tourism in the SNPBZ, which has brought better houses as well as improved basic services. A Sherpa lady from Namche succinctly summarises a common sentiment: “People were better before, but life is better now.” (respondent 35, Field Study, 2021, p. 17).

Research into tourist satisfaction with their experience in SNP found similar responses, with 91% satisfied (Posch, 2013) and 87% of tourists recording positive reviews of their experience (ATTA, 2018). However, the rapid and extensive development of tourism in SNP does raise questions of carrying capacity in what is a delicate alpine environment.

Tourism in SNP engages more than 85% of the resident Sherpa population (Rai, 2017). Running lodges is considered especially lucrative along the main tourist trail from Lukla to EBC (Rai, 2017), where income from the main season is sufficient for running a household and providing child education for an entire year. However, the distribution of economic benefits rapidly reduces away from the main trekking route.

The heavy reliance on seasonal tourism has also contributed to increasing vulnerabilities in SNP as tourism demand is, in general, a volatile industry, being extremely susceptible to external developments over which communities have little control, such as natural disasters, exchange rate fluctuations, political unrest and pandemics (Kruk & Banskota, 2007).

  • Cultural Erosion

UNESCO recognises the intricate contribution of Sherpa culture to SNP’s unique OUV, and it is considered a major tourist highlight. Most survey responses identified tourism as a positive source of cultural exchange and learning about the ‘outside world’. Respondents did not feel that Sherpa culture was generally weakening, thus, confirming what has been found in other studies (Nyaupane et al., 2014). A female Sherpa from Dingboche summarises her benefits by saying, “I learn English from tourists and how to do different dances!” (respondent 14, Field Study, 2021, p. 11).

The changing nature of buildings and the landscape due to tourism was not mentioned by respondents but has received attention from researchers and was identified in the SoC reports (SNP, 2017, 2019) and baseline study (WNF, 2013). In all communities, there is a marked increase in construction without any evident planning criteria and an associated loss of traditional architecture (Nyaupane et al., 2014), challenging the authenticity and integrity of the site.

  • Waste and Litter Management

Waste management was identified as a very strong negative impact in all community and individual surveys, SoC reports (SNP, 2017, 2019) and in the baseline study (WNF, 2013). All community respondents strongly emphasised the need for a more comprehensive waste management solution. “Rubbish problem is growing every year.” A male Sherpa from Chheplung succinctly summarises this negative impact of tourism (respondent 7, Field Study, 2021, p. 8).

That tourism in SNP is the largest direct and indirect contributor to waste generation has been thoroughly established (Manfredi et al., 2010; Sagarmatha Next, 2018; Zuser et al., 2011). Waste is categorised as kitchen/organic (fed to livestock or composted), burnable (22% paper, 14% plastic and 8% PET bottles) and non-burnable (5% metal, 5% glass, 4% textiles and 2% aluminium). A Kathmandu University study (Sagarmatha Next, 2018) calculated the average total waste generation in SNP to be 787 kg/day, of which non-degradable categories are often burnt in one of 75 dumping pits during low tourist seasons or disposed of in open areas (Sagarmatha Next, 2018; SPCC, 2018). This contributes significantly to local and regional air pollution and poses a significant hazard to human and animal health (Byers et al., 2021; ICIMOD, 2019). Additionally, black carbon soot emitted from burn-pits and fuelwood contributes directly to increased glacial melt (Mani, 2021). Most dump sites are located close to rivers that are prone to regular flooding during monsoon, thereby directly contaminating river water (SNP, 2016). There is currently no comprehensive system to collect and dispose of hospital waste or other toxic substances (Lichtberger, 2015). The most visible form of waste is litter, for which the Sagarmatha Pollution Control Committee (SPCC) has built 106 bins (SPCC, 2018) as part of the ongoing waste management plan. SNP management has introduced a number of rules to ban glass beer bottles and plastic bags; however, inadequate implementation means they remain commonplace. Tightening regulations for expeditions (SPCC, 2018) is a further step towards more effective waste management but is being offset by increasing tourism flows.

  • Illegal Activities

The SoC reports (SNP, 2017, 2019) and baseline study (WNF, 2013) identified illegal activities (tree felling without permission and poaching) as a threat to SNP. Strong community support combined with rigorous patrolling of the park by authorities over the last decade has seen these activities reduced to near-zero levels (SNP, 2016). Accordingly, this issue was not identified by any survey respondents.

  • Air Traffic

The SoC reports (SNP, 2017, 2019) and baseline study (WNF, 2013) identify air traffic as an issue, but it was not mentioned by any community or individual respondents. However, during the survey process, the team noticed frequent, regular helicopter flights in SNP.

During the high season (approximately 20 weeks of the year), there are 40–100 inbound fixed-wing flights to Lukla. Over 95% of tourists who visit SNP fly to and from Lukla from Kathmandu, so tourists contributed at least 22,000 tons of CO2 to atmospheric emissions in 2019. Helicopter traffic is focused on flights beyond Lukla into the park area, with an average of 70–100 flights per day. Flights are roughly equally split between cargo (sheet metal and construction wood) and passengers (mountaineers and equipment, sightseers and medical evacuations). The estimated total contribution of helicopter flights is 4000 tons of CO2 to atmospheric emissions (both calculations based on facteurs mobitool; mobitool, n.d.).

Without no monitoring or evaluation of CO2 emissions, nor offsetting programs within Nepal, these results suggest that tourism is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. This is especially concerning given that the SNP WHS is embedded in the SDGs.

6 Threats Comparison

A comparison of threats from the 2013 benchmark study (WNF, 2013) with those from the 2020 survey can be made with reservations. SoC reports and the benchmark study are primarily based on expert interviews (decision makers, stakeholders, scientists, journalists) who were asked about an indicator set. The benchmark analysis showed that SNP performed significantly worse than the other protected mountain regions in the study; Kilimanjaro, Mt. Kenya, Swiss World Heritage Jungfrau-Aletsch and Sardona tectonic region. Although the methodology of the two studies is different – condensed expert interviews versus participatory methods like group surveys and interviews of residents – the results are relevant (Table 22.1).

Table 22.1 Summary comparison of threats to the SNP WHS
Full size table

The comparison concurs with the SNP Management Plan (SNP, 2016) that the threats posed by climate change, environmental pollution and vulnerabilities posed by uncontrolled tourism development have continued to increase. Although these issues are identified in the current management plan, the control or measures to combat them do not appear to be sufficient. After 40 years of WHS status and numerous international donor-driven development projects, effective implementation of protective measures only appears possible through more stringent management and stronger involvement of responsible local committees and user groups.

7 Saving Mount Everest – Towards an Integrated Preservation Strategy

To reduce pressures related to tourism and climate change, the SNP-cum-World Heritage Management Plan must be stringently implemented within a multi-stakeholder governance system and engage residents in sustainable development, as suggested by Luger and Ripp (2021).

The SNPBZ Management Plan vision is to be a “representative example of biodiversity in the highest point of the world which is managed to enhance the unique biodiversity and maintain OUV of the area with active community participation that eventually supports the welfare of human being in perpetuity” (SNP, 2016, p. 15). Even though the conservation of SNPBZ’s biodiversity is central to the success of tourism, individual businesses are often in conflict with park interests, such that park rules are only followed by locals if they do not contradict their own interests. This is most obvious in the lack of appropriate measures to manage waste and litter and air traffic. This untenable state of affairs can only be remedied by park administration taking a much stricter approach through stronger management, but there is a lack of capacity, staff, budget and willingness to deal with conflicts of this kind with the leading stakeholders.

The second source of potential conflict is a lack of awareness of the need for an overarching WHS management strategy among residents and stakeholders. Park management has the objective ‘to promote sustainable tourism and regulate it for maintaining ecological integrity and cultural heritage’ (SNP, 2016, p. 13) and unregulated tourism and land encroachment are considered a threat. However, there is no significant input from SNP management to establish a suitable tourism development policy as recommended by UNESCO.

During the past five years of the SNPBZ plan (to be revised in 2021/22), the number of tourists increased considerably, and tourism’s leading role in the local economy will no doubt continue. However, uncontrolled development of multi-storey hotels, waste generation and air traffic are changing SNP’s integrity and authenticity and, therefore, threatening OUV. Reconciliation is possible through sustainable tourism that integrates local cultural values, especially those that support SNP conservation and preservation agendas. Such an approach would appear to be an obvious pathway for greater community participation and to mitigate cultural erosion pressures. Reducing the impact of illegal activities is a case in point where locals and park management have collaborated effectively. Conversely, the Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation will not take strict measures voluntarily because licences create revenue for the state. Therefore, the UNESCO World Heritage Centre should urge the State Party to impose restrictions on air traffic and to introduce a carbon emission offset scheme through carbon sequestration projects in SNP.

Waste management requires a comprehensive review with a focus on the extraction of recyclable materials and appropriate disposal of non-recyclables. This requires resident involvement and greater responsibility by incorporating the ‘preserving character’ of Sherpa culture more strongly into the self-responsible conservation goals of the WHS. To do so means educating local communities on the importance of WHS status and benefits to SNP, on climate-smart practices and on increasing community engagement with day-to-day park management issues. Sagarmatha Next (2018) proposes a new waste management structure with a solid financial basis for SPCC, staff training and upgrading technical equipment (Byers et al., 2021). Open incineration of waste in dumping sites should be strictly prohibited. Undoubtedly, the best solution would be to not bring any goods into SNP and to pursue waste avoidance more consistently. The proposal for a goods-only ropeway between Namche and Lukla, to a site near the soon to be completed overland road in the buffer zone, should be seriously considered, as this would appear to offer an almost ideal low-cost solution by reducing impacts of porterage and helicopter use. To achieve a higher level of community engagement and SNP management effectiveness, more staff, more training, more budget and a stronger right of intervention to enable the staff to fulfil their monitoring and control tasks are required.

SNP WHS receives worldwide attention, and successful site management could be an exemplary example for other mountain areas. Academic institutions have described and analysed the challenges and problems over the years, but too little of this knowledge has reached the local population or been integrated into the body of knowledge by park management and then implemented. To solve this problem, a well-staffed and skilled department is needed to coordinate and enact research through SNP’s multi-stakeholder, community-engaged preservation strategy.

The challenges in the SNP WHS are great, as both conflicts and threats are increasing. Climate change is challenging the OUV of the site, and the negative aspects of tourism are exacerbating the problem. International backing through science and development projects that support the multi-stakeholder environment of residents and national and local authorities are therefore welcome.