Everest climbers to follow new route after last year's disaster
|
Version 0 of 1. Climbers attempting to ascend Everest by the popular South Col route from Nepal will follow a new path to avoid a repeat of last year’s avalanche, which killed 16 local guides. The new route, set by local authorities, will deviate from that followed since the first ascent of the highest mountain in the world in 1953 and pass through the centre of the mountain’s infamous Khumbu icefall, rather than follow its left side, where the recent tragedy occurred. Tulasi Prasad Gautam, director of the Nepali government’s Department of Tourism, said that the new route would be closer to the centre of the icefall, where the avalanche risk is deemed to be considerably less. “In response to the last year’s avalanche we are trying to make Everest climbing a little safer by avoiding the old route,” he told the Guardian. The fatal avalanche last year led to a boycott by Sherpa climbers and the cancellation of all expeditions on Everest. The vast majority of climbers over the decades and today have stuck to the original route pioneered by Sir Edmund Hilary and Sherpa Tenzing 60 years ago. The aim is to limit the exposure of all climbers, but especially guides and porters, to danger from snow and ice slides, officials in Nepal said. Typically the foreign clients who pay up to $50,000 (£32,000) for a chance to reach the summit on commercial expeditions only pass through the icefall – a lethal jumble of blocks of ice and crevasses formed when the Khumbu glacier slides over cliffs on Everest’s lower slopes – once or twice. However, local support staff make multiple trips through the danger zone. Sherpas have to find and maintain a new route through the icefall every year, but have previously stuck to the original line taken by the first ascensionists. Ang Dorji Sherpa, chairman of the Sagarmatha Pollution Control Committee, an organisation authorised to set routes on Everest, said that danger was an inherent part of climbing mountains. “However, we are trying to make the route little safer so that there will be less risk,” he said. The move is the latest in a series of initiatives seeking to manage conflicting demands centred on the 29,000ft (8,848m) peak. One suggestion was to install a ladder on the famous Hillary Step, a crucial pitch just below the summit to ease congestion. Others include introducing separate fixed ropes for climbers ascending and descending near the summit to help ease the traffic and posting a team of government officials at the base camp located at 5,300m (17,380ft) throughout the spring climbing season to monitor climbers and coordinate with expedition leaders. The officials would be able to prevent disputes and would have the power to cancel the climbing permit or even order the climbers to leave the mountain. Locals who can earn more than $5,000 for a season working as guides on the mountain, around 10 times the average annual income in Nepal, have sought better conditions of work and protection. Everest has become very crowded during the peak climbing season of April and May, when snow and weather conditions give the greatest chance of a successful summit bid. More than 4,000 people have reached the top over nearly 62 years, with around 800 expected to attempt the climb this year. Of 250 who have died on the peak, around 40 have been killed in the icefall. Authorities recently cut the charges demanded by the government for attempting to climb the mountain by the classic South Col route in peak season, from a maximum of $25,000 to a flat fee of $11,000 for each climber. The aim was to “discourage artificially formed groups, where the leader does not even know some of the members of the team … and … promote responsible and serious climbers”. Fees for attempting the mountain in the tougher autumn season or by another route are as low as $2,500. Some mountaineers have resisted the further “commercialisation” of Everest and, more generally, mountaineering in Nepal. However, the sport is an important component of tourism that makes up about 4% of the impoverished nation’s GDP. |