ASIAN ALPINE E-NEWS
Issue No. 46 February 2019

Achiktash Valley – Lenin Peak, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan – Edinburg, UK 2018

Contents
Research of Mountaineering on Lenin Peak 2019 - A criticalassessment of mountaineering tourism on Lenin Peak,
Kyrgyzstan: current issues and potential solutions
by Dr Vladimir Komissarov, Kyrgyz Alpine Club and Kyrgyz
Mountain Guides Association, Kyrgyzstan and Dr J. Stephen
Taylor Edinburgh Napier University, UK.
Page 2 ~ 641

A critical assessment of mountaineering tourism on Lenin
Peak, Kyrgyzstan: current issues and potential solutions

Dr Vladimir Komissarov,
Kyrgyz Alpine Club and Kyrgyz Mountain Guides Association, Kyrgyzstan.
Dr J. Stephen Taylor
Edinburgh Napier University, UK.

Achiktash Valley – Lenin Peak
Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan – Edinburg, UK
20181

Introduction
It has been long recognized that the potential for adventure tourism in Kyrgyzstan
is huge due to its extensive mountainous landscape. This potential has beenhighlighted in a number of studies conducted since the country’s independence in theearly 1990s. During this time tourism has developed, albeit unevenly and without
appropriate coordination and regulation nor the necessary consideration ofenvironmental impacts and tourist safety. It is this background of unplanned growththat necessitates the need for a critical assessment of the current situation and for theidentification of an appropriate strategy for future tourism development. Here, this iswith specific reference to adventure tourism and, in particular, mountaineering tourism.
The focus here is upon the most developed example of this type of tourism which iscentered upon the 7,134 meter Lenin Peak
Accordingly, the specific focus of the present study is an assessment of theeconomic and environmental impacts of mountaineering tourism on Lenin Peak andthe wider issues associated with its longer term sustainability. As such, we attempt toprovide an overview of the current tourism related activities on Lenin Peak and seek
to identify some initial recommendations for improving current practices. As indicatedabove, the ultimate intention of this research is, through drawing upon the lessons tobe learned from Lenin Peak, to develop a model of best practice that will support the
future sustainable development of not only mountaineering tourism, but also adventure
tourism and other forms of natural area based tourism generally, throughout
Kyrgyzstan.
The present study draws upon the experiences of the authors in diverse activities(tour operator activity, sports mountaineering, guiding, rescue work in the mountains,organization of festivals, etc.) gained through mountaineering generally both inKyrgyzstan and further afield, in addition to direct experiences of mountaineering on
Lenin Peak. This background has made it possible to conduct a comprehensive studyof the main aspects of the current state of activity associated with mountaineering
tourism on Lenin Peak and to identify the key problems and to provide some tentative
suggestions as to how to resolve them.

Specific objectives of study
1. To explore the nature of the demand for tourism on Lenin Peak and how tourism
satisfaction and demand might be increased.
2. To identify the nature of the supply-side of tourism on Lenin Peak in terms of its
organisation, the associated employment, and how some of the problems
outlined here might be addressed.
3. To assess the environmental issues associated with tourism on Lenin Peak andpropose strategies for managing the ecological impacts identified.
4. To outline the safety issues involved with tourism on Lenin Peak and suggest
how these might be better managed.
2

Current situation
At the present time there is limited knowledge regarding Kyrgyz mountaineering
tourism in respect of its current, and potential future, scale and value. Similarly, there
is little known about its environmental impacts, the tourism experience in respect ofsatisfaction and safety or indeed the impacts upon, and perceptions of, the local
communities affected. The huge potential for mountaineering and adventure tourism
more generally in Kyrgyzstan has been highlighted in a number of studies
commissioned since the country’s independence in 1993. The present study focusesupon the current state of this sector of the tourism industry with a view to assessing
its opportunities and how these might be best realised in both the short and longer
terms. Here the focus is upon Lenin Peak which represents the largest example ofmountaineering tourism in Kyrgyzstan today and offers an excellent case study forinvestigating and establishing the basis for the sustainable development of mountainbased tourism throughout Kyrgyzstan in the future.

Background on Lenin Peak
The peak is located in the central part of the Zaalay Range, on the Kyrgyzstan-Tajik
border. From the northern, Kyrgyzstan side, the Achik-Tash base camp is reachedfrom the city of Osh via Sary-Tash village by vehicle along an excellent asphalt roadup to Kashkasu Village (65 km) and then across the Kyzylsuu River bridge and along
a 32 km dirt road. The Lenin Peak massive is located between the Razdelnaya Pass
(altitude of 6080m) from the west and the Krylenko Pass (altitude of 5820m) from theeast. Overall, the length of the Lenin Peak massive from pass to pass is some 9.5 km,
and the length from the western shoulder of the summit (6442m) to the easternshoulder (6601m) is 6.5 km. The northern slopes of the massive are ice covered andthese flow down to form the Lenin Glacier in the Gorge. There are now 19 itineraries
to the summit of Lenin Peak; 10 routes go from the northern side (Kyrgyzstan) and 9of them go from the southern side (Tajikistan). The safest and most popular itineraryis the route from the north, going from Achik-Tash through the Razdelnaya Summit(6148m).

3

Pic. 1. Topographic map of the Zaalai Range and the Alai Valley (from the guidebook “Mountaineering, ski
mountaineering and climbing areas of Kyrgyzstan” by V. Komissarov http://asian-alpine-enews.com/asian_alpine_e-new_issue_no37.pdf in English , 2018) 1) Lenin Peak and Achiktash Gorge.

Photo 1. Lenin Peak massiv.

4Fig 2. Topo-orographic map of Achiktash gorge and Lenin peak (7134m).

The summit was first described in 1871 by the Russian geographer and traveller A.P.
5

Fedchenko, who called the summit Peak Kaufman after the local governor-general ofthat time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkestan). In 1928, the first ascent to thesummit was done by a Pamir Russian-German expedition, the climbers being theGerman pair of Karl Wien and Eugene Allwein and the Austrian alpinist Erwin
Schneider who renamed the summit Lenin Peak. Two further ascents to the summit
were done before the Second World War. A new stage of exploration of the area
started after the Second World War and went through until the end of the 1960s, withthe latter part of this era being marked with organization of numerous mass highaltitude ascents. Regular ascents to the summit started in 1972 when the first Soviet
Union International Mountaineering Camp (IMC) was arranged in Achik-Tash. During
the twenty years of its operation until the early 1990s, this camp (MAL Pamir) received
mountaineering tourists from across the world.

Origins of mountaineering tourism in Kyrgyzstan
Mountaineering in Kyrgyzstan has a long history, stretching back to the 1920s andthe Soviet era, when the first early ascents where made in the great mountain rangesof the Caucasus, the Pamirs and the Tien Shan. Under the Soviet system,
mountaineering was actively promoted as a tool for the physical development of theworking people and the army.
This active promotion and development of mountaineering by the Soviets, led to thecreation, from 1931 onwards, of permanent mountaineering camps in a number ofmountainous regions, which included Kyrgyzstan. At the beginning of perestroika, fivecamps operated in Kyrgyzstan: Ala-Archa (Bishkek); Dugoba (Fergana); Ala-Too(Karakol); Vysotnik (Osh); and MAL Pamir (Osh).
The first mountaineers visited Kyrgyzstan in the 1930s as part of the research
expeditions to the Pamir and the Tien Shan, during which they made the first ascentsof many of the highest peaks. From the 1950s the focus was largely upon the mostaccessible mountain ranges. The peak of Kyrgyz mountaineering activity occurred in
the 1970s and 1980s. During this period the glaciers Ak-Sai and Adygene in the AlaArcha National Park (not far from the Kyrgyz capital of Bishkek) were visited every
year by 4000 mountaineers from all over the USSR. At this time it is estimated that in
Bishkek there were around some 600 mountaineers. Under the Soviet system, thismountaineering activity was based on rigid rules and procedures alongside a hierarchyof levels of competence and it was financed by state and trade union budgets.
With the collapse of the USSR in 1991, many of the alpinist traditions and practices
established during the Soviet-era mountaineering system were lost. However, thisalso heralded new and exciting opportunities to attract mountaineers from across theworld. As has been identified in a number of studies the quantity and quality of themountains in Kyrgyzstan have a huge amount of potential to attract larger numbers ofmountaineering tourists (and more general adventure tourists) from a global market.
It is exploiting this untapped potential that is the ultimate focus of the current
research. By examining, in detail, the issues surrounding the existing activity centered
upon the country’s single biggest source of mountaineering tourism, Lenin Peak, it ishoped to identify not only how to optimize the sustainability of this present activity, but
6also how the future development of mountaineering tourism (and adventure tourism
more generally) in Kyrgyzstan can be developed on a sustainable basis.

Climbing Lenin Peak: Key features
As noted above, there have been some 19 routes established on Lenin Peak, with
10 of these from the northern Kyrgyzstan side and the remaining 9 from the sourthern
Tajikistan side. It should be noted that the Tajik name for the mountain is Ibni Sino
Peak. The vast majority of ascents are made from the northern side via Razdelnaya
Peak and this can be considered to be the standard route of ascent. It is useful at thispoint to provide an overview of the ascent of Lenin Peak to orientate the reader to its
key features. These will be referred to throughout the report.
Following the internationally accepted practice of naming camps in the mountains,
we refer to the camps as follows: Base camp (BC) in the Achik Tash Valley is locatedat an altitude of 3600 meters; while Advance base camp (ABC) is at an altitude of 4200
meters. Visiting climbers will spend the majority of their visit in these two camps. Bothof these camps can also be used to access other peaks in the vicinity. From ABC thestandard route of ascent (Razdelnaya route) ascends up the glacier on the north faceof the peak before traversing rightwards at an altitude of 5,200 meters (this area isreferred to as the "frying pan" due to the extreme heat during the day) to reach Camp
1 (C1) which is located at an altitude of 5,300 meters. From here the route continues
to reach the shoulder of the ridge above C1, which it follows to Camp 2 (C2) which is
set at 6,100 meters just below the summit of Razdelnaya (6,148 meters). Sometimes
a third camp (C3) is established at around 6,400 meters.
Confusingly, among some climbers, another procedure for naming camps ispracticed. This is partly caused by foreign guidebooks using a different naming system,
whereby the ABC is incorrectly called Camp 1 (C1), then the next camp (the true C1)
becomes called Camp 2 and so on. This is not only confusing, it is also potentially
dangerous as it can lead to misunderstandings which can then have severe practicalconsequences, e.g. in rescue situations and when sharing information about route andweather conditions on the mountain. It is thus recommended that the convention
outlined above is adopted by all those on the mountain.
One method to help develop this shared use of terminology is to visiting encourage
climbers to consult the first edition of the guidebook Mountaineering Areas of
Kyrgyzstan by Vladimir Komissarov. This is available in Russian, English and French,and is posted on the Internet. In the guide there is a chapter about climbing Lenin
Peak. Currently, the author is preparing a second, updated and expanded edition of
the guidebook. As the chapters of this new guide are being written, they are being
published in the online edition of the magazine "Asian Alpine E-News" (https://asianalpine-e-news.com/). A description of the ascent of description of the wider Zaalay
Range is published. In addition, there is also some brief information about the area of
Lenin Peak and the route of ascent available on the Lenin Peak is published in volume
23 of this magazine, while in volume 37 a commercial sites of the tour companies
offering programs for climbing Lenin Peak.

7

While this, when taken together the guidebook and the available commercial
information, provides a considerable amount of guidance for climbers, there is scope
to greatly harness its dissemination. For example, the creation of an Internet portal(which, as suggested below, could be used as a platform for also promoting
mountaineering tourism more generally in Kyrgyzstan) that provided links to theInternet sites of all six tour operators and also provided links to access the guidebook
and other important information and resources (e.g. general background on the area
and its wider attractions, strategies for minimizing environmental impacts, alternative
acclimatization strategies, alternative peaks to climb in the area etc.). Additionally,
this portal could be used to promote the wider mountain areas of Kyrgyzstan with aview to encouraging and expanding the demand for mountaineering tourism.

Tourism on Lenin Peak: Consumers
The tourism associated with Lenin Peak is centered upon the Achik-Tash valley andit annually attracts a significant number of tourists from across the world. The exact
number of tourists is currently unknown as tour operators do not share this information.
However, it possible to estimate the size and value of this tourism based on information
obtained from various indirect sources. Thus we estimate that in season 2018 around
1,100 people stayed in one of the base camps. This is estimated to split across the
six operators as follows: Ak-Sai – 500; Pamir Expeditions – 200; Asia Mountains –100; Tien Shan Travel – 100; Fortune Tour – 100; and ITMC – 100. It is further
estimated that the average spend per tourist is $600 USD, giving an estimated total ofsome $660,000 USD the two month season. It is hoped that the Ministry of Tourism
will be able to enable a more accurate number for visitors to be established byproviding access to the data on the number of border permits issued for the area. This
would also provide more accurate information on the source countries of visitors.
In response to this high level of interest in ascending Lenin Peak, tour operators
have developed two general products: (a) a “full program” which is aimed at higher
budgets and/or those who require or desire a higher level of local support; and (b) a“budget program” which is aimed at those on a more limited budget and/or who requireor desire more limited local support. The full program includes almost all thenecessary services for those wishing to attempt an ascent of the peak: the pickup/drop-off at Osh airport; all transfers to/from the base camp, overnightaccommodation in hotels (Osh/Bishkek) and in all the camps on the mountain; borderzone permits; registration of passports; visa support, where required; registration withrescue services; access to all facilities provided at base camp (BC) and advanced
base camp (ABC) – e.g. meals; toilets; showers; electrical charging points etc. andaccess to an experienced mountain guide for advice regarding ascent strategies.
The budget program typically includes transfers from the airport to BC and back;border zone permits; registration of passports; visa support, where required;registration with rescue services; access to BC and ABC infrastructure, but using own
tents and with no meal provision; and access to an experienced mountain guide foradvice.

8

For an additional fee it is possible for mountaineers to also access the services ofa mountain guide for the ascent; porterage of luggage between all the camps,
purchase of gas cartridges and the rental of various equipment technical equipment
including radios.
The four source markets, and their shares, for Lenin Peak are estimated as follows:
A. The market segment from CIS countries is about 25% of tourists. This
segment is typically accessing a budget program;
B. The market segment from economically developed countries accounts forabout 60% of all tourists. It is estimated that 80% of this segment select thefull program; the remaining 20% select a budget program;
C. The market segment from developing countries is in the region of 5-10%
and the majority of visitors select a budget program;
D. The demand from the local market segment is less than 2% and typically abudget program is selected.
Overall, the current tourist demand splits almost evenly between the full program andthe budget program with developed countries being the single biggest segment and,by far, the most valuable.

The issue of the low success rate on Lenin PeakA major attraction of Lenin Peak is its reputation as being one of the technicallyeasiest 7000m peaks in the world. Despite this, or as we discuss below, partly becauseof this, surprisingly few mountaineers successfully reach the summit. Indeed, whilemost climbers will reach and sleep at C1, far fewer will actually sleep at C2 (although
they may visit C2, thus achieving a highpoint of 6,100 meters). Here we identify thereasons as to why there is such a low success rate on Lenin Peak.
While there are ten established routes of ascent on the northern (Krygyz) side ofLenin Peak, the vast majority of climbers will attempt the peak by the Razdelnaya routeas this is the safest and technically most straightforward route. Some sources
estimate that as few as 10-15% of attempts are successful, while others suggest amore optimistic 25%! Given that Lenin Peak is considered to be “easy”, both estimates
are surprisingly low. The obvious question here question is: Why do so few climbers
reach the summit?
The first reason is almost certainly that too many people underestimate thechallenge involved. As it is widely considered to be “easy”, many people overlook thefact that, regardless of the low degree of technical difficulty, it is still a 7000m peakwith all the associated implications and challenges of dealing with high altitude, badweather and the general high mountain environment. Accordingly, too many climbers
are not adequately physically and/or mentally prepared when they arrive at base camp.
Additionally, too many climbers do not adequately acclimatize for the ascent. For
example, our own research and experience suggest that where climbers use a “onestage acclimatization” strategy, only 6% ultimately made a successful ascent. Where
climbers used a “two stage acclimatization strategy” the success rate was 30%. It is9estimated that typically only 20-25% of climbers use a two stage acclimatization
strategy. It is this combination of lack of preparedness and the adoption of an
inadequate acclimatization that appears to account for the very low success rate.
In short, climbers must arrive adequately prepared in terms of both their physicaland mental condition (and have adequate technical skills) plus they need to adopt a
two stage acclimatization strategy, if they are to maximize their chances of successon Lenin Peak.
Improving success rates
Essentially, there is only so much tour operators can do here and this consists ofensuring clients are given good advice as early as possible to enable them to makethe necessary plans and take the necessary actions. Having a dedicated Internet
portal with the key information on planning and preparing for an ascent of Lenin Peakwould greatly help here (and perhaps for mountaineering more generally in
Kyrgyzstan). First and foremost, climbers must arrive with appropriate levels of fitness
and the necessary basic skills. However, ensuring that this is the case is far from easy.
For their part, the tour operators can try and communicate the need for clients toaddress these two basic prerequisites. Similarly, the communication of suitable
itineraries for a two stage acclimatization strategy can help climbers ensure they
allocate sufficient time to their ascent and to adopt an approach to doing do so that
not only increases their chances of success but also increases the safety of theirascent.

Improving customer satisfaction
While some of the current level of failures might be addressed by the suggestions
above, inevitably there will continue to be a significant number of mountaineering
tourists who fail to summit Lenin Peak. This will constitute a highly negative
experience for many visitors, particularly those whose summit hopes end very early intheir trip when it becomes clear that they may not have the necessary fitness for an
ascent to over 7000 meters. Here the development of a range of separate itineraries
on surrounding lower peaks could provide suitable and satisfying alternatives for thissegment. Additionally this, along with the proposal in Section 7.6 regarding alternative
acclimatization itineraries, helps to disperse the impact over tourism over a wider area,
thus minimizing the impacts on C1 in particular (see Section 7.2). As well as
alternative mountaineering objectives, the promotion of other natural area tourism
activities such as horse riding and trekking could be promoted which would also
provide additional income to local people. More generally, drawing upon the existing
tourism infrastructure (e.g. that provided by the members of the Krygyz Community
Based Tourism association – KCBTA) and by the base camps of the tour operators,
scope exists to develop the Achik-Tash valley as a hub for generating demand foradventure tourism both locally and more widely in the Chon-Alai district. Such an
approach has already been successfully implemented in the eastern part of the IssyKul region.
10

The promotion of Kyrgyz mountaineering tourism
Due to the sheer scale and quality of its mountains, the relative popularity of
Kyrgyzstan as a mountaineering tourism destination is considerably higher than the
country’s general popularity for attracting tourism. In short, Kyrgyzstan has a muchgreater potential to be a world class destination for mountaineering tourism than it has
to be a general tourism destination. By sustainably exploiting this natural resource,
Kyrgyzstan can not only greatly increase the number of mountaineering tourism, butultimately increase its amount of natural area tourism generally.
While Kyrgyzstan has developed a strong reputation within the global alpine
community, other than reports and articles by previous expeditions published inclimbing magazine and online (e.g. via the American Alpine Club) and information
provided by commercial tour operators, there is no independent and comprehensive
easily accessible source of information on mountaineering in Kyrgyzstan. In addition,
there is an absence of any coherent strategy to disseminate information about Kyrgyz
tourism generally never mind specific areas of adventure tourism such as climbing,
mountaineering and ski-mountaineering etc. While for Russian speakers there is quite
a lot of good information on Kyrgyzstan’s mountains is available via the Internet, ahuge gap exists for reaching English speakers. Accordingly, an immediate priority for
improving the promotion of mountaineering tourism in Kyrgyzstan concerns thedevelopment of a universal/one-stop Internet portal providing all the necessary
information for potential visitors.
Presently, the promotion of Kyrgyzstan as a mountaineering tourism destination isvery poor. While private sector tour operators do selectively market their own offers,
they do not actively promote more general mountaineering (and adventure) tourism
demand. To a limited extent, this wider promotion is undertaken by some non-profit
public sector bodies, e.g. the Kyrgyz Alpine Club (KAC) which as an active member of
the Union of Asian Alpine Associations (UAAA) promotes Kyrgyzstan as amountaineering destination to the developed Asian countries. The KAC hasdeveloped a number of successful initiatives, such as the Mountain Spirit project,which has been running for the last five years. This invites young alpinists frommember countries to come to Kyrgyzstan, free of charge, in return for them writing andpublishing reports on their experiences, with a view to encouraging other young
alpinists to visit Kyrgyzstan. This has led to an increased numbers of Asian climbers
visiting. Similarly, the recent ascension in 2017 of the Kyrgyz Mountain Guides
Association (KMGA) to full membership of the International Federation of Mountain
Guide Associations (IFMGA) has greatly increased the country’s visibility as amountaineering destination. Scope to increase this influence and visibility exists
through membership of the International Union of Mountaineering Associations (UIAA)
which is effectively a global version of the UAAA.
Given the widespread use of the Internet there exists scope here to develop a
resource for the general promotion of Kyrgyz mountaineering tourism to a global
audience. As suggested above, this could be initially based upon an Internet portal
developed specifically for promoting Lenin Peak which is currently the single biggest
mountaineering attraction in Kyrgyzstan.
11Tourism on Lenin Peak: SuppliersOver the last four to five years, there have been six tour operators providing tourism
services on Lenin Peak. In the past this has been as high as fifteen operators. The
six companies and their relative market shares were highlighted above. This showsthat Ak-Sai Travel have about 45% of the market, Pamir Expeditions 18% and theremaining four: Tien Shan Travel; Asia Mountains; Fortune Tour and ITMC have about
10% each.
Types of employment
Although a short season of about two months, running from early July to early
September, the tourism demand generated by Lenin Peak creates a significant
amount of employment for around 200 people. The range of positions includes: camp
managers/chiefs; cooks; kitchen workers; handymen/laborers; drivers; horsemen;high-altitude porters; mountaineering instructors; mountain guides and medical
doctors.
The vast majority – circa 80%– of those employed at Lenin Peak are Kyrgyz citizens.
Typically, they are employed in the lower skilled, lower paid occupations (e.g. kitchen
staff; handymen; and drivers) while non-Kyrgyz citizens occupy the higher skilled andhigher paid roles (e.g. camp managers; mountain guides; and high altitude porters).
These labor migrants are drawn from the CIS countries and mainly from the EEU. The
local population from the Alai Valley provides all the horsemen and many of thehandymen and kitchen workers.
In addition to the services (and associated employment) provided by these six tour
operators, additional services (e.g. transport from Osh to BC and porterage between
the various camps) are provided by a range of different sources. Transfers to andfrom Osh are either provided by the tour operators or by specialized transportcompanies based in Osh. Porterage services, using horses, between BC and ABC
are provided by residents of the Chon-Alai district. Typically, each tour operator hasa permanent local partner offering this service to users of each BC. Additionally, there
are a number of other local horsemen providing a similar (typically cheaper) service
directly to tourists. As discussed below, mountain guides and high altitude porters are
frequently self-employed, although some may have a special relationship with one ormore of the tour operators.

Mountain guides
A key occupation is that of the mountain guide. It is the role of the mountain guideto supervise the ascent and provide advice and technical support, ensuring client
safety. Since 2018 the Kyrgyz Mountain Guide Association (KGMA) has been a full
member of the International Federation of Mountain Guide Association (IFMGA) andall qualified KGMA guides are recognized as having a professional standard
12

equivalent to guides in, for example, France, Switzerland and the USA. While in somecountries (e.g. the alpine region of Western Europe and in North America) the use of
the title “mountain guide” and the provision of mountain guiding services is restricted
to those individuals who have obtained the required professional qualifications, this is
not the case in Kyrgyzstan at present. Consequently, it is possible for anyone todesignate themselves as a mountain guide and perform this role. This current issue
might be addressed in the future by proposed legal changes in relation to Kyrgyzstan’s
tourism industry.
However the current situation is a cause for concern as the well paid nature of thework attracts unqualified climbers to provide mountain guide services and there is noeffort to monitor the suitability of those providing such services. This raises concerns
about the safety of their clients and the general quality of what is being provided. It isestimated that current demand, excluding those tourists who bring their own guide, isfor around 40 professional mountain guides on Lenin Peak. However, in season 2018
it is estimated that only 20% of those who were locally based and performing the roleof mountain guides, held an IFMGA qualification (guide’s carnet). Those acting as
non-qualified guides are typically citizens of CIS countries.
As noted above, in the other countries whose national mountain guide training is
recognized by the IFMGA, anyone using the title of mountain guide typically must holda recognized professional qualification (of that country or another member state of the
IFMGA) and would be working under strict regulation, being licensed to practice inmuch the same way as a medical practitioner. This is currently not the case in
Kyrgyzstan. Such a change in legislation should be actively considered for
implementation in order to protect the quality and safety of guided mountain tourism,
not only on Lenin Peak, but throughout Kyrgyzstan.
The current shortfall identified of qualified mountain guides is problematic on Lenin
Peak. In the short term any change in the law, requiring only IFMGA guides to be
employed in this role, would create a significant undersupply in the necessary labor
due to the lag caused by the rigorous training and certification scheme. Recognitionof this fact requires that an acceptable and pragmatic solution is devised that ensures
the safety of tourists and provides them with a positive experience.
One potential solution is to create a cost effective and timely customized
certification “Lenin Guide” scheme, taking approximately three weeks, just for Lenin
Peak. This fast –track route would be available to those individuals who had thenecessary technical training and background for guiding on Lenin Peak; the requiredclient knowledge and skills; and a record of successful ascents of the mountain. In
the short term this could fill the gap in qualified mountain guides and go somesignificant way to improving the safety and experience of tourists. The KMGA has thenecessary resources and experience to provide such a scheme.
While the KMGA accredited mountain guides have full professional equivalencewith other IFMGA recognized guides, there does remain a shortfall in respect of theiraccess to insurance cover for professional indemnity; public liability; and their own
personal accident cover. This is something that IFMGA guides from other countries
would almost certainly hold (and be required to hold by law) and it is something clients13

would expect their guide to have. The KMGA needs to address this issue (perhaps
with the support of the IFMGA) in the immediate future to protect the safety and wellbeing of both its members and their clients, as well as protecting the reputation of
Kyrgyz mountain guides.

High altitude porters
The second category of specialized employment on Lenin Peak is that of the highaltitude porter (HAP). The work this role entails is both physically demanding anddangerous. Consequently, it attracts a high rate of pay, with a single porter earning in
the region of 200,000-300,000 Soms (approx. $3,000-$4,500 USD) in the short twomonth season. For tourists, this is a service which can add a considerable amount ofadditional cost to their trip and consequently may directly contribute to the number oftourists using a “one stage acclimatization strategy”. Certainly, the feedback gathered
during own research, suggests that for some climbers the costs of porterage to thehigher camps is an influence upon their behavior and decision making regarding
acclimatization while on the mountain. Additionally, the pricing of porterage services
is an area that tourists frequently report as a source of dissatisfaction and this probably
merits closer investigation.
Given the hazardous nature of the work of a HAP, under the Kyrgyz law on
Technical Regulation, the employer has an obligation to ensure that anyone employedto perform the role of a HAP has the necessary professional knowledge and skills inorder to comply with health and safety requirements. Where HAPs are self-employed,
there needs to be requirements that anyone performing the role of a HAP, underpatent/license or as an IP, has the necessary certification. The nature of the role of an
HAP needs to be formally recognized and clearly differentiated from the very different
traditional occupation of ‘porter’ with which it is typically associated. The professional
training of HAPs is carried out by the School of Industrial Mountaineering of the Kyrgyz
Alpine Club which has a license for educational activities in this area.
There is a number of problems associated with HAPs and these are evident on
Lenin Peak. First, tour operators are reluctant to employ HAPs due to the high costsof doing so and also, due to the dangerous nature of the work, with the associateddifficulty of providing the necessary level of safety and the potentially high costs of any
rescue or compensation arising as the result of an accident. Consequently, many
HAPs work on a self-employed basis and will typically have none of the desired
insurance cover due to the specialized insurance for this type of work not being
available from Kyrgyz insurers. In the event of an accident, this lack of insurance
cover can mean difficulties in organizing any rescue effort, due to the associated highcosts, and also means that any lost or damaged goods carried on behalf of tourists
are not subject to any compensation.

Dealing with the employment issues

14

As with mountain guides, the current situation with HAPs on Lenin Peak is a barrier
to the future development of safe and high quality mountain tourism, not only on Lenin
itself, but more widely throughout Kyrgyzstan. As suggested above, in the longer term,
there is a strong case for establishing regulations on mountain guiding similar to thosefound elsewhere, e.g. as in France. In the shorter term the proposed “Lenin Guide”
certification scheme offers a practical way to address some of the issues identified.
Similarly, there is the need to develop appropriate guidelines and regulations
regarding the work of HAPs in Kyrgyzstan. This would be greatly aided and supported
if there was the introduction of some form of required certification scheme for thoseundertaking HAP work.
An important and additional consideration, central to the concept of sustainable
tourism, concerns the involvement of the local community. As identified above, interms of employment this mainly involves the horsemen working between BC and ABC.
Potential exists here to increase local employment. For example, young local men
could be trained to be HAPs by introducing the sort of scheme developed by the Swiss
Helvetas project, in collaboration with the KAC, to train young men from Kash Kasu
and Sary Mogol to be HAPs. Similarly, young local women could work in catering at
BC and ABC if they were given the appropriate training in foodservice hygiene andlanguage training required to work with tourists. Both of these initiatives would
increase the level of local employment on Lenin Peak.

Tourism on Lenin Peak: Environmental issues
Overall, the general ecological and sanitary conditions in the Achik Tash valley of:(i) the mountaineering camps; (ii) the shepherds' summer pasture camps; and (iii) the
Lenin glacier is of great concern. The activities of the camps in this aspect are
regulated by the existing SANPINs (these are the official state sanitary andepidemiological rules and regulations) for both temporary tourist camps and thesummer shepherds’ camps. While the operations of the base camps at an altitude of
3,600 meters can be generally considered to be meeting the necessary SANPINS
regulations, this is not the case elsewhere on the mountain. As is highlighted below,
while some of the tour operators do appear to be attempting to observe the regulationsin their operation of camps at ABC, this is not always the case. Additionally, due totheir high altitude, the operation of C1 and C2 present challenges and this too is
discussed below. In assessing the state of the camps, we did not set ourselves thetask of verifying the full compliance of these camps with the requirements of SANPINs
as this is the task of the specialists of the state sanitary and environmental
inspections. We have made a consumer assessment of the presence of garbage binsand garbage in the camps and adjacent areas, the presence and condition of toilets
and water intakes.
The specific locations of the camps at base camp and advanced base camp areallocated to the tour operators who assume full responsibility for their operations
including environmental impacts and observation of the established SANPINS. The
camps located higher on the mountain (i.e. Camps 1; 2 and 3) while the specificlocations are not allocated directly to the tour operators, they are still subject to therelevant SANPINs.
15

Base camps (BC)The six base camps operated by the tour companies, the summer shepherd camps
and the abandoned Soviet mountaineering camp are located in the Achik-Tash valley
at an altitude of 3,600m. These are subject to state sanitary inspection 2-3 times
during the summer season of July-August. It would appear that the requirements ofthe established SANPINs are being met in these camps.

Photo 2. Location of Base Camps in Achiktash Gorge.

Advanced base camps (ABC)The advance base camps (ABC) are located at an altitude of 4200-4300m on theleft bank moraines of the mid part of the Lenin Glacier. The camps are concentrated
around two specific territories. In location 1, The Ak-Sai, Tien Shan, Asia Mountains
and ITMC camps are on the leftmost and relatively stable moraine of the glacier andsome 2-3 km from the start of the standard (Razdelnaya) route to Lenin Peak. Further
south, in location 2, the Pamir Expeditions and Fortuna Tour camps are located on the
crest of the very mobile moraine immediately adjacent to the left bank of the main
glacier, some 500 meters from the beginning of the standard Razdelnaya route.
Overall, the ecological and sanitary condition in the various ABCs are not quite ashigh as found in the base camps. This is almost certainly due to a combination of thehigher costs associated with the implementation of the various SANPINs and theabsence of any enforcement of these through an inspection program. As highlighted
above, the tour operators locate their camps at one of two specific geographic
locations and here significant variations in environmental practices can be observed
between these two zones.
16

In location 1 it appears that the four tour operators are broadly complying with therequirements of SANPINs as there are no visible garbage accumulations in the area.
In some, but perhaps not all camps, there are garbage containers for the separate
collection of waste (e.g. food, glass and metal, paper and cardboard, plastic). Within
the area some waste is disposed of and buried (and in some cases burned) on site,while other waste is removed and taken down to BC. The exact system of waste
management for each camp does need to be verified, but there were no explicit
external signs of violation of the applicable SANPINs. As such, location 1 of ABC canbe considered to be generally clean.

Photo 3. ITMC company Advance Bace camp.

However, in location 2 on the mobile moraine on the left edge of the main glacier, it
is a very different situation. Here, the moraine immediately above (to the south west)
and in particular below (to the north east) of the two camps in this location (Pamir
Expeditions and Fortuna Tour) is very heavily littered with significant concentrationsof mixed waste over an extensive area. This waste starts within 20m of the Pamir
Expedition’s camp on the crest of the moraine where exposed human waste wasobserved and recorded. This specific occurrence is due to the highly mobile nature of
the ground disturbing an old latrine site and underlines the difficulties of placing camps
in this location. The existence of such poor conditions can be attributed to both thelack of observing the required SANPINs by these camps and the lack of effort by the
local inspection authority to enforce the established regulations. During the summer
season there are no SANPINs inspections at ABC.

17

Photo 4. Tents of ABC Fortuna tour company. Right side of moraine are plenty trash

Photo 5. Fresh trash near Fortuna tour company ABC.

Photo 6. Fresh trash covered by stones near Pamir Expedition ABC.

Camp 1(C1)
The first high camp on the mountain is Camp 1 (C1) and this is located at an altitudeof 5,300 meters, under the northeastern slopes of the Razdelnaya Peak, throughwhich the standard route to Lenin Peak passes. Here, unlike BC and ABC, there areno specially designated places for tents. The exact location for tents is selectedannually depending on the condition of the slopes in an immediate radius of 100-150
meters of the preferred location. Each season the tour operators select and prepare
tent pitches within a compact area of this location. Independent climbers also pitch18

tents within this shared location for the first high camp on Lenin Peak. Here there arevery significant accumulations of waste over the short season. The camp area islittered with plastic bags of rubbish and human waste left by both clients of the tour
operators and by the independent climbers.

Photo 7. Camp 1.

In some, probably a minority of cases, individuals do exercise responsibility andremove their own rubbish, but in too many others this does not happen. Some tour
operators may endeavor to remove the rubbish of their clients, but the extent to which
this is undertaken in a systematic basis is unclear. Regardless, by the end of eachseason there are significant rubbish accumulations evident and the dumping of wastebags in open crevasses has been observed.
While, in both base camp and advanced base camp, tour operators organize andmaintain toilet facilities for their clients, this is not the case in the high camps. Thus,in C1, there is a number of locations used for the disposing of human waste. In thelower part of C1, which is on the wet glacier, a large number of holes are dug in theglacier during the season. On the drier upper part of the camp, where most tents arelocated, a rocky terrace is the site used and here high concentrations of humanexcrement are clearly visible spread across a wide area. Overall, C1 is a very
unpleasant place and, as such, it draws much negative comment from visitors.
If we consider the causes of the deplorable state of camp C1, then the following
reasons and circumstances come to the surface. First, the exact locations of thecamps C1 and C2 are installed annually in new places, depending on the ice and snow
conditions, thus the territories are not entirely fixed for the tour operators (unlike BC
and ABC). The tour operators and the independent climbers select the location which
is deemed most suitable in a given season. This contrasts with the situation at both
BC and ABC where the specific sites for camps are allocated to operators and they
assume direct responsibility (and can be held accountable) for their condition. Second,
while tour operators and responsible climbers may remove their garbage, the lessresponsible climbers simply place garbage in plastic bags and leave these at the highcamps. Tour operators need to do more to promote appropriate behavior amongst
visiting climbers.
19

The issue of human excrement at C1 is a more intractable problem. Tour operators
have so far failed to establish a workable solution and no effective controls for
managing human waste are currently in place. Given the long term, cumulative
impacts of human excrement being concentrated in one location, much greater
consideration to effectively tackling and addressing this issue needs to be given
collectively by the tour operators and the establishment of agreed rules andprocedures. This may require external consultation and reference to best practice insimilar environments elsewhere. Current practice is certainly not sustainable and it
attracts a great deal of negative feedback from visiting climbers.

Camp 2 (C2)
The second high camp is Camp 2 (C2) and this is located just below the summit ofRazdelnaya Peak (6,148 meters) at an altitude of 6,130-6,140 meters. Generally
speaking, the condition of this camp is much less of a concern than that of C1, due tothe simple fact that is reached by much fewer climbers (as we observe above, C1
marks to the sleeping high point for a significant number of would be ascenders) andthose that do reach and sleep at C2 tend to be more the experienced andenvironmentally responsible climbers. This situation, combined with the perceived
physical challenge of carrying down rubbish, probably goes a very long way to accountfor the rubbish observed in C1 and elsewhere on the mountain. This suggests thattour operators probably have an important role in raising environmental awareness intheir clients and actively promoting (and enforcing) appropriate behaviors amongst
tourists when on they are on the mountain.

Photo 8. Camp 2.

Camp 3 (C3)
The third high camp, Camp 3 (C3) on Lenin Peak is located on its western shoulder at
an altitude on 6,400 meters. Since this site is rarely used (some guided parties use
this location to shorten the final summit day to improve the chances of clients’ success)or during poor weather conditions. Since this location is rarely used, there is currently
no immediate concern regarding its environmental condition. However, given the20suggestion below in respect of establishing an emergency shelter at this location forsafety reasons, this is something that might need to be monitored in the future.
The discussion above raises the question as to why there is such a poor state of theecology and a failure to observe the established SANPINs in the higher camps? It is
possible to identify two main reasons for the differences: (1) the much higher costs
associated with the implementation of SANPINs in the ABC camps and (2) thecomplete lack of control over their implementation by the controlling authorities andthe absence of adequate controls by the tour operators. If we consider the reasonsfor the deplorable state of camp C1, then the following causes and circumstances canbe identified: (1) the locations of camps C1 and C2 change annually depending on theice and snow conditions; (2) the territories are not assigned to firms and they are thus
not responsible for permanent areas as is the case for the base camp locations; (3)the tour operators and independent climbers select locations which are the mostconvenient and safe for them; (4) the low level of social responsibility of some climbers
combined with the impacts of mountain sickness on others; (5) the significant effort
and cost required for cleaning and transporting garbage; and finally, (6) the physicalimpossibility of monitoring the state of the camps on the route by the state.
More serious, and potentially more intractable, is the situation with the toilets in camp
C1. Current efforts to establish and manage toilets by the tour operators are limited
and ineffective. The high day time temperatures regularly experienced at C1 quickly
reveals human excrement and rubbish throughout the area occupied by the camp. It
would appear that a more permanent and effective solution is required and this will
necessitate the joint efforts of the tour operators and the local state authorities.
Lenin Glacier
As indicated above, the ecological state of the mid part of the Lenin glacier (circa
4,300 meters), designated as location 2, which is occupied by Pamir Expeditions andFortuna Tour camps, is a cause for serious concern. Here, along the moraine’s crestand either side of it (particularly the eastern one adjoining the exposed glacier) for a
distance of around 1,500 meters there are significant concentrations of camp garbage.
Photographs which were taken over a number years up until 2018, clearly show theseaccumulations. While one might speculate at the origin of this garbage, it is clearly
mostly recent, but perhaps may spread as far back as twenty to twenty five years.

21

Photo 9. Trash on the Lenin Glacier.

Photo 10. Trash on the Lenin Glacier.

22

Photo 11. Trash on the Lenin Glacier moraine.

23

Photo 12. Trash on the Lenin Glacier moraine.

24

Photo 13. Trash on the Lenin Glacier moraine.

The presence of the rubbish on the mid Lenin glacier was first recorded by us in
2012. This was subsequently reported at various governmental meetings, right up to
the level the Council for Investments and the Economy under the Prime Minister ofthe Kyrgyz Republic. In 2014, the Prime Minister directed the State Agency ofEnvironment and Forestry to clean the glacier of Lenin, and this clean-up operation
was allocated about 2 million Soms from the state environmental fund. While thesefunds were apparently spent, the glacier was never cleared. The huge scale of the
problem on the Lenin glacier is now such that it is very difficult to see how it might be
resolved without direct government intervention and support. However, in light ofthis corruption and given that state monies have already been spent to tackle thisproblem, but the necessary cleanup activities were not performed, it would seem
doubtful that, without appropriate controls being put in place, that the state can be
expected to allocate further funding to this area.
This littering on the Lenin Glacier reflects the absence of any proper ecological or
sanitary regulations for the operation of tourist camps during the first fifteen to twenty
years following Kyrgyzstan’s independence. Over this same period, there was an
absence of social responsibility exercised by both the tourism operators and theirclients. However, even once the relevant SANPINs were established these have notbeen adequately enforced to ensure the necessary controls upon the activities of boththe tour operators and tourists. This general situation is exacerbated in the more
remote and difficult to access locations such as the high camps (C1 and C2) on Lenin
Peak.
The question of ethics and morality.
There is another question, that can not stay away. Periodically, the remains of
the glacier are melted from the glacier (Photo 49) of those whom the mountain "tookfor itself" in the history of its development. Finding a place for them is probably the
responsibility of those who go to the mountain today. However, this is a subject for
discussion and finding a solution.

25

Photo 14. Mummies on the glacier

Tackling the environmental problems
As a first and obvious step, there is a need to ensure the enforcement of the existing
SANPINs in both BC and ABC. This will require that a systematic scheme ofinspection is adopted and implemented across the tourist season. Aligned to this, isthe requirement for greater regulation and control of independent tourists arriving at
Achik Tash and the impacts associated with their informal camps. These camps areabsent of all the infrastructure provided by the tour operators and can have adisproportionate impact on the local environment. This would benefit from theadoption of the sort of protective practices introduced in similar wild locations in places
like Nepal. This would require action by the local government authorities to enact thenecessary legislation which could be jointly administered via a formal public-private
partnership with an appropriate organizational grouping of the existing tour operators(e.g. a Lenin Peak Tour Operators Association), particularly in respect of enforcement
at ABC and above.
An important additional consideration for lessening impacts, particularly in C1 andC2, would be to develop suitable alternative acclimatization itineraries using theneighboring peaks surrounding BC and ABC. This could significantly reduce thenumber of nights climbers spend in the high camps (C1 and C2) and thus dramaticallyreduce the current level of impacts. Tour operators would need to devise and promotesuitable alternative acclimatization itineraries with the caveat that proactive steps be
taken to minimize and contain the impacts of visits to these new peaks.
26

Two further measures, which have the capacity to help tackle the identified
environmental problems, would also require the introduction of new legislation. The
first of these would be the introduction of some form of landscape protection status
such as “national park” or similar for the Achik Tash valley at the local or, preferably
at the state level. This could be combined with the second measure, the introductionof an ecological/environmental tax on visitors which would be directly linked to funding
the necessary landscape protection e.g. rubbish removal and monitoring of ecologicalimpacts of tourism within the area and the general operation of the park.

Tourism on Lenin Peak: Safety
While there is an absence of reliable statistics for accidents on Lenin Peak for theentire period since Kyrgyz independence, it is possible to develop an accurate
overview of this issue by drawing upon a range of sources. This includes interviews
with those who have a long term association of working on Lenin Peak, our own
fieldwork and observations, as well as relevant information posted on the Internet.
In each short summer season on Lenin Peak there are typically 5-10 serious
accidents, of which a third (1-3) are fatal. These accidents occur due to both subjective
hazards (i.e. those created by climbers themselves) and objective hazards (i.e. thosecaused by the terrain and weather). However, there is typically an overlap between
these two types of hazards. Thus, while accidents may be attributable to an objective
hazard such as avalanches, ultimately this can be the result of poor decision making(a subjective hazard) upon the part of those involved.
As a general observation, the highest proportion of accidents occur with commercialgroups (where climbers pay a fee to a tour organization to join a group for the purposesof ascent) who are often accompanied by a “guide” or may hire a guide locally on
arrival. This does sound somewhat counterintuitive as logically, hiring a guide should
reduce the risk of being involved in an accident. However this high incidence ofaccidents amongst guided parties serves to underline our earlier concerns expressed
above about the number of unqualified guides working on Lenin Peak. This scenario
with commercial groups can be contrasted with independent groups (who have a lower
incidence of accidents) that typically consist of appropriately experienced and highly
motivated climbers who self-organize for the purposes of the ascent.
Due to the lack of any effective regulation concerning who can lead parties on Lenin
Peak (and elsewhere in Kyrgyzstan) commercial groups do not always have properly
qualified and certified IFMGA (or equivalent) mountain guides responsible for theirtime on the mountain. As these qualified guides are expensive (they are the highest
paid category of worker on Lenin Peak), those providing commercial expeditions cangreatly reduce their costs by employing lower qualified (and thus, cheaper) individuals.
This can include those holding a mountain leader or other lesser guiding qualificationor those who are unqualified but experienced mountaineers. This scenario is
exacerbated by: (a) the current shortfall in available properly qualified mountain guides
on Lenin Peak as noted above; and (b) the fact that many overseas commercial groups,
not subject to any regulation concerning this area, bring their own guide who may or
may not be properly qualified. The number of unqualified, or insufficiently qualified
27people, working as mountain guides on Lenin Peak must be considered a serious
matter and one which undoubtedly does not contribute to the safety of tourists seeking
to ascend the mountain. Again, this underlines the need for some form of effective
action in respect of the regulation and control of the guiding activity.

Subjective hazards
The main type of danger here is the carelessness of people (both mountain guides
and climbers) and is reflected in an underestimation of the danger of objective factors
and an overestimation of personal strengths, knowledge, skills and abilities. In thecase of Lenin Peak, this underestimation is almost certainly exacerbated by the widely
held belief that it is the “easiest 7,000 meter peak in the world”. It should be noted thatmany of the tour operators typically promote Lenin Peak in this way to increasebusiness without perhaps also emphasizing the necessary caveats that climbers
require to be adequately prepared and experienced to ensure a safe and successful
ascent. This mismatch, between climbers’ abilities (and expectations) with the realityof the challenges for a successful ascent, is undoubtedly a key source of many of theaccidents which do occur. This summation is supported in the vast majority ofaccidents which we have examined on Lenin Peak, but this is not too surprising as this
scenario is typically the case in mountaineering accidents elsewhere in the world too.

Objective hazards
These types of hazards are dangers which reside in the physical environment of
the mountain, i.e. crevasses, avalanches, bad weather and high altitude. Lenin Peakis heavily glaciated and the standard Razdelnaya route from ABC ascends and thentraverses below the north face of the mountain to reach C1. From here it ascends toand continues along a ridge which rises to C2 just below Razdelnaya Peak before
continuing towards the summit. On the first part of this ascent to C1, the terrain isextensively crevassed, while on the traverse section it is threatened by avalanches.
These crevasses pose a significant danger and requires that climbers are in roped
parties and have the necessary equipment and training to respond to any falls into
crevasses. When these conditions are observed any falls into crevasses rarely leadto serious accidents. Unfortunately, while in most (but not all) cases climbers are in
roped parties, too often the necessary skills and equipment for safe glacier travel (andcrevasse rescue) are not always evidenced. In addition, solo (un-roped) climbers are
sometimes observed, frequently these being the high altitude porters. This is not only
highly risky behavior, which needs to be discouraged to protect the safety of those
doing it, but it also sets a bad example and helps encourage this poor (and dangerous)
practice amongst visiting climbers.

Crevasses

28

To ensure safe conditions on the glacier, particularly as the season progresses andlarge crevasses begin to open, it is increasingly necessary that crevasses are bridgedwith ladders and protected with fixed ropes. In recent seasons (possibly due to theeffects of climate change) this is becoming a more serious problem around 4,5004700 meters where the glacier is at its steepest. While there is obviously a cost in the
supplying and installing of the necessary ladders and ropes, currently there is noorganized system for this activity. Given its importance to safety, this requires that amore systematic and reliable arrangement is established for ensuring that a reliable
route through the glacier is established and maintained throughout the season. At
present it would appear the largest tour operator Ak-Sai is mainly performing this role.
This suggests the need for a more equitable arrangement based upon formalcooperation between the six tour operators to spread the cost of maintaining safe
passage and to provide an appropriate basis for the effective organization of therequired activities.

Photo 14. Zone of crevasses, 2009.

Photo 15. Zone of crevasses, 2018.

29

Photo 16. Crevasse traversal by avalanche.

Photo 17. Crevasse crossing by ladder.

Avalanches

30

The danger of avalanches is present on all snow covered mountains. The scale
and altitude of Lenin Peak means that the threat of avalanches is always present, andparticularly so after heavy snowfalls which can and do occur during the tourist season.
Indeed, the area just to the south of the current C1 was the site, of what is possibly
the worst single loss of life in a climbing incident, in 1990 when a huge avalanche wastriggered by an earthquake, killing all 43 climbers sleeping at the old site of C1 at 5,200
meters on the plateau referred to as the “frying pan”. Avalanches are a regularoccurrence at Lenin Peak and this fact is well known. Accordingly, it is vitally importantthat mountaineers are familiar with the factors which increase the likelihood of theiroccurrence and have the necessary rescue equipment and knowledge of how to use
it should this be required. This can greatly increase the survivability of those
unfortunate enough to be caught in an avalanche. However, avoidance of the risk ofavalanches remains the best strategy.

31

Photo 57. An avalanche on a plateau (“griddle”) below camp C1.

Bad weather
Above C1, while some risk of avalanche exists in the area immediately below C2,
the principle danger here is bad weather, particularly in the form of high winds. As theentire route above C1 is on the crest of a ridge, it is highly vulnerable to very strong
winds. These can prevent summit bids even when skies are clear and the weather isfine lower on the mountain. While heavy snow falls can occur during the summer
season and disrupt ascents, it is these high winds, particularly above 6000 meters,
which are probably the biggest source of disruption. Climbers often need to spend
32several days at C2 waiting for a suitable weather window and many simply run out oftime while doing so. When climbers do make ascent attempts in high winds (notuncommon, given their frequency), a combination of factors – the high altitude and thelength of the summit climb, along with the associated physically tiring effects of thehigh winds – can exhaust climbers, creating serious problems on the decent back to
C2 after a summit bid (be it a successful or an unsuccessful one). In this situation the
installation of two to three emergency tents (possibly equipped with oxygen and a
hyperbaric chamber) at the location of C3 (6,400-6,500 meters) could be potentiallylifesaving. Again, this activity needs to organized and supported through thecooperation of the six tour operators.
Similarly, a reliable and readily accessible system for the provision of accurate
weather information and forecasts in all the ABCs; C1 and C2 is vitally important toenable climbers to safely plan their ascents to coincide with the best weather. It is
worth further noting that too many climbers do not allow enough slack in their programto account for bad weather which can in turn lead to pressure to make summit attempts
during poor weather conditions. It is suggested that this latter problem can be partiallyaddressed through providing more information and ensuring that climbers, at theplanning stage, have a more informed understanding of the amount of time required
for a successful ascent.

Mountain sickness
Finally, perhaps the single biggest objective danger to all climbers is that of highaltitude mountain sickness (AMS) which, if not detected and dealt with soon enough(a quick descent frequently resolves many of the problems), is frequently fatal. AMS
is a serious potential danger for even experienced climbers who can succumb toproblems associated with altitude, but are less likely to do so as they are much moreaware of the need to properly acclimatize and the strategies for doing so. With
inexperienced climbers there is a much greater danger of AMS due to them failing toproperly acclimatize and also for them to be less aware of the symptoms of highaltitude sickness. Additionally, the typical early symptoms of AMS (a sore head;difficulties in breathing, sleeping and eating etc.) while not dangerous in of themselves,are probably the single biggest factor leading to climbers to abandon their attempts on
the mountain. It is worth noting, that while a high level of personal physical fitness
does not guarantee successful acclimatization, the absence of it can certainly
contribute to failing to acclimatize and thus increases the risk of suffering AMS.
Additionally, this highlights the importance of the role of qualified mountain guides for
ensuring the safety of less experienced climbers as they can reduce the likelihood of
AMS through ensuring a proper program of acclimatization and can also monitor
visiting climbers and detect any early signs of AMS before it becomes too serious.
Many accidents in the mountain environment typically occur when a number of thesubjective and objective dangers combine, something which can happen very quickly.
This is where the importance of mountaineers having the necessary personal
experience and knowledge to make appropriate decisions at the appropriate time. In
the absence of this experience and knowledge, the safety of mountaineers relies on
the knowledge and expertise of those guiding them. Without this personal knowledge33and experience or the guidance of others, Lenin Peak can become a very serious anddangerous mountain.

Medical Assistance
Lenin Peak is remotely located and when tourists fall ill (e.g. AMS) or have an accident,
there is a need for immediate access to medical expertise. Currently the level of
medical assistance is inadequate. The Ak-Sai camp at ABC does have a medical
worker available and the Asia Mountains had a trainee doctor working at its ABC in
2018. Those using other camps also have to access these sources of medical advice
on an informal basis. This arrangement appears to work, after a fashion, but it is not
an adequate solution.
There is a need for a qualified doctor at ABC who is available to all those requiring
medical assistance and a medically qualified person (e.g. a paramedic) working under
this doctor’s supervision, located at base camp. Once again, this is a facility that needs
to be formally organized through the active cooperation of the six tour operators.

Rescue arrangements
Official responsibility for conducting mountain rescue in Kyrgyzstan resides with the
Ministry of Emergency Situations (MES). However, as the MES has no trained
mountain rescuers it has no practical role to play in mountain rescue operations on
Lenin Peak or on the other mountains of Kyrgyzstan. Alternatively, there is anotherorganization with over twenty years experience in rescue in Kyrgyzstan which is the
publicly funded “Rescue in the mountains”. This organization carries out mountainrescue work involving technical complexity and high altitudes. The organization has
no permanent rescue staff but contracts with mountain guides, mountaineering
instructors and experienced climbers to carry out rescue operations. Such operations
require that payment is guaranteed by either an insurance policy or an appropriate
institution. These ad hoc rescue teams are formed as and when required. A similararrangement exists on Lenin Peak.
Normally, tourists will have specialist insurance cover that will cover the costs
associated with any rescue operation. Where a rescue helicopter is involved thesecosts can be considerable. On occasion there is no suitable payment guarantee inplace and this can delay rescue while a volunteer rescue team is formed. Where there
is no insurance in place then it falls to the friends and colleagues of the affectedindividuals to organize and undertake the necessary activities. Within mountaineering,
as reflected in the traditions of the Soviet school of mountaineering, there is anestablished culture of self-help and solidarity.
Typically, rescue efforts on Lenin Peak are conducted in a professional manner, but
do tend to rely upon informal cooperation between the tour operators and volunteers.
It is common practice for other climbers in the vicinity of an accident to come to theaid of fellow climbers and this sort of informal response can often be observed on
34

Lenin Peak. Given the importance of having a reliable rescue facility on a mountainlike Lenin Peak, there is scope for a more formalized arrangement between the tour
operators to ensure a more systematic and effective response to rescue scenarios canbe established. This more systematic and formalized arrangement between the tour
operators would act to both improve the current performance of rescue activities andensure a more equitable division of the associated workload.

Improving safety on Lenin Peak
To improve safety on Lenin Peak requires that an integrated approach is taken.
The first of these involves what can be considered proactive activities. This includes
providing accurate information to tourists before they arrive to make them more awareof the actual nature of the challenge of an ascent and the need to be properly
physically and mentally prepared. Additionally, this involves highlighting themountaineering skills required and the vital importance of having an appropriate
acclimatization strategy and sufficient time to undertake it, allowing for potential(perhaps, inevitable) weather disruptions. Much of this can be achieved throughdeveloping an Internet portal to disseminate the key information for appropriate
planning and advance preparation as suggested above.
The second proposed group of activities concern supporting safety once the tourist
has arrived. The nature of these activities is such that they suggest the need for thecreation of a more formal cooperative agreement between the six tour operators (i.e.
a Tour Operator’s Association). Such an arrangement would focus upon theorganization and resourcing of three key activities: (1) the creation and maintenanceof a safe glacier crossing between ABC and C1; (2) the provision of medical services
at both ABC and base camp; and (3) the provision of a more formalized rescue
capacity, which would include the provision and maintenance of an emergency shelter
at C3 (6,400 meters).

Summary and Recommendations
This report has provided an overview of the current nature of tourism on Lenin Peak.
The intention is to establish the basis for ensuring sustainable tourism, not only on
Lenin Peak, but more widely across the mountains of Kyrgyzstan. Mountaineering
tourism in Kyrgyzstan has a long tradition stretching back to the 1950s under theSoviets and it has significant future potential as a world class mountaineering
destination. However, to fulfill this potential it is necessary to establish the basis forthe sustainable development of mountaineering tourism in Kyrgyzstan. Here, byidentifying and addressing the current issues associated with tourism on Lenin Peakit is hoped to provide the foundation for a realistic model of sustainable development.
Below is a summary of the identified issues and suggested solutions which hopefully,
as a minimum, offer the basis for a productive dialogue on the way forward on Lenin
Peak and more generally in respect of mountaineering and adventure tourism
throughout Kyrgyzstan.

35

At the outset, the issue of the low rate of successful ascents (estimated to be in theregion of 10%-25%) was highlighted and the underlying causes of this problem wereidentified. It was suggested that the development of an Internet portal to provide
prospective climbers with general advice on the need to be adequately physically andtechnically prepared, coupled with the necessary information and guidance required
to enable the adoption of a more effective “two stage” acclimatization strategy, could
improve not only success rates, but also safety levels on the mountain. Additionally,
the potential to improve tourist satisfaction by providing alternative mountaineering
itineraries, and indeed alternative activities, was highlighted.
The short season on Lenin Peak generates a significant amount of employment,
some which is locally sourced, although some scope exists to increase local
employment. Two key occupations are that of mountain guides and high altitude
porters. In the case of mountain guides, there is a significant shortfall in appropriately
qualified guides with too many unqualified guides working on the mountain which is athreat to both the quality of the tourist experience but, more importantly to the safetyof tourists. In the short term this needs to be addressed by the introduction of a fast
track “Lenin Guide” training and certification scheme for suitable candidates. In thelonger term, legislation needs to be introduced limiting the provision of guiding services
to those holding an IFMGA recognized qualification. .
With regards high altitude porters (HAPs), a similar situation exists concerning theunregulated nature of the activity. It is a demanding and dangerous role which needs
to be performed by individuals who have appropriate training and recourse toadequate support in the event of an accident. Again, the introduction of an appropriate
training and certification scheme and appropriate controls on those working in this
occupation is required. In respect of both mountain guides and the HAPs, there iscurrently a shortfall in in respect of adequate insurance cover and this needs to beaddressed to protect both tourists and these workers.
Over the years, the considerable numbers visiting Lenin Peak have had, andcontinue to have, a major impact on the mountain’s environment. Particular concern
was raised in respect of parts of ABC and C1. At ABC there is a serious problem withrubbish on the moraine of the immediate left bank of the glacier. A considerable effort
is required to remove this rubbish which has built up over more than a decade. In
addition, the operation of the existing controls and regulations (SANPINs) need to be
enforced to safeguard against future damage to this environment. At C1 there exists
an ongoing problem with rubbish being discarded and an absence of any systematic
basis for dealing with human waste. Here, there is the need for tour operators tocollectively devise and implement appropriate solutions regarding the management of
the impacts caused by climbers on this part of the mountain.
More generally, the development of appropriate alternative acclimatization routes
would significantly reduce the impacts at C1 in particular. This initiative, coupled with
the introduction of an appropriate form of landscape protection, could provide the basis
for securing the longer term sustainable management of mountaineering tourism on
Lenin Peak. With the support of the government, the introduction of an environmental
tax on visitors to Lenin Peak could provide the necessary funding for the required
landscape management activities. Moreover, by the creation of a “Lenin Peak Tour
Operators Association” (LPTOA) it would be possible for a public/private partnership36

to be established in conjunction with Chon-Alai district local authority to perform thenecessary management role concerning all the issues associated with ensuring
sustainable tourism on the mountain.
Importantly, it is the creation of such an operators association that is also necessary
to address the crucial issue of the safety of both those working and visiting Lenin Peak.
This is a major area of concern, for as we note, every year there are over a dozen
serious accidents, with a third of these involving fatalities. The LPTOA would have thekey role in addressing the issues involved here. This would include working towards
increasing the number of qualified guides and the joint development of an Internet
portal by the LPTOA to disseminate vital information to those planning ascents. This
would help to increase climbers’ awareness of the need to be better prepared (e.g. interms of physical conditioning and the required necessary technical skills and tosupport the development of more realistic acclimatization itineraries) and would help
to improve both safety levels and success rates. Additionally, it could be used topromote and reinforce more environmentally aware behaviours amongst visiting
climbers. The LPTOA would also assume responsibility for maintaining safe passage
between ABC and C1, plus the organizing of any rescue operations (this includes an
emergency shelter at 6,400 meters). Finally, the LPTOA would assume responsibility
for ensuring that an appropriate medical resource is available to those visiting andworking on the mountain.

Authors:37

Dr. Vladimir Komissarov, IFMGA mountain guide.
(Kyrgyz Alpine Club, President; Kyrgyz Mountain Guides Association, President)

Dr. Stephen Tailor, Professor of Edinburgh Napier University, UK

Photos of Lenin Peak life.
38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

Photos of Lenin Peak first ascent 90 Anniversary

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63