Image Details

7thWave AI Assistant

One of the wonderful things about writing this blog is that people get in touch to share their work. This post is a great example! Dr Stephen Taylor is a Lecturer at the University of Cumbria and since 2008 has made frequent trips to Kyrgyzstan to study the impact of high mountain tourism on Lenin Peak. Here's an outline of the work he's done do far...

For me as an academic, the relevance and practical value of my research is vitally important. Too much research output is only aimed at other academics, focused on unapplied topics, and written in technical language that is typically inaccessible to most people. My research for the last few years has focused on the popular Lenin Peak (7,134m) and the practical issue of making it (and by extension, mountain-based tourism in Kyrgyzstan) a more sustainable tourism destination. That continued this year when I spent four weeks on the mountain.

Back in 2019 I visited Lenin Peak’s and identified several issues concerned with the safety of tourists climbing the mountain (Komissarov and Taylor, 2019).  The absence of a proper system of ensuring visitor safety (and providing a rescue service when required) was seen as a key area for ensuring sustainable mountaineering tourism on Lenin Peak. While this mountain is widely touted as the “World’s Easiest 7,000m Peak”, it has a success rate that is estimated to be around 25% (at most!) and each season, although only two months long (July-August), there are estimated to be around fifteen serious accidents with around a third resulting in deaths. However, these figures are estimates as no formal, centralised system for recording incidents exists. This, in turn, reflects the lack of a corresponding centralized safety and rescue system for Lenin Peak.

The practical importance of addressing the absence of a formal safety and rescue system on the mountain was dramatically illustrated to me this season. On the 25th July 2023, I ascended to Camp 2 (5,300m) along with my climbing companion, American ski patroller and rescue expert, Dave Wade. Our plan that day was to drop equipment and supplies at Camp 2 before quickly returning to Camp 1 (ABC) 4,300m. This was to be our first visit to Camp 2 of the season, and we expected it to be a tiring day as we were still acclimatizing. All was going well; a slow but steady ascent saw us reach Camp 2 in good time and we were arranging to store our supplies and to make our planned quick return to Camp 1 when we encountered an Iranian climber who was looking for help with one of his companions who had taken ill. As we soon discovered, the casualty was seriously ill with high altitude sickness, specifically High-Altitude Cerebral Edema (HACE), which results in swelling of the brain and can kill if not treated quickly. At this stage the Iranian climber was barely conscious and clearly very ill. It was essential that he was taken down the mountain immediately, as getting to a lower altitude is crucial in cases of HACE since this is the most effective strategy for treating this life-threatening condition. At Camp 2 (as at the higher Camp 3, 6,100m) there is no formal rescue facility or system in place. Nowhere that visiting climbers in distress and in need of help can go to access the necessary services and support to deal with injuries, sickness, or other emergencies.

Lenin Peak (7134m) lies on the border of Tajikistan and Kyrgystan. It is widely believed to be the most climbed 7000m peak [Photo: Jason Sheldrake]

Fortunately for the seriously ill, indeed dying, climber in this incident, my companion Dave Wade was a trained, professional rescuer with an emergency medical technician (EMT) qualification. Very quickly, with Dave’s expert knowledge, we were able to undertake an initial medical assessment of the casualty (who had already received a dose of dexamethasone from his companions) and to then organize a makeshift stretcher system (using a combination of a tent; sleeping bag and mat; climbing harness and climbing ropes) to pull him down the mountain and get him to the vitally important lower altitude that offered the best chance of survival. What ensued was an exhausting couple of hours. With the vital help of a couple of Nepalese porters, working for the tour operator Central Asia Travel based at Camp 2, and some descending climbers we pulled the dying climber down the mountain. Using the porter's radio we managed to contact Central Asia Travel at Camp 1 (ABC) we explained the situation and made a request for help. Unfortunately the response was that we had to bring the victim down the mountain ourselves as no one was available to help. Eventually, we were able to negotiate that a rescue party from Camp 1 would meet us at the laddered section lower on the glacier with a SKED (this is a specialised rescue stretcher designed for technical rope lowers). This was important, as with the makeshift equipment we had, safely negotiating the technical lower section on the glacier which consisted of a series of fixed ropes and ladders, would be extremely challenging.

As the image below shows, we managed to rendezvous with the rescue party sent from Camp 1 with a SKED. The casualty was subsequently taken through the icefall using the SKED (see picture below) before being transferred to a horse waiting at the foot of the glacier. From there he was taken to Central Asia’s Camp 1 (ABC) and placed on oxygen overnight and then taken to hospital in Osh the following day. Happily, this climber went on to make a full recovery. However, as the details demonstrate, this was largely down to the help of passing climbers and not through any established rescue system. Put simply, this climber was very lucky to survive.

An isolated incident? Unfortunately, not! Less than a week later a similar set of events occurred even higher on the mountain at Camp 3 (6,100m) where three ski-mountaineers accidently came across a distressed Turkish climber, again suffering from high altitude illness. Through the commendable (and exhausting) efforts of these passing individuals another climber’s life was saved. A few days later a female climber fell in a crevasse badly injuring her ribs, again the required rescue effort was performed informally by volunteers who happen to stumble across the incident. These are not isolated accounts, but representative of the sort of events that regularly occur on Lenin Peak and typically, as described here, are resolved by the efforts of passing volunteers and not by an established rescue system. That is not to say the operators, particularly the bigger operators such as Central Asia Travel and Ak Sai, do not get involved in helping with rescues – they do – but the point is that there is no formal rescue system or organization for Lenin Peak. It depends on the goodwill of those on the mountain, be they private individuals or employees of the tour operators.

In short, if you have an accident on Lenin Peak you need to rely on the help of passing climbers who, if you are very lucky, will have the necessary knowledge and energy to get you off the mountain. So, safety on Lenin Peak is arguably purely down to luck. The absence of any actual rescue system is not compatible with creating sustainable mountain tourism on Lenin Peak or anywhere else. This can only be resolved through the design and implementation of an effective system for dealing with accidents and medical issues on the mountain. But where to start?

Transferring the casualty from makeshift stretcher to SKED at the fixed ropes and ladders (Photo: Dave Wade)

A Rescue System For Lenin Peak...

In terms of best practice, looking towards the activities of the United States National Park Service (U.S. NPS) is a good place to start. On Denali, they adopt an approach of Preventive Search and Rescue (PSAR) which aims to reduce the need for rescue operations by ensuring visitors are better prepared, educated and informed. For example, most visitors would greatly benefit from a better understanding of high altitude and how to manage its effects. More specifically, in the context of Lenin Peak, a PSAR would cover several other activities. An example would include ensuring a formal system for the establishment and maintenance of safe passage through the icefall. Currently the placing of ladders and fixed ropes appears to be undertaken informally by the larger operators (such as Ak Sai and Central Asia Travel) who are supplying and fixing the required ropes and ladders. This raises some practical issues. First and most obviously, this is not a formal system, and the costs are not evenly distributed. Second, and perhaps less obvious, is that the technical standards of rope and ladder fixing is not as professional as it could be and there is no systematic maintenance of these installations which are subject to considerable use from both users and the effects of the harsh environment (for example, heat and glacier movement). Thus, having nominated, trained individuals to install these safety systems and systematically check and maintain them throughout the climbing season is a good starting point. In recent years the icefall on the Lenin glacier has become increasingly dangerous and demanding of more and more intervention to provide safe passage. Aligned to this is the increasing demand placed upon the technical knowledge and abilities of visiting climbers. This requires more preparation and education for those wishing to climb the mountain safely.

Another example of where the PSAR approach can be applied to Lenin Peak concerns the location and provision of safety infrastructure at Camp 2 and Camp 3. Examples here would include locating rescue equipment in these camps such as bottled oxygen, a SKED and an emergency radio. In addition, at Camp 2, the establishment of a permanently manned aid station with a doctor trained in mountain medicine would provide a valuable resource and perhaps help prevent medical situations becoming as serious as they currently are by facilitating earlier medical intervention. This would also provide a location from which rescue efforts on the mountain could be coordinated more effectively. These preparations and infrastructure do, of course, need to be accompanied by an appropriate rescue system. Again, looking towards the NPS might give some pointers here. In the US the mountain probably most like Lenin Peak in terms of visitation is Alaska’s Denali (6,190m). Here, located in the Denali National Park and Preserve, the rescue system is manned and resourced through a combination of NPS employees, climbing rangers who are trained in the necessary rescue skills, and volunteers who provide the majority of the necessary manpower and resources to undertake rescues. These are the Denali Rescue Volunteers, who since the introduction of the system in the 1970s have provided medical and technical support to the rescue rangers. Without these volunteers the system would not have the capacity to undertake the rescues it does.

How does this translate to the Lenin Peak context? Well, it suggests having a small number (initially two or three maximum) of professionally trained rescuers employed to work on the mountain performing the role of rescue coordinators that would support a larger number of volunteers with the necessary knowledge and skills to support rescue efforts. To achieve this outcome, Lenin Peak tour operators would need to collectively employ the rescue coordinators and agree to a system that would ensure that other staff such as porters, guides and medical employees (all provided with some additional specialist rescue training) can be deployed to support rescues whenever they are needed. This, of course, is easier said than done, but it is probably the most feasible way for establishing a rescue system on Lenin Peak.

Using the SKED to take the casualty across one of the ladders on the icefall (Photo: Dave Wade)

What is proposed here in terms of equipment and trained manpower has cost implications. Accordingly, as this is a new and valuable service to visitors, the argument would be that every visitor would pay a mandatory ‘insurance’ payment to fund the rescue infrastructure (this would not obviate visitors having appropriate insurance in place). The simplest method would be that all operators automatically added the rescue premium to what they charge their customers and then passed this on to support the rescue system costs. How much? Clearly, this would need some further investigation, but charging visitors for example $50.00 each would not seem unreasonable if this provided access to an effective rescue system that could be used if they had the misfortune to require such a service. However, the management of this additional charge and all of the suggestions described above requires coordinated action and a commitment from all of the tour operators.

In an earlier overview of tourism activities on Lenin Peak (Komissarov and Taylor, 2019) we argued that the establishment of a tour operators’ association was needed to develop and implement the necessary policies and activities to support sustainable tourism. While it is acknowledged that some progress towards this outcome has been achieved it is doubtful if sufficient progress has been made to facilitate the development of the initiatives proposed here. However, this simply underlines the fact that until an effective Lenin Peak operators’ association is established the development and implementation of a rescue system or indeed any of the necessary management policies and activities (see for example, Komissarov, Taylor and Turova, 2021) a safe and sustainable tourism industry on Lenin Peak will not happen.

Each year visitors trying to climb Lenin Peak lose their lives or are seriously injured. Those that are rescued are lucky, not least in that they are depending on good fortune rather than an established rescue system that allows them to be safely taken down the mountain. Those described above are simply recent examples that I personally encountered. However, these are representative of the many similar incidents that occur on Lenin Peak every year. Common sense suggests that a response is needed to this long established pattern of misadventure and the associated death and injury that it generates.

We have suggested that developing a PSAR system for Lenin Peak is required. Aligned to a program of appropriate visitor education, this necessitates the creation of a rescue infrastructure on the mountain with the equipment and capacity outlined here. Crucially this needs to be located in, and supported by, a professionally resourced and organized rescue system under the auspices of an effective Lenin Peak Tour Operators’ Association and an effective system of governance (Taylor, 2023). In terms of importance, the tackling of this issue is literally a matter of life or death.

Thanks Stephen! Its fascinating to hear about your work on Lenin Peak. If anyone else has something they want to share with a mountain medicine audience please get in touch!

Stephen will be our guest at the Diploma in Mountain Medicine Module 1 Residential Course in November - we're very much looking forward to hearing more about Peak Lenin! For more information about the University of Central Lancashire's Diploma in Mountain Medicine (DiMM) take a look at this.

Thanks for reading this post. If you're interested in mountain medicine please take a few minutes to have a look at our archive (500+ posts!) and why not join the British Mountain Medicine Society?

Details of the 2023/24 BMMS UCLan Mountain Medicine Winter Webinar Series can be found here. Places are FREE!

References

Komissarov, V. and Taylor, S. (2019) Critical assessment of mountaineering tourism on Lenin Peak, Kyrgyzstan: Current issues and potential solutions. Results of the 2018 study. Tourism in Kyrgyzstan: Practice, Problems and Perspectives, 15 (1).

Komissarov, V., Taylor, S. and Turova, M. (2021) How to solve the problems of solid waste pollution at high altitudes in the mountains of Kyrgyzstan: The Case of Lenin Peak. Tourism in Kyrgyzstan: Practice, Problems and Perspectives, 17 (1).

Taylor, S. (2023) The Co-Management Network Governance System for Sustainable Natural Area Tourism in Kyrgyzstan. Tourism in Kyrgyzstan: Practice, Problems and Perspectives, 18 (1).