Nepal chops chopper flights to Everest

The Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal (CAAN) likes to pick fights and has been at odds with Sagarmatha National Park after it, the Namche local government and Lukla businesses banned commercial helicopter flights to the base of Everest from 1 January.

The restriction has a lot to do with local political and business rivalries, and was hastily announced before the tourism and mountaineering industry could find alternatives. But there is no denying that the constant throb of choppers over the national park’s wilderness was also starting to put visitors off.

The park had issued a letter in December to only allow rescue and emergency flights above Lukla from the new year, but reversed this decision earlier this week, allowing commercial flights to land with its permission.

The dispute, however is far from over. The park's reversal angered Khumbu Pasang Lhamu Rural Municipality, with locals staging protests at helipads and landing zones. CAAN had challenged the national park’s decision in a strongly-worded statement, citing its exclusive authority over aviation-related issues. It egged on helicopter operators to keep flying.

Flying above Lukla has pitted businesses in Lukla and Namche against each other since the 1970s, when helicopters started ferrying trekkers and cargo, depriving Lukla operators of their trade.

Flying large, noisy aircraft to Everest Base Camp and Kala Patar just for sightseeing was getting out of hand. It does not just ruin the tranquility of the region below the world’s highest mountain, but disturbs wildlife and deprives local communities who depend on portering of their jobs.

Mountain regions across the world have strict guidelines on commercial aviation over protected areas. There have also been studies into the risks posed by aircraft on wildlife behaviour in Alaska, Norway, and Canada.

A 2007 study by Alaska-based environmental consulting firm ABR Inc for the US Army found that polar bears fled up to 64km away when a helicopter flew 100m above ground level, abandoning cubs and returning to search for their young only after three days had passed.

Caribou reindeers and moose showed similar behaviour. A study conducted on snow geese saw the birds diverting their flight path 1.2km away when a helicopter flew nearby.

There are no studies yet on the sky and endangered musk deer, snow leopards, red pandas, and bears, which inhabit the Sagarmatha National Park. The Khumbu is also the migratory route of bar-headed geese and other birds which have adapted their lungs to fly over the Himalaya.

It is therefore well within the purview of national park authorities to control activities that contribute to biodiversity loss. The unrestricted flights have also reportedly contributed to wildlife poaching, especially for the musk deer prized for their pouches.

There is no military or park oversight of helicopters landing or overflying the region. Air traffic control also does not exist, and pilots are required to keep a visual lookout for other choppers.

Vibrations from helicopter rotors can also trigger avalanches on mountain slopes already unstable due to permafrost loss, warming and climate breakdown.

To be sure, Nepali helicopter pilots are world renowned for their daring rescues at high altitudes. But operators have become just as infamous for fake rescue operations in which they collude with guides and hospitals in the city to scam insurance companies.

There is debate about exactly how beneficial sightseeing ‘heli-tourism’ is to Nepal’s mountain communities whose livelihood depends upon visitors to the Everest region. Trekkers can now cut short their stay and get choppers to ferry loads, impacting local businesses.

A survey showed that if an Airbus H123 helicopter flown by a Nepali pilot over Khumbu charges Rs145,000 per hour, only 19.5% of that amount goes to the national economy, the rest pocketed by select travel agencies, helicopter operators and the manufacturers.

Trekking-based adventure tourism has more and multi-faceted benefits than heli-tourism in the Himalaya because it pumps money directly into the local economy.

All this is not to say that helicopter flights must be completely stopped. There should have been negotiations between those for and against helicopters, and a compromise could have been easily found to allow commercial chopper operators at least up to Syangboche.

Also, rescue flights are of vital importance to residents of mountain communities as well as mountaineers and trekkers. Events of international significance, like the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres flying to Kala Patar can be important.

This comes to the key question of how to balance tourism income with the concern for the protection of natural and cultural heritage. We should follow accepted practice of flights over national parks elsehwer ein the world.

CAAN has an authority over the sky, but Sagarmatha National Park has the final say over the protected natural habitat.

Arjun Dhakal is the Managing Director of Social Economic, Environmental Institute (SEEPORT) and is an expert on natural resource and climate change policy issues.