|
and CHANGING FASHIONS IN THE EXPEDITION WORLD by Bill Ruthven (MEF Hon Secretary) [Reproduced with kind permission from the Alpine Journal for 2002 (Vol 107] |
|||
| The Mount Everest Foundation was formed following the first successful ascent of Everest by John Hunt's team in 1953. Its 'Memorandum and Articles of Association' were drawn up in January 1955 by Sir Edwin Herbert, a leading constitutional lawyer who later became Lord Tanglin. Its charitable aims were declared as follows: 'to encourage, or support, (whether financially or otherwise) expeditions for the exploration of, and research into the geology, ethnology zoology, and similar sciences of the mountain regions of the world'. In view of the inevitable link in the minds of most people today, it is possibly surprising that nowhere in the Articles does the word 'mountaineering' occur. The Articles have remained virtually unchanged since 1955: what has changed however, is the interpretation of them, something that seems to be debated with monotonous regularity by each new generation of MEF committee members, and recorded in the Minutes of the meetings, from which most of the following quotations have been extracted. Views have swung one way and then another, but despite (or maybe because of') this, although a number of different 'guidelines' have been agreed in committee, the Foundation has always been careful not to lay down any hard and fast 'rules' which might restrict its future activities. For the first couple of years there seemed to be little limitation on the age, nationality or destination of expeditions supported by the MEF, and teams with members of all age groups from countries as diverse as Australia, France, India, Kenya and the United States all received grants, including many to mainland Europe. The first attempt to establish any guidelines appears to have been in May 1956, when the C of M decided that 'in general, applications from schools should not be supported?, but even then, it was recognised that there might be special circumstances or exceptional cases that would warrant a grant, and the ruling was not followed to the letter. In May 1957, the C of M 'decided to refuse grants in future for exploration, mapping, and climbing in Norway and Sweden. Scientific work, especially glaciology, might still qualify.' In February 1960, it was agreed that the 'character training of youth, however desirable it may be, is not within the objects of the MEF'. With apparently confused ideas on continental boundaries, 'the Caucasus and the Atlas mountains were considered to be excluded areas of Europe, but not Anatolia or Iceland'. Various attempts were made to define eligible terrain. In 1964 Professor Wager suggested that mountain regions should be 'rugged', 'inaccessible' and 'ill-mapped' to qualify for MEF support. (Sir) John Hunt's definition was that terrain should be 'mountainous (ie not plateau), over 6-8,000 feet, uninhabited or sparsely populated, and through which human communications are few'. In June 1977, the C of M decided to accept the recommendations of a sub-Committee that it would be unwise to alter the 'objects', but that - once again - guidelines for their interpretation should be established to preserve consistency in bestowing grants, particularly as 'the scope for exploration in the original sense is much reduced'. It was therefore agreed that 'an attempt to climb a previously climbed mountain by a new route, or an approach to the problems presented by a mountain that had original features could be interpreted as 'exploration' '. In general, a repeat ascent of a route would not be supported if it contained no 'features of novelty'. In March 1978, it was the turn of the Screening Committee to decree which territories should be excluded from support. For mountaineering expeditions, these included 'any part of Europe, the Caucasus, the whole of Africa except Ruwenzori, Australasia, Baffin Island and Greenland south of 75º' - except that ?the Secretary should exercise some discretion with regard to expeditions to the South of Greenland, parts of which are still unexplored'. As regards North America, there were recommendations as to which areas of Alaska should be accepted, but the rest of North America would be excluded. For scientific expeditions, although in general readily accessible areas such as Europe would be excluded, in other parts of the world, particularly Africa, scientific expeditions 'would not be rigorously excluded from consideration', once more leaving the Secretary to exercise his discretion. The Greenland specialists pointed out that 75º N excluded the highest mountains in the country (and incidentally, some of today's most popular expedition destinations) and that access to the east coast was 'by no means easy - frequently more difficult than to some areas in the Himalayan chain'. In 1980, the spotlight swung onto South America: it was agreed that 'although cheap to visit' the Peruvian Andes were 'particularly worthwhile'. A 'number of worthy objectives' were thought to exist in the more expensive countries such as Bolivia, North Chile and Argentina whilst the Patagonian region in particular was likely to offer 'genuine unexplored terrain ' for several decades' . In the early eighties, 'siege tactics involving large teams of mountaineers' started to give way to an 'Alpine style approach of a relatively small number of gladiators'. This was much preferred by the MEF. Meanwhile, scientific expeditions tended to be larger than previously, if fewer in number. A review in 1989 recommended that exclusions should cover 'all Europe (including Anatolia, North Africa [sic] and Iceland), all Africa (except Ethiopia) and Iran', confining grants in Asia to the Himalaya, Karakoram, Hindu Kush, Pamirs and perhaps New Guinea - plus Central Asian or Chinese areas 'if they became accessible'. In North America, only expeditions to relatively ill-known or ill-mapped areas of Alaska/Yukon would be permitted, while in South America, British Guyana would be excluded. Other exclusions would be all Australasia, Spitsbergen and Jan Mayen in the Arctic, and 'well known mountains such as Erebus' in the Antarctic Three years later, bans were imposed on expeditions to the CIS (or strictly speaking 'the former USSR') using International camps, peaks in Pakistan under 6000m and the so-called 'trekking peaks' in Nepal. Another point that has caused frequent discussion is whether the Foundation should continue to award a relative large number of 'small' grants or concentrate its funds in a smaller number of 'big' grants. However, the receipt of a few hundred pounds from the MEF has often acted as a 'pump-primer', or meant the difference between an expedition taking place or not, so the former policy has been maintained. The importance of innovation on an expedition has been emphasised repeatedly. Gradually, banned areas have become fewer, and although mainland Europe and Africa are generally considered as exclusion zones (particularly for mountaineering), nowadays all expeditions are considered on their merits. Although the 'Approval' of the MEF is not a mandatory requirement for any expedition, as each year the Foundation receives a number of applications from UK- or NZ-based teams, it is probably fair to assume that they are a fair representation of the overall expedition 'scene'. Hence, apart from the various 'artificial' exclusions mentioned above, the list of expedition destinations supported by the MEF largely reflects the world political situation at the time. For example, in the early years, Afghanistan was quite a popular destination: to some extent this was probably due to the publications of Eric Newby's delightful 'A Short Walk in the Hindu Kush' in 1958. Afghanistan has not been so popular recently. Even Iran appeared in the list of countries visited in the early days. However, bureaucracy has also played no small a part in determining the popularity of expedition destinations. By a strange freak of nature, the highest mountains in the world are all situated in what have come to be known as 'third-world' countries, so it is hardly surprising that local people have taken whatever steps they could to reap some benefits from their natural resources. Initially, this was in a purely literal sense, as guides, porters and cooks, but then governments saw the opportunity to make big bucks, and introduced 'peak fees', 'environmental bonds' etc. These have rapidly escalated to the state that a team with up to seven members planning to tackle the South Col Route on Everest is now faced with an outlay of US$70,000 before they even buy a flight ticket. In the first twelve years of the MEF, (ie.1954 to 1965) various travel restrictions were in force - eg £50 maximum travel allowance - so it is probably not surprising that Iceland and Norway were the most popular destinations, although Nepal and Pakistan followed on. In stark contrast, only one of these countries appears in the list of 2002 expeditions supported - a scientific expedition to Norwegian-controlled Svalbard. The changing trends in destinations are clearly indicated on the 'stacked column chart' below, which shows the percentage of expeditions to specific areas during the 48 year existence of the MEF. From this it can be seen that the Himalaya peaked in popularity during the late seventies/early eighties, since when it has generally declined - mainly for economic reasons. Even more dramatically, expeditions to the Karakoram, which peaked during the same period, have dropped to none at all during 2002.
Meanwhile, with considerably less bureaucracy involved, the South American countries have attracted more and more expeditions. Although there has been declining interest in Peru, this has been compensated for by Bolivia, and as forecast in 1980, the Patagonian area of Argentina and Chile still offers plenty of potential. Its horrendous weather seems to have some sort of memory-dulling effect on visitors who, incredibly, return again and again for more of the same!
|
|||
