Sustainable Trekking in Nepal: Leave No Trace Practices

Abstract

Nepal’s trekking industry spans major regions (Everest, Annapurna, Langtang, Manaslu, Mustang, and others) and is vital to its economy, but it also exerts heavy pressure on fragile mountain environments. This article reviews how the principles of “Leave No Trace” (LNT) and related sustainability practices are being applied across Nepal’s trekking routes. Drawing on field-based studies (e.g. waste audits and local surveys) and policy reports, we examine environmental impacts (solid waste, deforestation, water contamination, climate threats), stakeholder roles (local communities, park authorities, tour operators, and trekkers), and current challenges. Conservation-area projects like ACAP and MCAP have empowered communities to manage tourism revenues and resources collaboratively[1][2]. Nonprofit and government initiatives (e.g. SPCC in Khumbu) focus on infrastructure for waste collection[3]. Yet studies find that even high-tourism areas face insufficient waste regulation: e.g. Ghorepani (Annapurna) has garbage bins but “no specific regulations to protect the environment,” yielding minimal environmental benefit[4]. We discuss best practices (integrated waste management plans, porter-led cleanup, trekker education, eco-friendly lodges) and highlight gaps in enforcement and awareness. The review synthesises literature from 2014–2024 (peer-reviewed journals, NGO/government reports) to identify opportunities for strengthening LNT in Nepali trekking.

Introduction

Trekking is Nepal’s premier tourism sector, bringing hundreds of thousands of visitors annually to remote mountain areas. Prime destinations include Sagarmatha (Everest), Annapurna, Langtang, Manaslu, and Mustang. These regions are ecologically and culturally diverse but highly vulnerable: high altitudes magnify waste and erosion, and climate change (glacial retreat, erratic weather) increasingly threatens trail stability. For example, Nepal’s Sagarmatha National Park (Khumbu) recorded 36,518 visitors in 2012 alone[5], and annual tourists have since risen into the tens of thousands[6]. Trekking tourism thus offers major economic benefits (income, jobs) but also environmental costs. Local guides and researchers report deforestation for firewood, littered campsites, and polluted water sources along popular trails[7][8].

The “Leave No Trace” (LNT) ethic, originated by the US outdoor ethics movement, promotes pack-in pack-out and minimal-impact travel. Its seven principles (plan ahead, stay on durable ground, dispose of waste properly, leave what you find, minimise campfire impact, respect wildlife, and be considerate of others) are globally recognised guides for responsible trekking. In Nepal, LNT awareness varies. International trekking companies often instruct clients on LNT, and government permit rules encourage waste packing. However, formal adoption of LNT is uneven, and much of the responsibility falls to local communities, tea-house operators, and individual trekkers.

This article provides an in-depth review of sustainable trekking in Nepal through the lens of LNT. We survey the literature on environmental and social impacts of trekking, outline how LNT practices have been integrated (or not) into Nepal’s tourism management, and assess the roles of various stakeholders. After a brief review of relevant studies, we describe our methodological approach. The core discussion examines environmental challenges in key trekking regions, examples of community-based conservation programs, regulatory frameworks, and emerging best practices. We conclude with recommendations for strengthening LNT compliance and for future research on trekking sustainability in Nepal.

Literature Review

Academic and policy research on Nepal’s trekking impacts has grown in recent years. Early studies established that trekking induced dramatic socio-economic change in the Khumbu (Everest) region[9][5]. Nyaupane et al. (2014) used photo-elicitation interviews with Sherpa residents to show how tourism transformed livelihoods and landscapes since the 1960s[9][5]. They note both positive outcomes (income, infrastructure) and environmental pressures: Khumbu residents cite deforestation, solid waste accumulation, and sanitation issues as major concerns[7]. Notably, by 2012, Sagarmatha NP (Khumbu) had over 36,000 trekkers, representing nearly 30% of all Nepal’s trek tourists that year[5]. Such numbers underscore the strain on resources: Byers et al. (2020) observed that Khumbu’s small resident population (5,000) faces unsightly open dumps along trails due to rising visitation[10][6].

In the Annapurna region, tourism has long been integrated with conservation. The Annapurna Conservation Area Project (ACAP) was Nepal’s first and largest conservation area model. As reported by NTNC, ACAP allows local residents to live in and manage the area, invests all entry fees back into community development, and emphasises education and infrastructure to mitigate tourism impacts[1]. Studies of Annapurna trekking report similar challenges: one recent waste audit in Ghandruk found per-capita waste generation of 0.26 kg/day (261.3 g) comparable to urban rates and highlighted open burning of non-recyclables as a “serious concern”[11]. The Ghandruk study (Adhikari et al., 2024) noted that while much waste is organic (60%), the share of plastics and metals is rising, calling for “holistic management” beyond traditional composting[11]. These findings reflect that, even in regulated conservation zones, everyday LNT practices are incomplete without improved waste handling and recycling.

In the Manaslu region, the Manaslu Conservation Area Project (MCAP) similarly adopts an integrated conservation-development approach. MCAP built local capacity via an earlier ecotourism project and, since 1998, has emphasised community participation. According to NTNC, MCAP works through Conservation Area Management Committees (CAMCs) composed of residents, and uses tourism revenue for conservation and infrastructure. By 2018, over 7,000 trekkers visited Manaslu’s Tsum Valley, generating funds for improved water, schools, and conservation outreach[12][13]. However, the semi-restricted nature of Manaslu means that visitation is still far less than Annapurna, suggesting tourism-related impacts there have been more modest. No detailed academic study of LNT in Manaslu appears in the literature, but the MCAP framework indicates the local community’s role in resource management[14][13].

In aggregate, reviews of Nepal’s trekking tourism (e.g. Kumaresan et al., 2012; Singh et al., 2014) emphasise both the potential of community-based conservation and the need for sustainable guidelines. Most studies call for balancing tourism benefits with the protection of water, forests, and cultural sites. A gap in the literature is the empirical assessment of how well LNT principles are understood or followed by trekkers and locals. One Heliyon survey in Ghorepani (Poon Hill) found that although tourism improved economic status, only minimal environmental protections were in place: garbage bins existed, but no regulations to “protect the environment,” so that tourism offered “no environmental benefits”[4]. This suggests a disconnect between tourism policies and on-the-ground practices a theme noted in reviews of sustainable tourism (Nepal Tourism Board 2021; UNDP 2019) and mirrored in other mountain nations[7][11].

Methodology
Discussion

This paper is based on a comprehensive review of secondary and primary information sources. We conducted a targeted literature search (Google Scholar, Scopus, and Nepali agency websites) for peer-reviewed articles, government reports (Nepal Tourism Statistics, Ministry of Tourism), and NGO documentation related to trekking, waste, and conservation in Nepal’s mountain regions. Primary case-study data were drawn from published field research (e.g. waste audits in Annapurna and interviews in Khumbu[7][15]) and official project reports (ACAP, MCAP, SPCC). In discussing LNT practices, we also refer to trekking industry guidelines and media reports of recent initiatives (e.g. Nepal’s climber waste deposit scheme[16], army-led clean-ups). All information cited is from sources published or accessed by 2025, with preference given to scholarly or government/NGO documents.

Environmental Challenges in Nepal’s Trekking Regions

Sagarmatha (Everest) Region: The Everest corridor exemplifies both the tourism boom and its environmental aftermath. By 2019, the Sagarmatha National Park (SNP) saw over 60,000 tourist visits (not counting support staff)[6]. The impact is visible: Byers et al. report that virtually every lodge area in Khumbu has open solid-waste pits, often burned and contaminating soil and water[17][6]. Mountaineers themselves contribute heavy litter: an estimated 30+ tonnes of garbage have accumulated on Everest over decades. Human waste is also a critical issue on the glacier. Conservationists note that melting permafrost and inadequate toilets mean fecal pollution of snow and streams, with downstream health risks[18][16].

To combat this, Nepal has implemented strict mountaineering regulations. Since 2014 all Everest expedition members must pay a USD 4,000 environmental deposit, refunded only if the climber brings down at least 8 kg of trash[16]. Reports suggest this incentive has helped retrieve some waste, though many climbers forfeit the deposit to avoid the effort. The Nepali army and NGOs also mount annual clean-up campaigns: for instance, in 2019, army teams collected over 2 tonnes of waste near Everest, and in 2023, they reported 35 tonnes removed from four peaks[16]. Locally, the Sagarmatha Pollution Control Committee (SPCC), founded by Sherpas in 1991, maintains hundreds of trailside trash bins and educates communities on the “3Rs” of recycling[3]. These measures have improved conditions at Base Camp and lodges, but trekkers’ camps above Lukla still lack consistent waste infrastructure. Byers et al. propose a formal waste plan for Khumbu: segregate trash at lodges, transport recyclables to Kathmandu, and replicate the system regionally[19]. Implementing such plans remains a work in progress.

Annapurna Region: The Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA) receives the majority of Nepal’s trekkers and thus faces massive waste and resource pressure[20]. Researchers have documented intensive use of wood fuel: trekker groups consume fuelwood at twice the local per-capita rate[8], leading to deforestation on lower slopes. Garbage from teahouses accumulates in villages an average 15-person trekking group might generate 15 kg of non-burnable trash in 10 days [8]. However, ACA’s management model channels tourism funds into conservation. All visitor fees are reinvested locally, funding reforestation, water projects, and waste facilities[1]. Many villages now run community-managed recycling centers and public toilets. Nevertheless, waste audits show gaps: Adhikari et al. (2024) found in Ghandruk that,60% of waste is organic (managed by composting or feeding to livestock), but plastics and glass are still often openly burned[11].

Another concern is crowding on key trails (Annapurna Circuit, Mardi Himal, Poon Hill). Baral & Rijal (2022) observed litter along trails near Poon Hill and noted that domestic trekkers in particular were seen plucking rhododendron flowers and discarding wrappers[15]. Their questionnaire found that while organic waste from lodges was usually composted or fed to animals, inorganic waste was simply burned or buried[21][22]. The net effect in high season is visible litter in riverbeds and burned glass shards at campsites. Thus, even with ACAP’s integrated approach, day-to-day trekking remains polluting. As Baral & Rijal conclude: in Ghorepani, tourism has raised local incomes but left the environment unprotected without formal regulations[4].

Langtang and Mustang: Langtang National Park (north of Kathmandu) and the trans-Himalayan Upper Mustang are less studied. Langtang, devastated by the 2015 earthquake, has seen recovery largely driven by community initiatives; several villages rebuilt schools and lodges with earthquake funds, incorporating eco-stoves and rainwater tanks to reduce forest pressure[23]. Mustang (Lo Manthang region) is administered jointly by ACAP; local Loba leaders charge entry fees that fund patrols and scholarships. Both regions receive fewer trekkers than Annapurna/Everest, but still face waste and grazing impacts. Anecdotal reports suggest that in Upper Mustang, strict local control (annual visitor permits) helps limit litter. Overall, across all regions, the major environmental stresses are consistent: unmanaged solid waste and sewage, forest degradation for fuel, contamination of springs, and increased grazing pressure. Climate change exacerbates these: rising temperatures have melted glaciers (by up to 50 m on some Khumbu slopes[24]) and can turn buried waste and human feces back into the water supply as permafrost thaws.

Stakeholders and Leave No Trace Practices

Applying LNT in Nepal’s trekking context depends on multiple actors. Local communities and Conservation Area authorities play a central role. In Annapurna, ACAP divides the region into unit conservation offices, some of which (e.g. Ghandruk, Sikles) focus on integrated tourism management[25]. ACAP’s village conservation committees and “Tourism Management Committees” (local NGOs) conduct environmental education and patrols. Similarly, in Manaslu, MCAP works through elected Conservation Area Management Committees (CAMCs) in each village[14][13]. These bodies train locals (guide/groom) in waste segregation and encourage lodge owners to install incinerators or compost pits. For example, many Annapurna lodges now separate organic scraps for compost while storing plastic in bins for eventual disposal (often by private “eco-porters”).

Government and park authorities set regulations that align with LNT concepts. All national parks and conservation areas prohibit single-use plastic bags above certain altitudes. For instance, Sagarmatha NP strictly bans non-biodegradable waste; Lukla airport checks outbound flights to ensure carried-out trash. The Nepal Tourism Board requires trekking agencies to brief clients on “clean trail” policies as part of permit issuance (via the TIMS card system). New policies (post-2020) include stronger penalties for littering. However, enforcement is uneven. In practice, many small teahouses and informal trekkers see these rules as guidelines rather than laws, leading to continued littering.

Tour operators and guides are increasingly targeted as LNT ambassadors. Major trekking companies in Kathmandu and Pokhara incorporate environmental training: guides teach basic LNT (e.g. carry out all trash, stay on trail, avoid wildlife disturbance) and supply biodegradable soap and portable waste bags. Some companies have “Green Trails” initiatives, organising cleanup treks or incentivising clients who summit without leaving debris. Reports from hiking communities suggest that Western trekkers on well-organised tours generally comply with LNT (carrying out their packaging and waste), whereas casual domestic hikers or large unsupported groups often do not. This gap is illustrated by Baral & Rijal’s observation that most litter along the Poon Hill trail came from local visitors[15].

Trekkers themselves ultimately decide how “no-trace” their trek will be. Educational outreach (through websites, trekking forums, and social media) has raised awareness of LNT among international visitors. NGOs like The Mountain Institute and the Kathmandu-based Trekking Agency Association of Nepal have begun distributing LNT brochures and conducting workshop sessions before departure. Nevertheless, cultural habits differ: in many Nepali villages, sweeping the yard into a communal dump is normal, and the idea of carrying all waste back out may be unfamiliar. Likewise, ancient traditions of burying or burning refuse can persist. Bridging this gap requires not just slogans but alternative infrastructure.

Current Challenges

Several persistent challenges impede the full realisation of LNT in Nepal. Waste disposal infrastructure is inadequate in many trekking areas. For example, outside of major villages, trails have very few official compost pits or latrines and those in use often overflow. Studies indicate that even in popular sites, the majority of non-degradable trash (plastic, metal) ends up in burning pits or open dumps[15][11]. Untreated human sewage remains a problem: along trails, there are few toilets, so visitors often defecate near streams or in rudimentary pit toilets whose contents eventually leak into watercourses (especially when the ground thaws). Nepal’s World Heritage sites and conservation areas do require lodges to have waste disposal plans, but compliance monitoring is weak.

Overcrowding and unmanaged trails increase impacts. Peak seasons on Annapurna and Everest can see dozens of hikers per day on single-track trails. This trampling leads to erosion and the formation of informal campsites (which then concentrate waste). The proliferation of homestays and “tea-house accommodations” at high altitudes means trekkers stay in closer contact with the environment and locals, raising expectations for facilities that often aren’t provided. Moreover, new trekking routes and the Great Himalaya Trail expansion bring tourists to previously pristine areas, risking fresh environmental damage. The network of trails is vast, and park staff cannot oversee every corridor.

Governance and policy gaps also remain. Nepal has solid environmental laws (e.g. Solid Waste Management and Resource Mobilisation Act, 2017), but implementation is fragmented. Lack of coordination between agencies for instance, between the Department of National Parks, district forest officers, and local governments can lead to loopholes. Funding shortages hamper efforts: many conservation committees rely on entry fee revenue, which dropped sharply during the 2020–2022 tourism slump. Even well-meaning community programs can falter without sustained support. Furthermore, political turnover and bureaucratic delays can stall new regulations. For example, proposals to limit trekking permits per season (to cap usage in Annapurna) have been discussed but not enacted.

Sociocultural challenges complicate LNT adoption. Trekking is not solely a Western activity in Nepal; domestic tourism is growing. Many Nepali visitors have different attitudes toward nature for example, some may not see plastic litter as unnatural if it is burned or hidden. Language barriers and educational gaps mean that LNT messaging (often in English) does not reach all populations. In addition, some cultural practices (e.g. leaving offerings on trails, which involves placing cloth or corn) can conflict with the “leave what you find” principle unless carefully adapted. Working respectfully with local customs requires sensitivity.

Best Practices and Innovations

Despite challenges, Nepal has developed notable best practices that align with LNT principles. Waste management initiatives: Building on local efforts, ACAP and SPCC have installed “environmental stations” and waste transfer points in key villages, where lodges bring separated garbage for collection. Byers et al. (2020) detail a proposed system in Khumbu where recyclables are packaged at material recovery facilities and flown out via Lukla to Kathmandu[19]. While not yet fully implemented, steps have begun: for instance, community recycling centres now exist in Jiri (Approach to Everest) and Ghandruk. Similarly, programs like “Waste Warriors” (an NGO) have started hauling trash bags down from Everest base camp during expedition season.

Clean-energy and “green lodges”: Many tea houses now use solar panels for electricity, reducing the need for diesel generators or kerosene. Improved cook stoves (e.g. Philips wood stoves) have been distributed in ACAP villages to cut firewood use and indoor pollution. These efforts conserve forests and improve human health. Compost toilets have been piloted in parts of Langtang and Annapurna; guests deposit a biodegradable toilet bag that is later buried on site. ACA-supported safe-water taps (gravity-fed spring sources) mean trekkers no longer boil all stream water with wood fuel.

Education and partnerships: NGOs and parks have held workshops for guides on LNT. Some trekking agencies issue trekkers special waste bags or glass bottles to discourage single-use plastics. The Department of National Parks provides “trail etiquette” posters in local languages. International partners like UNESCO’s “Mt. Everest World Heritage site” program and the FAO Mountain Partnership have launched awareness campaigns, promoting indigenous knowledge (e.g. Buddhist respect for nature) alongside LNT science[3]. In some villages, trekking is now explicitly marketed as “ecotourism”: for example, Annapurna lodges display “green certificate” plaques for meeting waste and sanitation standards (checked periodically by ACAP staff).

Regulation and enforcement: At the policy level, the practice of requiring waste deposits for Everest climbers has shaped attitudes: although targeted at climbers, it demonstrates the seriousness of the issue. More recently (2023), the government proposed an all-route litter deposit for trekkers and tightened plastic bans nationwide (prohibiting single-use plastic in all national parks). Entry fees for restricted areas such as Upper Mustang already fund conservation patrols and trail maintenance. Another promising practice is the Trekking Impact Monitoring System, where selected routes are regularly assessed by researchers and park officers to monitor usage and environmental indicators, guiding management decisions (e.g., where to place more latrines or close a trail for recovery).

Overall, the blend of community stewardship, innovative infrastructure, and environmental education represents a maturing approach to sustainable trekking. Successes in Annapurna and Khumbu can serve as models: for instance, if Byers’s waste plan is implemented, it could be adapted to Annapurna or Manaslu. Monitoring programs (like Adhikari et al.’s waste survey) provide data that local committees use to lobby for resources. The increased coordination between government and community groups exemplified by the 2023 Mountain Clean-up Campaign (army plus NGOs) shows that Nepal’s stakeholders are recognizing and tackling the LNT challenge.

Conclusion

Nepal’s trekking industry stands at a crossroads between growth and sustainability. The “Leave No Trace” principles offer a clear framework to minimize impacts, but their success in Nepal hinges on social and institutional factors. This review finds that while the ethos of leaving pristine mountain environments is embraced by some stakeholders (notably international agencies and well-informed guides), practical adoption is uneven. In heavily visited zones like Sagarmatha and Annapurna, chronic waste issues persist despite decades of conservation effort[6][4]. Conversely, regions with strong community management (e.g. portions of ACAP) have made strides in redirecting tourism income to environmental protection[1].

Key recommendations include: 

(1) Strengthening enforcement: Park authorities should expand waste deposit/refund systems to trekking (not just climbing), and levy fines for littering. 

(2) Building local capacity: Continue training and funding for local committees so they can maintain toilet facilities, manage recycling, and educate visitors. 

(3) Education for all trekkers: Develop culturally appropriate LNT education, including materials in Nepali and other local languages, and empower guides to be environmental ambassadors. 

(4) Integrated waste infrastructure: Invest in scalable waste processing (e.g. regional composting and recycling) so that “pack out” is paired with actual disposal. 

(5) Research and monitoring: Use systematic studies of waste composition and trekkers’ behaviour to guide targeted interventions (as done by Baral et al. and Adhikari et al.).

In conclusion, sustainable trekking in Nepal requires that all actors “leave only footprints.” The literature and reports reviewed here demonstrate that Nepal has innovative community-based conservation models and committed personnel. However, growing visitor numbers and climate pressures mean that LNT must become an integral part of policy and practice, not just an optional guideline. Only by tightly weaving environmental stewardship into the trekking culture from Kathmandu trekking agencies to high-altitude tea houses can Nepal ensure that its Himalayan treasures remain intact for future generations.

Reference:

Adhikari, Saroj, et al. “Solid Waste Management in Rural Touristic Areas in the Himalaya A Case of Ghandruk, Nepal.” Habitat International, vol. 143, 2024, p. 102994. [11]

Baral, Rekha, and Deepak Prasad Rijal. “Visitors’ Impacts on Remote Destinations: An Evaluation of a Nepalese Mountainous Village with Intense Tourism Activity.” Heliyon, vol. 8, no. 8, 2022, e10395. [15][4]

Byers, Alton C., et al. “A Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan for Sagarmatha (Mt Everest) National Park and Buffer Zone, Nepal.” Mountain Research and Development, vol. 40, no. 3, 2020, pp. A1–A9. [19][6]

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. “Sagarmatha Pollution Control Committee (SPCC).” FAO Mountain Partnership, 2025, www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/members/detail/sagarmatha-pollution-control-committee-(spcc)/en. [3]

Nepal Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC). “Annapurna Conservation Area Project (ACAP).” NTNC, n.d., https://ntnc.org.np/project/annapurna-conservation-area-project-acap. [8][1]

Nepal Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC). “Manaslu Conservation Area Project (MCAP).” NTNC, n.d., https://ntnc.org.np/project/manaslu-conservation-area-project-mcap. [14][13]

Nyaupane, Gyan P., et al. “Perceptions of Trekking Tourism and Social and Environmental Change in Nepal’s Himalayas.” Tourism Geographies, vol. 16, no. 3, 2014, pp. 415–37. [7][5]

Note: All parenthetical citations (e.g. [19]) refer to the source material listed above by author/date, with corresponding line numbers from the document. These sources include peer-reviewed studies, official project documents, and organizational reports as indicated.

[1] [8] [20] [25] Annapurna Conservation Area Project (ACAP) | The National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC)

https://ntnc.org.np/project/annapurna-conservation-area-project-acap

[2] [12] [13] [14] Manaslu Conservation Area Project (MCAP) | The National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC)

https://ntnc.org.np/project/manaslu-conservation-area-project-mcap

[3]  Sagarmatha Pollution Control Committee (SPCC) 

https://www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/members/detail/sagarmatha-pollution-control-committee-(spcc)/en

[4] [15] [21] [22] (PDF) Visitors' impacts on remote destinations: An evaluation of a Nepalese mountainous village with intense tourism activity

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363280976_Visitors'_impacts_on_remote_destinations_An_evaluation_of_a_Nepalese_mountainous_village_with_intense_tourism_activity

[5] [7] [9] (PDF) Perceptions of trekking tourism and social and environmental change in Nepal's Himalayas

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265341317_Perceptions_of_trekking_tourism_and_social_and_environmental_change_in_Nepal's_Himalayas

[6] [10] [17] [19] A Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan for Sagarmatha (Mt Everest) National Park and Buffer Zone, Nepal

https://bioone.org/journals/mountain-research-and-development/volume-40/issue-3/MRD-JOURNAL-D-20-00018.1/A-Sustainable-Solid-Waste-Management-Plan-for-Sagarmatha-Mt-Everest/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-20-00018.1.full

[11] (PDF) Solid waste management in rural touristic areas in the Himalaya A case of Ghandruk, Nepal

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376891346_Solid_waste_management_in_rural_touristic_areas_in_the_Himalaya_-_A_case_of_Ghandruk_Nepal

[16] [18] [24] Mount Everest Is Turning into a Garbage Dump | Earth.Org

https://earth.org/amidst-growing-mountain-tourism-in-nepal-mount-everest-confronts-the-perils-of-pollution/

[23] Linking eco villages and community water management in Langtang ...

https://iki-small-grants.de/k1project/linking-eco-villages-and-community-water-management-in-langtang-national-park/

@Surya Bahadur Ghimire