It's not a nice feeling to regret a Himalayan trek. But many trekkers go through this phase. Swathi writes about her personal regret in this post. Read on.

Why I Regret My Trek To Kedarkantha After Completing Rupin Pass

Why I Regret My Trek to Kedarkantha after Completing Rupin Pass

Here are the 5 best and safest Himalayan treks for children to do. All the treks are in Uttarakhand, and they make for a great experience.

5 Best Himalayan Treks for Children

5 Best and Safest Himalayan Treks for Children

This article helps you plan and rightly time the Valley of Flowers trek. This is a secret nobody tells you.

What Is The Best Time To Visit Valley of Flowers - What Nobody Tells You

The Atal Tunnel could change the future of trekking in Himachal, as it opens up some terrific trekking regions. Here's how.

How the Atal Tunnel Impacts Trekking in India

These three states are very different from each other -- the mountain ranges, the landscapes, the flora. Here's an idea of which one to choose

Why Treks in Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu &amp; Kashmir are so different

Why We Change Trekking Routes From Time To Time

Here's a collection of informative trekking articles form over the years. From the comparing treks in the Himalayas, to discovering forests in Chhattisgarh.

A Collection of 12 Trekking Articles You Must Read

Arjun Majumdar talks about the sikkim situation

The Injustice about Goechala

At 20,500 feet Stok Kangri is the highest trekkable summit in India (6,153 mts). However, this trek is not for beginners. Arjun Majumdar explains why.

Why Stok Kangri in Ladakh is meant for the experienced trekker

Why Stok Kangri in Ladakh is Meant for the Experienced Trekker

We are seeing more and more dhabas on trekking trails. Are they an eye-sore or are they a blessing? Share your thoughts in this debate!

Dhabas on Treks, Yes or No? What do you think?

In this post, we talk about 5 elements that have to come together for us to select a campsite and set up a trekking trail. Take a look!

How We Choose Campsites On Himalayan Treks

Why 2020 was a Landmark Year for Trekking in India

We never loose out on an opportunity to go on a weekend trek. Due to the COVID19 lockdown, we're all stuck. Here's what we miss the most weekend treks.

What I Miss About Weekend Treks During The COVID Lockdown

The Valley of Flowers trek is one of the most popular treks in India. If you plan to visit this trail, read this article to know what to look forward to!

What To (And Not To) Expect From The Valley of Flowers Trek

Arjun Majumdar writes about one of the best meadow treks, the Dayara Bugyal trek and highlights why it is also known as a Grand Snow Trek!

Why Dayara Bugyal Is A Grand Snow Trek For Beginners

Before she became a Trek Leader, Anuja trekked extensively across the Himalayas. Her trek to Pin Parvati shaped the course of her life. Read her story here.

What I Learnt When I Trekked With Shepherds Across Pin Parvati Pass

Trekking in Kashmir is unique in many ways but few other treks can match up to the experience of doing Tarsar Marsar trek. Here Arjun Majumdar tells us why.

Why Should Tarsar Marsar Be On Your Bucketlist?

When Sachin Jha went on the Kanamo Peak trek, he did not expect his most experienced trek leader, Saranbir Singh, to go missing. Here's what happened.

How even the most experienced trekkers can get lost in the mountains

Not many Himalayan treks are accessible in winter. Kedarkantha is a rare exception. Here is all you need to know all about this winter trek.

Your ultimate guide to the Kedarkantha Winter Trek - Sankri Route

I’ve picked up a controversial topic today (I’m wondering why I keep doing this to myself).  But I’ve been conflicted about this for a long time. 

At Indiahikes, we firmly believe that everyone must trek. Trekking transforms lives; it profoundly impacts the mind, body and spirit like nothing else can. We believe that everyone must feel that sense of transformation. So when we see more and more people trekking, it gives us a deep sense of satisfaction.

At the same time, we are extremely vehement that trekking must be sustainable, without any harm to the environment.

This is where my conflict is. Almost everyone correlates crowds to environmental harm — the more crowd there is on a trek, the more damage it does to the environment. The more it spoils the trekking experience. 

Why is there such a hue and cry about crowds? 

Well, there are two types of “crowds” on our trekking trails. 

There’s one type of trekkers, who are sensitized about the fragile ecosystem they’re trekking in. They trek minimally, respect the environment, and make little or no noise. They leave mountains better or at least leave no trace. They approach the mountains with what we call “the spirit of trekking.” In fact, the best of our trekkers are always rewarded with a Spirit of Trekking award. 

On the other hand, there’s another type of trekkers who come to the mountains with a “tourist” mindset. They play loud music, use single-use cutlery for every meal. They want the luxuries of a city in the remotest areas of the Himalayas. When there are such trekkers, even two seems like a crowd. 

This is where it bothers me when a few naysayers raise a hue and cry that Indiahikes takes too many trekkers to the mountains. They must realise that there is an unprecedented demand for trekking in our country. If Indiahikes groups are full, trekkers are forced to find another way to go. Trekking isn’t going to stop, the crowds aren’t going to reduce. When such is the case, I would rather have a larger group of sensitized trekkers than small groups of unsensitized trekkers.

There’s another sect of people that need a reality check. These are people who complain that Indiahikes charges too less and makes trekking accessible for too many people. We strongly oppose such an elitist mindset where the mountains and their beauty are reserved for those handful who can afford exorbitant amounts. We work with the vision that Everyone must trek, and they must trek with the right spirit of trekking.

That brings me to the question — are crowds the problem or is management of the crowds the problem?

Very frankly, compared to the rest of the world, India is still in a nascent stage when it comes to trekking. If you look at footfalls of popular trails around the world, the numbers climb to 1,000 – 2,500 a day, often rising to half a million hikers in a year. This is true of the famous Inca Trail in Peru, the EBC and ABC treks in Nepal. Yet, these trails are pristine, without damage to the environment. In India, an extremely popular trail like Kedarkantha may have just around 20,000 trekkers going in a year, meagre numbers in comparison to the world. 

When trekking is at such a nascent stage in our country, trekkers do not automatically come with the right mindset. 

Every day, about 70 – 75% of trekkers are stepping into the Himalayas for the very first time. They need to be taught how to be in such a fragile ecosystem. 

This is where every trekking organisation needs to address the behaviour of their trekkers. 

It’s up to each organisation to ensure that their trekkers care for the environment before they care for themselves. It’s up to the organisation to put processes in place that ensure their presence in the mountains causes no harm to the environment. It’s up to the organisation to leave mountains better.  

This is not easy. Just to instill the right mindset and behaviour among trekkers, Indiahikes has a team of nine Experience Coordinators working day and night. 

As for putting processes in place, around 15% of our income goes into bringing about sustainable practices in trekking — a huge amount for any organisation. 

Can every organisation that’s taking trekkers into the Himalayas assure that? I don’t know. It’s not practical to expect that either. 

Every trekking organisation has a strong influence over how their trekkers behave in the mountains. Yet, it isn’t easy to exercise that influence correctly. Picture by Abhijeet Karwande

What are the real solutions to manage crowds?

 Trekking as a sport and tourist activity needs recognition 

To begin with, trekking is still not a properly recognised sport or tourist activity in our country. It is often parked as a subdivision under mountaineering or “tourism.” This lack of recognition is the first impediment, which does not allow the sport to grow with the government’s involvement. 

When an activity such as trekking goes unrecognized, even its economical benefits to the state go unrecognized, which gives the government little or no incentive to invest in it and regulate it. 

When I look at the most populous trekking trails of the world (including our neighbours in Nepal), I notice that despite crowds, trekking trails are clean, well-managed, and with good infrastructure. There is a mechanism to care for the trail, to regulate the numbers, to ensure a certain discipline in trekking.

Trekking trails in Nepal are an excellent example of how the government has taken initiative to build infrastructure (tea houses such as this) and manage crowds and thereby, waste on the trails. 

The biggest difference is the involvement of the government.

In India, the government has not yet seriously stepped into the trekking world.

There is no infrastructure, there is a weak waste management system, there is little regulation. While trekking organisations as large as Indiahikes can manage these to a certain extent, it is possible only to a certain scale. Without the government’s support, it’s a losing battle. 

On the other hand, trekking regulations are still rudimentary in our country. They are often driven by reactions to sudden petitions or environmental emergencies. Many treks like Kheerganga, Stok Kangri, Kanamo Peak have been closed by such restrictions. These are strong steps that can be detrimental to the economy of the region. It is not a step forward, but a step backward. 

 We have got to stop overcrowding trails 

There is an issue of overcrowding on certain treks — Kedarkantha, Kashmir Great Lakes, Brahmatal… Every trail has a certain “ecological carrying capacity” (defined as the number of visitors or visits an area can sustain without irreversibly degrading natural resources). While these are not really researched in our country, common sense tells us that a lot of trekking trails have already reached their threshold, simply because of mismanagement of crowds. 

Until these crowds can be managed by their organisation or the government, trekkers must choose to spread out rather than head to the well-known names. 

The government has taken a good step on the Gaumukh Tapovan trail by limiting the number of trekkers per day. Similar steps have been taken on local treks (like Kumaraparvatha). But is this going to work without the other initiatives of waste management and trail discipline? I don’t think so.

At the end of the day, if you ask me, crowds are not really an issue, but management of crowds is an issue. 

If every organisation can take charge of their trekkers, better yet, take it up as a collective responsibility to collaborate and protect the environment, the entire trekking community can make a positive difference, leaving mountains better.  

If the government steps in with the required funding, manpower and infrastructure, then trekking can grow in a healthy way. State governments can reap benefits of growth in the economy brought in by trekking. Local employment can grow exponentially. 

I cannot help but end with the thought that a lot of good comes from trekking. It transforms trekker’s lives, it transforms the lives of locals. It brings about a much-required behavioural change in society’s outlook towards the environment. 

I truly hope to see a day when Indians don’t have to step out of the country to see what modern trekking looks like. We should be setting an example for the rest of the world to see and learn from.

Crowds on Treks: Are They Good or Bad?

This has been a highly debated topic for a long time, be it on social media or on our feedback forms.

So we thought we’ll open this to all of you. 

With the response to a survey we conducted last week, the results of which are given below, we are seriously considering offering two to a tent. But we aren’t entirely convinced and we’d like you to share your thoughts on it.

So far, here’s our justification for having three in a tent:

1. The current size and shape of our tents are perfect for all weather conditions. They are dome tents specifically designed keeping the wind, rain, snow and sun in mind. Any smaller, they’ll get too airless, any bigger, they’ll not withstand the weather. We experimented with slightly bigger tents and we lost three of them as they flew away in heavy winds.

2. It reduces the resources we use. For a batch of 20, we currently need around 7 tents (this is discounting the staff members that come along). If there are two to a tent, that means 10 tents for each batch. We’ll also need two back up tents in case of any damage. This means we need at least another mule to every batch to carry the extra tents. Consequently, we are leaving behind a fairly larger carbon footprint – which is against everything we stand for.

3. Aesthetically, it’s never nice to see too many tents at a campsite. Lesser people in a tent means more tents, and it’s not nice to see too many tents in the middle of the wilderness of the Himalayas.

4. Too much luxury goes against the spirit of trekking. From what trekkers tell me, they want our current expedition tents to be two-man tents. But tents are not meant to be rooms – they are mere roofs over our heads. In the larger scheme of things, trekking is supposed to be about minimalist living. We don’t like the idea of ‘glamping.’ (glam camping).

5. It’s warm with three people. When the temperatures outside are dipping to sub zero, it’s always better to huddle up. If there’s empty space in the tent, its colder.

To give you some numbers, I received 553 responses over email within two hours! People are still responding and now I have over 800 opinions regarding this in my inbox.

I have put together some numbers from the emails.

442 (54%) trekkers are comfortable with three in a tent.

Their justification is on the lines of these comments.

I agree with all the points you have mentioned plus staying together there is a bonding and support . When someone is not keeping well and also it’s an independent self help team.

I totally agree with you, unfortunately, I have experienced it myself in chopta. As the 2 of the group members canceled at end moment I stayed in the tend with only one more and during the night when the temperature dipped it was much colder in our tent than those who had three.

I am a behaviour facilitator by interest and an HR professional by education and experience. Trekking and camping out together as an activity brings you closer to the people with you and as you share u r experiences and your space( in a tent) with them u build connections. This is another outcome of a trek and of having to stay with others, albeit cramped in a tent if at all.

“Wanting to have my own space” kind of thinking goes against the purpose for which one has undertaken the trek. In the mountains as u achieve heights u end up defeating ur notions and fears and step out of u r comfort zones, camping also is akin to the same. “can i be a bit more accommodative to the 2 others in my tent?” is fundamental to understanding oneself and being able to overcome our own “self” and preferences.

In conclusion, am sure you would have guessed, i am all for 3 in a tent.

Completely agree with the points enumerated in the mail. I have joined Indiahikes for the trek to Roopkund. During my trek, I also felt that the campsites are crowded. Increasing the number of tents will further reduce the available area.

I am a fairly huge person (98kg, 5 ft 10 inches) and so was one of my tent mate (over 6 ft 1 inch). The third guy in our tent was of medium size. And I should say, not once did we felt that it is congested inside the tent.

Also, we are not going for trekking to enjoy a luxurious travel. I believe that the idea of trekking itself is to sacrifice the comforts of our home, cooperate and sacrifice for your team mates, gain the courage to face all the difficulties one will meet and know more about oneself by pushing the limits.

175 (21%) trekkers prefer two in a tent.

On the night of my fist campsite, two hours in and I woke up with a claustrophobic attack and heavy suffocation. After that episode, first two campsites of my Hampta pass trek, I slept in the dining tents.

Since a few had to decend in the following days, I slept alone in a tent on the third, later on the last two day another person joined me in the extra tent. Considering this episode, where I had experience of sleeping in different tents in different combinations, here are my views.

1. I found two people in a tent to be less suffocating- relatively.

2. I still find tents like the dining ones to be better (high roofs). I know they can’t hold well in colder camps.

I had a claustrophobic attack and hence thought it’s worth sharing. Hope this is a useful feedback.

The quality of tents is undoubtedly good. But if you look into it carefully , it’s not just three people huddled up in there. It is their baggage, shoes, backpacks , offload luggage and of course sleeping bags also occupying space. If it’s raining outside , you can not keep any of these things outside the tent. With all this inside the tent , it is difficult for three to move, change clothes, fold sleeping bags in a tent. In this scenario I don’t take two in a tent , a luxury, but it’ll in fact improve efficiency.

I strongly vote for 2 persons in a tent. My reasons are as follows:

1. For a person of above-average height (5 feet 9 or above) its impossible to stretch the feet in a linear manner in the current size of tents that are being used and therefore such persons may prefer to stretch diagonally. I have experienced this myself. That is impossible with three in a tent.

2. Often we do not quite go to a trek in a ‘group’ of our own. In fact, quite a few trekkers had come to our Roopkund Trek with Indiahikes as solo trekkers. Therefore, not all have familiar persons or acquaintances in a group. Therefore, sharing a tent (which is definitely a personal space at the end of the day) with a complete stranger is a tad difficult, but I understand that’s what the spirit of trekking is all about! However, having three persons may be a bit too much to expect from the largely urbane trekkers. Although I may add here, both my tent mates were wonderful persons and we had tentloads of fun (none of us knew each other prior to the trek)!!

3. It is absolutely impossible for a person of my height (5 feet 11) to turn/ change the posture with 3 in a tent.

59 (7%) trekkers say that we should have an additional fee for two in a tent.

Yes, agreed, 3 in a tent is good for all the reasons mentioned. However, I think people should get the option to be 2 for a tent, for a fee, especially if they are a couple.

I have done the Rupin and Hampta Pass treks and I for one, have never had a sound night’s sleep when I had slept three in a tent. I kept twisting and turning those nights while my tent mates fell asleep. And once my tent mates used to fall asleep and start snoring, that made it even more difficult for me to get to sleep. I would wake several times at night as not being able to fall asleep makes me hit the rest room more frequently.

I understand that trekking is about minimalist living and we should keep in mind that we will be dealing with these issues while signing up for it. For that reason, I have never complained about this as I’ve always seen this as an individual specific problem (the individual being me). But it seems like the issue is just not specific to me and plenty of trekkers face the same issue.

All in all, I think it would be great to have this option at an additional fee. I would never pay to unload by backpack because I’m perfectly capable to carrying it on my own, but I would pay to have only one other person in my tent if I could as that is something that would make my life easier on me. But to tell you the truth, even if I don’t have that option, I would still put up with it and go out for treks with Indiahikes.

Definitely 2 per tent. Especially if u r a couple. Also for older trekkers wher we need a bit more comfort and maybe space. Our tired bones cant remain in one position for the full nite. I think the additional fee is an inbetween fair option. I resolved this by carrying my own tent

I felt the tent for 3 was bit too stuffy..

1. Many a times when we had to get ready in the morning there just wasn’t space for more than one person to pack things at a time.

2. Secondly on a personal note, one of the guys i shared the room with snored a lot. With the current tent size, he was snoring right next to my ear and it was really bothering me..

3. In two of the campsites, the land below was pretty uneven and almost caved in a bit. This meant both the guys on my side were sliding towards the middle and cramping me..wasn’t a good experience there..

Of course i enjoyed this as a trekking experience.. But if there was a way i could pay more and get a 2 person sent, i would definitely go for it.

Many have pointed that the going can get tough in bad weather.

Rains. I hate rains, probably because my part of Delhi gets submerged in water in that season. But rains in mountains are a norm and should always be expected. When we reach a camp site and we have 3 people in a tent, we are left with:

1. No space for bags inside the tent since there is hardly space to fit 3 people with back straight.

2. Bags are anyways wet by then and keeping them inside would make the place more worse.

3. No space to dry out clothes for later.

Comfort. I am saying it is comfortable with 2 in a tent and not a luxury. Maybe it’s just a perspective difference. For city dwellers like us (and most of your target audience) trek is quite different from our usual lives already. Expecting some space to lie down after walking a whole day should be considered a necessity instead of luxury. 🙂

IMHO, having 3 in a test is nice because of the following :

2. It helps improve camaraderie among trekkers.

However, having 3 in a tent becomes difficult when it is raining outside and water starts seeping into the tent. The tent is supposed to keep not just 3 trekkers but their bags also. We faced this issue during our trek to Hampta Pass last year. It was raining all night and water started coming into the tent because it was bulging from all sides. That made sleeping in the tents very uncomfortable. We had to trek with tired bodies for want of sleep. In such situations, having 2 in a tent becomes a necessity and not luxury.

Now the debate is open to you. What do you think we should do?

We would ideally like to take a collective opinion before taking a final call because at the end of the day, as a trekker, it is going to affect you.

So drop in your comments below and let us know!

For a long time, we have been hearing that three people to a tent is too many. What is your take on this? Contribute to the debate here.

Two Or Three To A Tent? What Do You Think?

For a long time now, there’s been a lot of hue and cry about the idea of fixed camps — the idea of camping at the same location for a longer period. I’ve been seeing other organisations targeting Indiahikes, posting pictures of our campsites, maligning our Green Trails work — all in the name of fixed camps. 

It has escalated to such an extent that the term “fixed camp” has almost become a bad word. It is now immediately associated with damage to the environment. It is considered inferior to “rolling camps” or “rotating camps” where organisations camp, pack up, leave and move to the next camp, until the next team comes. 

This idea baffles me to no end. When every ecologically evolved country of the world has adapted fixed camps as a norm, it surprises me that educated organisations in India are still debating the idea. 

What bothers me more is the lack of any logical backing in their argument. I don’t see numbers, I don’t see research. If there was any science behind it, Indiahikes would be the first to learn from it and adapt it. 

So today, after many months of deliberation, I’m going to address this topic, and go against every vehement proponent of “rolling camps” / “rotating camps.” I am going to debate you why fixed camp is infinitely better for the environment. 

I’m sharing our years of research and study on this topic. 

Important note: In this post, I’m not addressing solo trekkers or small groups of trekkers. This is meant for meant for organisations that have 3 or more groups a week, whether in the Himalayas or anywhere else in the world.

1. Fixed camping dramatically reduces the trample effect on trekking trails

This point requires a slightly deeper understanding of what “trample effect” means and why it matters.

When a trekking team of 15-20 members has to camp, it involves a whole lot of resources — tents, sleeping bags, safety equipment, snow equipment, toilet equipment, kitchen and dining equipment. Add to it food and provisions. All these have to be moved from one camp to another, usually on mules, occasionally with porters. This movement of people, equipment, provisions and mules causes something known as a “trample effect” on trails.  

This trampling of trails leaves behind an impact. It erodes away precious topsoil, which contains most of the ground’s nutrients and fertility. It bruises or shears off plants. It also compacts the soil, which doesn’t bode well for any greenery. 

 The effect is evident when you study the numbers. Consider this. 

For every team of 25 (including staff members), our gear weighs around 600 kilos for a 4-day trek. This is loaded onto mules. For a load of 600 kg, we usually have 12 mules on the trail, each carrying roughly 50 kg. 

While this doesn’t seem like much weight, here are the numbers that matter. 

Each mule, on its own, weighs around 350 kg. This is the lower average. With another 50 kilos of load, each 400 kg mule heads out on trails. 12 such mules of 400 kg walk one after the other with metal hooves on trails. 

While even humans have a small trample effect, it isn’t as heavy as a pack animal. You can read more about it in this research paper (point 6).  

So when you’re constantly pitching camps and moving to the next, taking all the equipment with you, you’re taking 12 mules of 400 kg each time, trampling trails again and again. 

Additionally, mules also consume vegetation from the trail as fodder. They eat grass, flowers and vegetation they need to stay alive. This can be quite a bit, when you consider 12 mules doing it day after day. 

When you fix a camp at a certain location, the tents, sleeping bags, toilet equipment, all the heavy equipment is taken care of. It reduces the number of mules dramatically, since all that is left to transport now is offloaded backpacks and food replenishments. The amount of weight we carry comes down to a maximum of 150 kg. This is usually managed with just three mules. 

Fixing camps reduces the trample effect by 75%. This is an incomparable benefit to the environment.

2. Fixed camps cause LESS damage to the ground than rotating camps

Many people have this contention that we camp at the same place for weeks together, damaging the ground on which we are camping. Especially the ground below and around the tents.

There is a big misconception here, which I’d like to clear out. 

There is research and scientific evidence that most of the damage on a campsite happens when you first of the damage on a campsite happens when you first pitch camp. Once pitched, the damage is much lesser as you continue to stay there. (Read research paper here)

The logic behind it is straightforward. 

When you first arrive at a campsite and pitch tents, it damages the growth under the tent. Plants/grasslands get damaged, the soil gets compacted. The impact is the maximum when you first put a tent. Over the next few days, the extent of damage on the same spot reduces. 

When you’re moving camps regularly, you pitch camps again and again, in different spots, causing damage to more surface area. The constant movement impacts the ground a lot more than staying stationed at a camp.

Side note: Many trekkers worry about camping in meadows and that it does damage to meadows. Studies have shown that meadows and grasslands, in general, are a lot more resilient and grow back easily compared to forest land (Read research paper here, Page 1). This is true from our observations too. Every time we return to the meadows to camp, there is no sign of our previous camps there. To classify fixed camps as causing “permanent damage” is a gross misrepresentation.

This is a basic understanding that the whole world works with. Trek in Nepal, trek in New Zealand, trek in Switzerland, Italy, France or Austria. You will see that there are designated campsites for a reason — to limit the impact of camping to a small area, rather than spread out. 

The biggest difference between most of these countries and India is that they have progressed towards permanent fixtures at campsites, like mountain huts, yurt camps and tea houses, which is why nobody debates them. Indian trekking is yet to develop to such an extent, where we can have permanent infrastructure on remote trails.

3. Toilets are better managed with fixed camps

Here’s another grossly misunderstood topic. Most organisations are constantly harping on about deep toilet pits causing damage to the environment. Yet, at the same time, the same trekkers are surprisingly impressed by toilet setups on international trails like Kilimanjaro and Mt Fuji.  

The only difference between the international toilets and the Indiahikes toilets are the infrastructure. They have concrete / wooden structures. We have tents. Underground, they are both the same. They are deep pits dug into the earth, their depth and size proportionate to the number of people and duration of use. 

By far, in high-altitude trekking all over the world, this is accepted as the most environmentally viable concept. In fact, I’d say at Indiahikes we’re a step ahead, because we always use accelerators that aid decomposition (like cocopeat or sawdust), something other countries don’t do. 

There are obvious benefits of deep toilet pits, compared to setting up shallow toilet pits with every campsite setup. 

 Deep pits protect the topsoil from permanent damage, and if managed well, can make the soil richer. With multiple shallow pits, the amount of topsoil removed is significantly high. However, with 2 deep pit bio toilets, we are looking at just 18 sq ft of topsoil being removed per pit.

 Deeper pit = faster decomposition. Shallow pit = slower decomposition. The process of composting benefits from a lot of heat. The larger the pit, the more the heat is retained, speeding up decomposition. With shallow pits, heat escapes within days, slowing down decomposition. 

 Deep pits protect over 80% of the campsite area from spread of human waste. When you have a fixed camp, your toilet pit requirements are limited to 2-3 deep toilet pits for the season. These are 3x3x3 in size. This way, the human waste is contained in one area. 

When you’re moving camps, you’re constantly digging shallow toilet pits for each day, increasing the number of pits at each camp exponentially, in reality around 900 toilet pits at each campsite!

 Deep toilet pits protect water sources. When you continuously dig multiple shallow pits for toilets, the more spread out human waste is going to be, going as far as the banks of streams and lakes. 

On the other hand, deep pit bio-toilets help in containing human waste to a specifically designated area. At Indiahikes, we ensure that our pits are as far as possible from the water sources.

Deep pit bio-toilets are reusable: A big benefit of a deep toilet pit is its reusability. In all our camps, we use our toilet pits in the same place, again and again, every year. 

With shallow pits, we suffer from incomplete decomposition. This makes it difficult to reuse the pits again. It creates an unnecessary need to dig out more and more shallow pits, causing long-term damage to the environment over many years. 

To read our whole article about why deep pits are more sustainable for human waste management at high altitudes, click here.

4. Fixed camps ensure less wear and tear of camping equipment, thereby reducing environmental impact

Here’s an indirect impact on the environment that not many people realise. When you’re constantly rotating camps, you’re constantly packing, unpacking and transporting your equipment. More damage is done to the equipment during these three actions than anything else. They tend to tear, the poles tend to bend or break, and pegs get damaged. 

But the damage is not the concern. There’s a larger impact on the environment. 

“Every piece of equipment has its own life cycle. It has its own carbon footprint, water footprint, ecological footprint. The more you reduce the lifespan of a product, you have underutilized the resources you have used. The more you’re wearing and tearing, the more waste you’re generating,” says Lakshmi Selvakumaran, head of Learning and Development at Indiahikes. 

“Furthermore, sports equipment is often made from polymer materials with waterproof coating. They are very very hard to recycle. On the opposite end, they are also very hard to manufacture. Chemical science is complex, the process is laborious. It requires high-end manufacturing equipment and energy. When we shorten the life-cycle of equipment, we are using more resources, leaving behind a large environmental impact,” she adds. 

Organisations like Patagonia have dedicated their entire vision towards making sports equipment more sustainable. That is the only way forward if we want trekking to grow in India. And fixed camping allows you to do that. 

When you fix camps, you pitch camps only one in several times compared to rotating camps. It goes a long way in prolonging the life cycle of the equipment, a practice that makes trekking more sustainable.

5. Fixed camps allow you to focus better the camp environment, beyond the nitty-gritties of plain camping

When our team members are stationed at one place, the “setting-up” is a one-time process. Once that is done, the only goal for them is to make the experience better and better. This is something we have a razor-sharp focus on at Indiahikes. 

This is not possible with rotating camps. We have observed that most organisations don’t involve trekkers in the campsite set-up either. It is usually staff members involved in campsite management, pitching tents, washing utensils, setting up small pits for toilets. The very next day, they hurriedly pack up, close toilet pits shabbily, leave trash behind. This is something we observe on almost all trails.  

When you fix camps, you focus on the right things — It’s like your campsite is your home. You maintain it, you host people, you treat them well and involve them in everything. Much like in your home, you try to become more and more sustainable and self-sufficient, leaving the place better than it was. 

Trekking is growing in India. Within Indiahikes alone we are seeing a tremendous increase in the number of trekkers every year. This is the case across almost all trekking organisations in the country. 

When this is the case, fixed camping is the only way forward. It reduces the amount of energy utilized, the impact on the camping grounds and the wear and tear of equipment. It aids better human waste and campsite management. It is better for the environment. 

There is ample research on this topic and enough live examples around the world to show us that it works. 

While it has become somewhat fashionable to berate fixed camping, logical and scientific evidence point to a different picture. 

I hope other organisations, the government and all other stakeholders in the Indian trekking industry take note and understand the goodness of fixed camps.

Why Fixed Camps Are Better For The Environment

fixed camps, rotating camps, deep pit toilets

Why Fixed Camps Are Better For The Environment 

Our thoughts and voices

READ MORE

READ MORE

Treks by Season

Treks by Difficulty

Treks by Month

Treks by Region

Follow Us

Contact Us

Bengaluru Office

Dehradun Office