Nepal Says It Has Six “New” 8000-Meter Peaks. Is Their Claim Legit?
A new chain of mountains has not been discovered in the Nepali Himalaya. Nevertheless, the country’s official website now lists six “new” 8,000-meter mountains. Some self-appointed pundits have called the move a thinly veiled cash grab, aimed at boosting Nepal’s tourism revenue rather than honoring the country’s topographical significance. But Nepal’s government has lobbied for this recognition for over 12 years. The news prompts a simple and very obvious question: Are these alpine features, previously considered mere sub-peaks, actual mountains themselves?
I called up David Göttler for some perspective. Göttler has made roughly 30 expeditions to Nepal, 20 of which were to climb 8,000-meter peaks. He successfully summited seven of them in a lightweight style, without the use of supplemental oxygen, including Mt. Everest (8,849m/29,031ft) and, earlier this year, the technical Schell Route on Nanga Parbat (8,126m/26,660ft).
The definition of a mountain
Although there is no universally accepted definition of what turns a sub-peak into its own mountain, Göttler points to the “mountain classification” guidelines published by the International Climbing and Mountaineering Federation (referred to worldwide by its French acronym UIAA) for reference. In it, the UIAA states that a 4,000er in the Alps should have a minimum prominence of 30 meters (98 feet) from the surrounding terrain to be considered a unique mountain. But this guideline can vary to a hilarious degree. Of the 82 4,000-meter peaks in the Alps, the least prominent, Vincent Pyramid, is just six meters above the surrounding terrain.
The UIAA also makes broad comments about how a mountain’s “morphology” and its “importance” from a mountaineering-history perspective can justify its 4,000er status.
The “new” 8,000ers
Göttler notes that none of these new 8,000ers are particularly easy. (The complete list includes Yalung Khang, Yalung Khang West, Kanchenjunga Central, Kanchenjunga South, Lhotse Middle, and Lhotse Shar.) “I’m not sure that these new 8000ers would actually increase the revenue for Nepal, as [the journalist] stated in the Kathmandu Post article. Some of these mountains, like Lhotse Shar, are really super hard,” he says, citing high degrees of technicality, exposure, or objective hazard that make them unlikely to become trade routes.
“But I could be wrong [about increased revenue],” Göttler concedes. “If the Guiness Book of World Records wants to crown the first person to climb all ‘20’ of the world’s 8,000-meter peaks, [that could bring some traffic]. Because then you have the first man to do it, the first woman, the first of a country, and so on.”
What does the UIAA say about 8000ers, specifically?
Unlike the 4,000ers in the Alps, the UIAA does not have specific guidelines for what constitutes an 8,000-meter peak. However, the UIAA did publish an official statement about new 8,000ers in February 2024, this being partway through the Nepal government’s 12-year recognition campaign.
The UIAA didn’t linger on dogmatic frameworks—they addressed the “new” mountains head on. Were these specific features worthy of mountain status? Ultimately, the question was easy to answer.
Lhotse Middle and Lhotse Shar are clearly part of the hulking mass which comprises Lhotse Main (an undisputed 8,000er). And Yalung Khang, Yalung Khang West, Kanchenjunga Central and Kanchenjunga South all exist as subsidiary bumps along the way to Kanchenjunga Main (another unequivocal 8,000er). Reddit, ever the resource for pithy one-liners, summarized the geography well. User Bobaskin wrote: “…It’s like counting a molar as four individual teeth.”
In the case of Kanchenjunga, with one or five 8,000-meter summits depending who you ask, the UIAA referenced the name itself: “When the meaning of the Sikkimese name ‘Kanchenjunga’ is considered—the ‘Five Treasuries of the Great Snow’—it is clear the local population consider the five peaks to be one mountain.”
What we should focus on instead
If the mountaineering world’s preeminent governing body doesn’t recognize these sub-peaks as 8,000ers, and if they are unlikely to become trade routes due to their atypical difficulty, Nepal’s ongoing campaigning (and recent website claim) appears wasteful and misplaced. Göttler thinks the country should focus on promoting its stunning—and comparatively endless—7,000-meter mountains instead. “If it was easier to get permits for these incredible peaks I think there would be a lot more climbers going [to Nepal],” he says.
Göttler also makes the achingly obvious point about lists, records, and their utility. “Do you climb just because the mountain is on a list?” he asks. These six Nepali sub-peaks have existed long before humans had any concept of mountaineering; they shouldn’t become valuable to us only now.
If a mountain—or its sub-peak—is beautiful and speaks to you, you should climb it. Simple as that.
The post Nepal Says It Has Six “New” 8000-Meter Peaks. Is Their Claim Legit? appeared first on Climbing.