Before addressing a crowd of thousands of indigenous supporters, Morales joined priests and elders for private cleansing rites, then participated in a series of public offerings and prayers to the Andean deities for guidance.

“From this millennial place a new light is born, a light of hope for the Bolivian people and for humanity,” Morales said in a speech delivered in Aymara, Quechua and Spanish.

Morales vowed to continue to fight for the rights of indigenous Bolivians. Last year Morales led a constitutional overhaul that enshrined traditional religions and increased protection for indigenous land rights.

The Land and Its People

The Maidu Indians who lived east of the Buttes called them Histum Yani, and the Wintun Indians, who lived to the west, knew them as Onolai-tol. Both names translate to “Middle Mountain.” Rising like an island in the center of the Sacramento Valley, the Sutter Buttes figure prominently in the creation stories of these two Native American tribes. The origin stories differ: sometimes the Sutter Buttes arose out of water or darkness or chaos, created by the falcon spirit animal. In other stories, the Buttes were where Earth Maker dwelled after having made the world.

But just as the Sutter Buttes have a place at the beginning of creation, they also play a vital role at the end of life. In many native traditions, the Buttes are a mysterious, powerful portal to the spirit world, a stopping point for the dead on their journey to the afterlife. In some traditions, the Buttes are so powerful and holy that stepping foot in them is forbidden except to healers and spiritual leaders.

Northern California native peoples, such as those belonging to the Maidu and Wintun nations, did not live within the Sutter Buttes but seasonally traveled to the foothills to gather acorns, hunt and perform rituals and ceremonies. Their home villages were along the Sacramento and Feather rivers, where the Buttes’ prominent peaks dominated the people’s spiritual and visual landscape.

Oak trees dot the grassy slopes of these ancient, eroded volcanic domes, which culminate in a rough circle of steep, craggy spires — the highest peak tops 2,100 feet. The Sutter Buttes are approximately 10 miles across, with a total footprint of 75 square miles, about 1.5 times the size of San Francisco.

The mountain’s plant and animal community is similar to those found in the foothills of the Coast Range to the west and in the Sierra Nevada to the east. But for thousands of years, the Sutter Buttes have been separated from these regions by 40 miles of grasslands, a separation that has created an “island effect.” Although there are no plants or animals endemic to the Sutter Buttes, over millennia this separation created a unique biological community. The Buttes are where some plants and animals have their most northerly extension of their range, while others their most southerly.

In the 1830s a malaria epidemic brought by European fur trappers killed an estimated two thirds of the area’s native population; later diseases such as smallpox and cholera killed even more. The California Gold Rush displaced ancestral villages when the establishment of towns pushed the few remaining Indians onto remote village sites. When California joined the United States in 1850, the state passed legislation allowing for Native Americas to be forced into “apprenticeships.” These events devastated what was once the densest population of native people in America. Finally, in 1862, many Sacramento Valley Indians were forcibly relocated to a reservation. Today, the closest Native American settlement is a Wintun “Rancheria,” or tribal land, about 10 miles west of the Buttes.

Despite the devastation and displacement, the Sutter Buttes continued to be an important part of Native American mythology. The Sacramento Valley native peoples had long performed sacred dances, some of which are traced back to visions of dancing animals and spirits in the Sutter Buttes. In the 1870s, the California Ghost Dance synthesized with the Wintun’s Hesi ceremonies into the Big Head dance, in which participants danced for restoration of their Indian way of life. The Big Head dance is still performed today as a dance of renewal.

By the late 19th century, the Central Valley’s rich agricultural land was primarily cultivated in wheat. Today the once vast grasslands have been converted to rice fields, while the oak woodlands are now orchards for walnuts, prunes and peaches.  Sheep primarily grazed the upland of the Sutter Buttes until cattle production took hold about 50 years ago.

Current Challenges and Preservation Efforts

Future development and land-use strategies in the Sutter Buttes are the main concern of conservationists and Native American communities, who want to see the Buttes preserved and not sold for housing development or resorts.

About a dozen families own the majority of land in the Sutter Buttes, much of which is still used as ranchland. Most of the private landowners in the Sutter Buttes have a family relationship with the land that spans more than 100 years. They are proud of their ranching heritage and their private stewardship of the land and want to see it remain undeveloped. The California Parks Department owns a 1,785-acre parcel of land on the mountain’s northern flank; this undeveloped park is currently closed to the public due to state budget shortfalls.

While land in the Sutter Buttes is zoned as agricultural, the current Sutter County land-use plan allows for the land to be divided into lots as small as 20 acres. Critics of the current zoning contend that this opens the door for luxury residential construction that could gradually erase the natural landscape and spiritual nature of the Buttes. That’s what happened in 1999, when 1,100 acres in the foothills of the Sutter Buttes were sold and subdivided into 11 large lots. Five luxury homes have been built on those lots since then. In total, there are around 30 subdivided lots that cover approximately 2,500 acres.

In 2007, Sutter County approved the division of 900 acres of Sutter Buttes foothills into 13 lots. A local organization, the Yuba Historical Society, sued the county and the developer on the basis that there was no environmental impact report completed and that an illegal road variance was granted that could open up development anywhere within the Buttes. The lawsuit was settled in January 2010, with Sutter County setting aside its 2007 approval of the land’s division.

Sutter County is currently revamping its General Plan, including zoning designations in the Sutter Buttes. The plan will not be adopted until late 2010, but draft proposals point toward zoning restrictions that will keep any subdivided lots to 80 acres or greater. Such changes would prevent development of dense subdivisions, but would still allow for construction of luxury homes on large lots, such as those built in 1999. Even with changes to zoning, those who advocate preserving agricultural and undeveloped land in the Buttes worry that zoning designations could become vulnerable with each election cycle as local government leadership changes.

One strategy for land preservation is to protect land through conservation easements. The Middle Mountain Foundation is a land trust that actively purchases development rights from willing landowners through conservation easements in the Sutter Buttes; it then holds these easements in perpetuity as a protection against development. The foundation currently owns about 200 acres in the Sutter Buttes and plans to purchase 1,800 more acres through conservation easements.

For the time being, however, the current downturn in California’s economy and real estate market has eased development pressure. Depressed housing sales, stricter housing loan guidelines, and cautious investors all combine to protect the Buttes, at least for now, from aggressive real estate development.

When the housing market recovers, however, the Buttes may attract new real estate development because of revised Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. These maps, which go into effect at the end of 2011, place most of Sutter County in a flood zone, a designation that is projected to quadruple home insurance premiums. The Sutter Buttes are not part of the new flood zone, which may lure homebuyers and developers seeking to avoid the sharply increased insurance premiums.

Though members of the Maidu and Wintun communities now mostly live far away from the Sutter Buttes, they are nevertheless involved in the issues there. In 2005, members of the Mechoopda Maidu Indian tribe testified before the state’s park commission, asking that the parkland in the Sutter Buttes be granted a name that reflected the Native American heritage. (To date, the park has been temporarily designated as Sutter Buttes State Park.) They also requested that it be designated as a cultural reserve, a request that has not been realized.

Within the native community, however, there are differing opinions on the Sutter Buttes. Some feel strongly that there should be little to no human presence there, while others hike into the interior Buttes as guides on hiking trips that directly support conservation efforts.  Since 1976 close to 40,000 adults and school children have visited the Buttes on such guide-led public tours.

What You Can Do

The only way the public can gain access into the Sutter Buttes is to join several guided hiking tours that are offered in cooperation with landowners and the state park system on a limited, for-fee basis by the Yuba Historical Society and the Middle Mountain Foundation. Monies collected support their land preservation activities. You can also support the work of these organizations by becoming a member.

Sources

Anderson, Walt. Inland Island: The Sutter Buttes. Prescott, AZ: Natural Selection, 2004.

Barth, Daniel (Yuba Historical Society). Telephone interview, November 30, 2009.

Barth, Daniel. Middle Mountain Montage. Video Clip. YouTube, January 1, 2009.

Brown, Laura. “‘Chipping Away’ at Sutter Buttes.” The Union, December 12, 2007.

Geiger, Steve (Sutter County Planning Services). Telephone interview. December 15, 2009.

Hubbartt, Mike. Images of America: The Sutter Buttes. Mount Pleasant, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2010.

Knapp, Don. “A Chance to Hike California’s Hidden Buttes (Maybe).” New York Times, March 16, 2007.

Lindahl, Kathleen. “A Short History of Peace Valley in the Sutter Buttes of Central California.” California Department of Parks and Recreation, November 3, 2005.

McHugh, Paul. “Sutter Offers Many of Nature’s Wonders.” San Francisco Chronicle, September 28, 2000.

Mechoopda Maidu Indians. Mechoopda Maidu Indians.

Middle Mountain Foundation. Middle Mountain Foundation: The Sutter Buttes Regional Land Trust.

Ortiz, Gamaliel. “Hike Into the Sutter Buttes, Relics of Geological History.” The Sacramento Bee, November 12, 2009.

“Sutter County General Plan Update.” Sutter County.

Ward, Arlene (Mechoopda Maidu Indian Tribe). Telephone interview. December 16, 2009.

Wilkins, Cory (Middle Mountain Foundation). Telephone interview. November 24,  2009.

Yuba Historical Society. Yuba Historical Society.

Yune, Howard. “FEMA Flood Maps for North Sutter Won’t Arrive Until 2011.” Appeal-Democrat, December 7, 2009.

Yune, Howard. “Future Growth in Sutter County Debated.” Appeal-Democrat, October 26, 2009.

Yune, Howard. “Settlement Stops Land Split in Buttes.” Appeal-Democrat, January 20, 2010.

In late December 2009, Denison Mines Corp. began extracting high-grade uranium ore from its Arizona 1 mine, located about 10 miles from the boundary for Grand Canyon National Park.

The mine had been shut down in 1992, never having produced any ore, after a crash in uranium prices. However, with a rebound in prices in recent years and increasing uranium demand — including the Obama administration’s January announcement of major investment in the construction of new nuclear reactors — mining companies are looking to restart old mines and open new ones in northern Arizona, which reportedly holds the most concentrated source of uranium in the United States.

Renewed interest in uranium mining has put Native American tribes, environmental-protection advocates and other stakeholders on alert. In July 2009, members of the Havasupai Nation and their allies gathered at the Red Butte sacred site, on the south rim of the canyon, to address the reemerging threat.

The U.S. Department of the Interior is taking a cautious approach to ensure that communities, landscapes and watersheds are protected, it says. In July, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced a two-year moratorium on the filing of new mining claims on the 1 million acres of federal lands near the Grand Canyon. During that time the department will consider imposing a 20-year restriction on new mine development. Also on the table is the Grand Canyon Watersheds Protection Act, introduced by Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) in January 2009, which would withdraw the lands from mineral exploration.

“Over the next two years, we will gather the best science and input from the public, members of Congress, tribes and stakeholders, and we will thoughtfully evaluate whether these lands should be withdrawn from new mining claims for a longer period of time,” Salazar said in a statement.

The moratorium, however, doesn’t affect existing valid mine claims, which are protected by the outdated General Mining Act of 1872. According to the Bureau of Land Management, six mines are expected to reopen on the federal lands in question.

In November 2009, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club and the Grand Canyon Trust sued the Bureau of Land Management for failing to update 1980s-era environmental reviews and mining plans before allowing Denison to reopen the Arizona 1 mine. The groups say the current mine claim is not valid, and thus subject to the moratorium. The suit is still pending.

Of particular concern is potential impact on groundwater and regional aquifers, which supply water districts including Las Vegas and Los Angeles. As a part of the Interior Department’s two-year review, the U.S. Geological Survey conducted a series of studies to determine the effects of uranium mining on the natural resources of the region. The results, released Feb. 17, show elevated levels of uranium in wells, springs and soil around uranium exploration and mining sites.

Elsewhere in the Southwest, uranium mining threatens Native American sacred sites. New Mexico’s Mount Taylor — held holy by the Navajo, Acoma, Zuni and other tribes — sits atop a vast uranium deposit that has also attracted the attention of mining companies since the upsurge in uranium prices. In 2009, native tribes and environmental groups launched an effort to protect the mountain, which resulted in its receiving state protected status as traditional cultural property. (Read an excellent piece of long-form journalism on this complex story in High Country News.)

Visit the websites of the Center for Biological Diversity and the Grand Canyon Trust for more information on uranium mining at the Grand Canyon and ways you can help.

In January, the U.N. released its first-ever report on the “State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples,” which presents a global view of the current situation of indigenous peoples, examining poverty and well-being, culture, education, health, human rights, environment and emerging issues.

Authored by indigenous peoples, the report offers statistics and information to raise awareness about indigenous development, advance the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and influence the U.N. Development Program’s 2010 Human Development Report, themed “Rethinking Human Development.”

The report highlights the critical situation for indigenous peoples around the world and translates the urgency into hard statistics. Indigenous peoples make up about 5 percent of the world’s population and 15 percent of its poor, as they are the first population to be affected by industries that harm the environment or resource-intensive projects.  In the United States, nearly a quarter of Native Americans and Alaska Natives live below the poverty line, with lower life expectancy and higher death rates from causes including diabetes, homicide, suicide and car accidents. The statistics are grim.

Although indigenous peoples are caretakers of some the world’s greatest regions of biodiversity and enrich global culture in a plethora of ways — from traditional knowledge in herbal remedies and land management to environmental principals — their plight has yet to enter mainstream conversation or find serious discussion in major news outlets.

Yet every effort counts, and actions such as the release of “State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples” will further the urgently important dialogue on global interdependence, land rights, resistance to the loss of biological and cultural diversity, and hope for a collaborative future.

If the project goes forward, the Belo Monte dam would be Brazil’s largest hydroelectric complex and the world’s third largest. The dam would flood an estimated 170 square miles of land in the state of Pará, displacing some 16,000 people and and impacting thousands of others, including tribal people, whose livelihoods depend on the river and forest. The dam would also dry up the river around its “Big Bend,” home to the Paquiçamba reserve of the Juruna indigenous group.

First proposed in the 1980s, the project had been stalled for years because of widespread national and international protest. A 2005 lawsuit filed by federal prosecutors claims that indigenous communities were not consulted on the project, as required by Brazil’s constitution.

The Brazilian Environmental Justice Network has launched an international campaign demanding that President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and other Brazilian authorities stop the project. The online magazine Intercontinental Cry has details on what you can do. You can also get additional information from our friends at International Rivers, long-time opponents of the Belo Monte Dam.

Read our Xingu River System sacred site report to learn more about indigenous struggles to protect the river.

Designed to provide continuing education and professional training to those involved in the management, preservation and stewardship of Native American sacred lands, the seminar will cover areas including federal laws, tribal and federal land-management guidelines, historical and cultural factors, the consultation process and other tools for achieving protected status for culturally significant places.

For more information, including a detailed agenda, pricing and registration information, visit the NPI website.

Mount Tenabo and its environs are part of Newe Sogobia, the ancestral land of the Western Shoshone, who object to the project on religious as well as environmental grounds. The plaintiffs challenged the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s decision to approve the Cortez Hills mine in November 2008.

In its Dec. 3, 2009, decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the merit of the environmental claims of the Shoshone’s case and said that an injunction was in the public interest, noting “the irreparable environmental harm threatened by this massive project.”

The court thus reversed the district court’s decision, sending the case back to the lower court to issue an injunction pending the preparation of an environmental impact statement that “adequately considers the environmental impact of the extraction of millions of tons of refractory ore, mitigation of the adverse impact on local springs and streams, and the extent of fine particulate emissions.”

Cortez Hills would be one of the largest open-pit cyanide heap-leach gold mines in the country. The proposed mine area had been found, in repeated ethnographic studies by the Bureau of Land Management, to be a place of extreme spiritual and cultural importance to the Western Shoshone. The area is home to local creation stories, spirit life and medicinal plants, and it continues to be used for spiritual and cultural practices.

Learn more in our Mount Tenabo sacred site report.

The red sandstone monolith is a place of spiritual significance for its Aboriginal traditional owners, who have long urged an end to climbing.

Under the new 10-year management plan for Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, the 1,142-foot rock will remain open to climbers until the number of annual visitors choosing to climb drops to below 20 percent, until the park board determines that adequate new visitor experiences are in place, or until the climb is no longer the primary reason visitors choose to come to Uluru.

Those conditions may be hard to meet. “Realistically, I would expect the climb to remain open for at least a number of years,” Garrett said.

Last year — citing respect for Aboriginal belief along with safety concerns — the park board proposed an outright climbing ban in its draft management plan, which caused an uproar in the tourism sector. During a public-comment period on the proposal, the government received 153 submissions, 78 in support of the closure and 75 against.

With the new plan, park management will now focus on adding new attractions, such as more night-time and cultural activities. “The most important thing is to create new experiences — without new activities some visitors will still think the most important thing about Uluru is the climb,” Harry Wilson, chair of the Uluru-Kata Tjuta board, said.

If and when a ban is ultimately deemed appropriate, Garrett said the tourism industry will be given at least 18 months notice so it can adjust its marketing. In the meantime, park management will continue to promote a “do not climb” message to visitors.

To learn more about Uluru, read our sacred site report.

Nine Sacred Mountains, China—Throughout China’s history, Buddhist and Daoist pilgrims have gone to mountains seeking spiritual sustenance and solace; there are five sacred mountains that are preeminent for Daoists and four sacred mountains that are paramount to Buddhists. In the 20th century, political upheaval led to the violent repression of religious expression, and sacred sites across China were destroyed. Despite losses, the devotion of monks and local residents to the holy reputation of these mountains prevented total destruction.

Now, as China gradually moves away from its past of religious intolerance and forges a new social and political identity amid unprecedented economic growth, the sacred mountains continue to attract traditional pilgrims and a considerable number of secular visitors. With these dual roles as spiritual destinations and economic enterprises, the sacred mountains face new challenges, such as uncontrolled tourism and habitat destruction. In this modern era, Buddhists and Daoists are turning to age-old philosophies as an impetus for environmental conservation.

Bogd Khan Uul, Mongolia—Considered the world’s oldest officially and continuously protected sacred site, this mountain massif was declared a sacred mountain reserve in 1778, and evidence of its protected status dates back to the 13th century. During the decades-long rule of communism in the 20th century, religion was repressed and nearly all of Mongolia’s 900 Buddhist monasteries were destroyed.

However, reverence persisted and the post-communist era ushered a revival of the national tradition of nature conservation, the restoration of monasteries and resanctification of sacred natural sites, including Bogd Khan. Unfortunately, real estate and tourism development, including a ski resort, now threaten Bogd Khan, and Mongolia’s deep-rooted conservation ethic must face yet another modern challenge.

Lands of the Penan, Malaysia—Living in the rainforests of Borneo, the Penan people are one of the last indigenous groups in the world with members who still follow a traditional nomadic lifestyle, relying solely on their natural environment for material and spiritual sustenance. In recent decades, logging has destroyed or altered the rainforest, forcing most Penan into a settled or seminomadic lifestyle marked by impoverishment, political marginalization, and increasing difficulty finding traditional sources of food in a diminishing rainforest.

These circumstances have driven many Penan into activism that began in the 1980s with road blockades against lumber companies and legal battles over land rights. Today, the Penan are fighting to save their rainforest home in the face of hydroelectric dam construction and a misguided race to plant oil palm plantations for biofuel.

Aquinnah and Mashpee Wampanoag tribes have been fighting the Cape Wind project since 2004. They claim the wind farm — which would include 130 turbines, each 440 feet tall — would obstruct their view of the rising sun and the ocean, interfering with rituals and ceremonies. In addition, the shoal on which the turbines would be built was once dry land and contains sacred burial sites.

On Jan. 4 the National Park Service, in response to a claim by the affected tribes, announced that Nantucket Sound was eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, which could potentially delay or deny the Cape Wind project. The claim appears to refer to some 500 square miles of Nantucket Sound; never has a Native American claim over such a large area of water been approved.

Salazar, who must sign off on a federal permit before the project can move forward, met on Jan. 13 with all the major stakeholders, including tribal representatives, to try to reach a compromise.

“This meeting, I believe, is going to be the first test of whether or not we’re getting lip service and rhetoric from the administration or whether they’re truly going to hear the tribal nations — whether they’re going to pay attention and try to help us or whether it’s business as usual,” Cheryl Andews-Maltais, chair of the Aquinnah Wampanoag tribe, said.

Opponents are asking for the project to be relocated to a less instrusive part of the sound. Salazar pledged a resolution by the end of April.

The Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service is accepting public comments on the historic preservation aspects of the project until Feb. 12. Click here to learn how to submit your comments.

In other SLFP news, if you haven’t already checked out our newly posted photo slide shows highlighting our Losing Sacred Ground production trips to the Altai Mountains of Russia and Australia, you can do so here. A gallery from the best of In the Light of Reverence is also included. Stay tuned, we’ll be posting more in the coming weeks.

Judge Robert G. Holt ruled on Jan. 5 that “OSM violated NEPA (National Environmental Protection Act) by not preparing a supplemental draft EIS (environmental impact statement) when Peabody changed the proposed action. As a result, the final EIS did not consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the new proposed action, described the wrong environmental baseline, and did not achieve the informed decision-making and meaningful public comment required by NEPA. Because of the defective final EIS, OSM’s decision to issue a revised permit to Peabody must be vacated and remanded to OSM for further action.”

For details read more in Indian Country Today.

The Land and Its People

As the indigenous religion of China, Daoism and its philosophies are entrenched in Chinese culture, art and daily practice. It is a spiritual tradition that stretches back thousands of years; the earliest written record of its existence is from 350 B.C., when one of its classic texts, the Daodejing (Tao-te Ching), was written. Unlike many major religions, Daoism does not have a single prophet or a definitive text but rather is an evolving set of beliefs. Some of its essential tenets include the ethics of humility, moderation and compassion; a belief in the interconnectedness of all things; the pursuit of harmony in a universe made dynamic by the opposite and complimentary forces of yin and yang; and a view of nature as a model for a balanced life.

Buddhism came to China from India in the first century. Like Daoism, Buddhism focuses on the spiritual development of the mind and body. Buddhism emphasizes meditative practices; the interconnectedness of the past, present and future; the impermanence of life; and a moral imperative for compassion and simplicity. In the natural world, Buddhists find a place for retreat and contemplation.

Over the course of Chinese political history, both Buddhism and Daoism were official imperial religions, and both exerted popular influence. Emperors and commoners journeyed to mountains as pilgrims, believing that mountain peaks were closest to heaven and the gods, and the ideal training ground in the pursuit of enlightenment and transcendence. Over time, particular mountains became associated with Daoist and Buddhist pilgrimage. While there are numerous mountains throughout China that are considered sacred, nine of them achieved particular prominence.

The five sacred Daoist mountains are Tai Shan, in Shandong province; Hua Shan, in Shaanxi province; Heng Shan Bei, in Shaanxi province; Heng Shan Nan, in Hunan province; and Son Shan, in Henan province. The four sacred Buddhist mountains are Emei Shan, in Sichaun province; Wutai Shan, in Shaanxi province; Jiuhua Shan, in Anhui province; and Putuo Shan, in Zhejiang province. The mountains range in height from less than 1,000 feet to more than 10,000. Because most transition from warm climates at the base to alpine conditions at the peaks, they provide habitats for a wide number of plants and animals that account for a significant portion of China’s biodiversity.

At the height of their cultural influence, the mountains supported hundreds of monasteries and sheltered elaborate temples, cliff inscriptions and stone tablets. They were also associated with major works of Chinese poetry and art. Today, far fewer temples and artifacts remain, and the level of religious activity varies from site to site.

For the Daoists, Tai Shan is their holiest mountain. In 351 B.C. the first known Daoist temple in China was established there, and at one time its slopes protected hundreds of temples. Today, 22 temples remain, along with other relics. The mountain is also renowned for the more than 400 species of medicinal plants that grow there.

Home of the first Buddhist temple in China, built in the first century, as well as the world’s largest Buddha, Emei Shan is one of Buddhism’s holiest sites. The mountain once supported 100 monasteries, but only 20 survive. More than 3,000 plant species have been recorded on Emei Shan, making it the most botanically rich mountain in the Northern Hemisphere. On Wutai Shan, the highest mountain in northern China, Buddhism has also been active for 2,000 years; 53 monasteries reside among its five peaks, and the pilgrimage tradition is very much alive.

Religious devotion flourished on all these mountains until the 1949 Communist Revolution, which established an atheist state; many monasteries were made over for secular use and religion was oppressed. The Cultural Revolution of the 1960s continued this violent, state-sanctioned suppression. During this time, a campaign to rid the country of what the communist leadership considered to be archaic ideas — including religious institutions and symbols — destroyed approximately 90 percent of the temples and other religious artifacts on the sacred mountains. Nevertheless, local people fought to protect these sacred sites, often at the risk of their own lives.

While nominally still a communist state, China began moving toward a more capitalist economic system in the 1980s. Modern China is a country in transition and one marked by increasing religious tolerance. Along with these changes have come a movement to rebuild the temples destroyed during the 20th century and a tourism strategy that plainly banks on the religious history of China’s sacred mountains.

Current Challenges and Preservation Efforts

In the late 1990s the NGO Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC) surveyed China’s nine sacred mountains and found a high level of ecological conservation at sites with active religious communities — where monks were present and practicing at all times — affirming the link between ecology and spirituality. It is clear that future protection of these sacred sites depends on continued support of the religious communities that are devoted to them, on reviving religious customs and on strengthening the ecological-spiritual bond to foster greater environmental conservation.

Many of the environmental challenges on the nine sacred mountains are directly linked to tourism and commercialism. The mountains continue to attract religious pilgrims, but nature tourism in China is an increasingly popular pastime. Each of the mountains attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors per year, with some documenting a million or more visitors annually. This human pressure has brought problems like air pollution and unchecked development. At several of the mountains, including Emei Shan, cable cars have been installed to ferry visitors to the peaks, and pilgrimage trails are crowded with restaurants, hotels and souvenir stalls.

Other conservation issues pertain to illegal logging (despite a 1998 national logging ban), illegal collection of plant and animal species for sale in the lucrative underground medicinal trade, and industrial pollution from towns and cities surrounding the mountains.

The state has made attempts to protect the mountains. It obtained UNESCO World Heritage designation for Tai Shan, Emei Shan and, most recently, Wutai Shan, and in 2008 submitted application to extend the Tai Shan listing to include its four fellow sacred mountains. However, government conservation efforts exist in tension with powerful profit motives. For example, in 2003, the Chinese government pulled down hundreds of illegal structures on Tai Shan, including food huts, souvenir stands and billboards. At the same time, however, plans continue to open a theme park on the mountain in 2010. Emei Shan also faces a theme-park threat.

A profit-versus-protection conflict was also apparent on Wutai Shan. In 2007, monks demonstrated against iron ore mining, which was ravaging the mountain. As a result, the government agreed to close three mines and suspend the operation of seven others. However, the Chinese government was later criticized for plans to forcibly relocate 6,000 residents of Taihuai town, which is nestled among the mountain’s five peaks and full of historic monastic buildings, to clean up residential and commercial sprawl in an effort to obtain UNESCO World Heritage status — achieved in 2009 — and thus develop the site’s potential as a tourist destination.

The ARC began working with the China Daoist Association in 1995, and later with the Chinese Buddhist Association, to develop conservation programs aligned with and supported by religious belief and practice. It has helped create management programs for the Daoist mountains Hua Shan and Tai Shan, and is assisting conservation efforts for the Buddhist Wutai Shan and Emei Shan.

A major breakthrough occurred in 2008, when an official partnership was formed between the China Daoist Association and the provincial government to manage Hua Shan — and to build the program around the concept of the mountain as a sacred place, not just a tourist destination. In addition, a master of the China Daoist Association was added as a full member of the management bureau.

Moreover, the representative bodies of China’s Buddhists and Daoists have made official commitments to environmental practices. In 2008, the Daoist Association issued an eight-year draft plan that includes practices such as limiting the sale of incense sticks, which are a significant pollutant; using energy-efficient technology, such as solar panels, on their temples; and collaborating with local governments to offer ecological education to visitors. China’s Buddhists are expected to issue a similar plan, which builds on other statements issued in 2006, to recognize the leadership role Buddhism can play in environmental advocacy.

One model for religious stewardship in China is found on another sacred mountain, Taibaishan. Here, the China Daoist Association, with help from the ARC, rebuilt a temple using sustainable materials and established an ecology training center for the community and visitors. The Daoists are using this model to guide their work on other sacred mountains.

The venerable traditions of Buddhism and Daoism honor nature, which has helped preserve the sacred mountains for over 1,000 years. Contemporary Buddhists and Daoists are increasingly making frank connections between their theology and everyday environmental practices in order to sustainably conserve these sacred sites.

What You Can Do

Consider supporting the work of the Alliance for Religions and Conservation. Visit the ARC website for ways you can get involved.

If you visit, stay on marked trails, dispose of litter properly, limit your use of incense sticks, and respect the religious activities of monks and nuns on the mountains. Follow the guidelines in “Ethics for Visiting Sacred Sites” when traveling to any of the sacred mountains in China.

Sources

ARC. “Daoists in China Issue an Eight Year Plan for Generational Change on the Environment.” Alliance of Religions and Conservation, November 6, 2008.

ARC. “Daoist Monks and Nuns to Manage Sacred Mountains.” Alliance of Religions and Conservation.

ARC. “Hua Shan to be Managed as a Daoist Mountain for the First Time in 70 Years.” Alliance of Religions and Conservation, July 22, 2008.

ARC. “Two Major Eco-Agreements from Chinese Buddhists.” Alliance of Religions and Conservation.

“The ARC China Sacred Mountains Project: 1995 to Date.” July 2008. (PDF)

Biello, David. “The Rain in China Falls Mainly on the Plains, Thanks to Pollution.” Scientific American, March 9, 2007.

Branigan, Tania. “Mountain Residents Bulldozed out of Government’s Word Heritage Vision.” The Guardian, March 13, 2008.

Chuanhiang, Ju and Zhao Ruixue. “Big Boost for Mountain Tourism.” China Daily, May 28, 2009.

“China Bans Mining on Sacred Buddhist Mountains.” Reuters, August 23, 2007.

“Holy Sites and Relics.” World Buddhist Forum.

Miller, James. “Daoism and Ecology.” Forum on Religion and Ecology.

“Mountains of Southwest China.” Conservation International.

Palmer, Martin. “Religion and the Environment in China.” China Dialogue, October 26, 2006.

Palmer, Martin. “Saving China’s Holy Mountains.” People and Planet, April 18, 2001.

Palmer, Martin. “Sites of Significance.” Resurgence, September/October 2008.

“Songshan National Nature Reserve.” The Nature Conservancy.

Swearer, Donald K. “Buddhism and Ecology.” Forum on Religion and Ecology.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. “The Four Sacred Mountains as an Extension of Mt. Taishan.” UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. “Mount Wutai.” UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

United Nations Environment Program–World Conservation Monitoring Centre. “Mount Emei.” UNEP-WCMC Protected Areas Programme. (PDF)

United Nations Environment Program–World Conservation Monitoring Centre. “Mount Taishan.” UNEP-WCMC Protected Areas Programme. (PDF)

The Land and Its People

Capped by the 7,440-foot holy Tsetseegun peak, Bogd Khan Uul (Mountain), which lies to the south of Ulaanbaatar, extends some 20 miles from east to west and nearly 10 miles from north to south. The mountain’s landscape features dense coniferous forests and bare rock on the upper slopes, and open grassland, including wildflower meadows, at lower elevations. According to Mongolia’s National Red List, threatened animal species include the critically endangered red deer, which has seen an 80 percent regional decline over the past three generations because of exploitation and habitat loss; the endangered Mongolian gazelle, Eurasian elk and Siberian marmot; and the vulnerable black-tailed gazelle and sable.

Bogd Khan Uul’s significance as a holy mountain stretches back to the time when shamanism — with its focus on the worship of natural sites — was dominant, and its reverence continued as shamanism was integrated into Buddhism, which became Mongolia’s state religion in the 13th century. The mountain is associated with the Mongolian shamanistic deity Dunjingarav, who rides 33 grey horses. “Bogd” and “Khan” are terms of reverence used frequently in the names of Mongolian mountains. Khan, meaning “king,” was commonly used during shamanistic times, while Bogd, sometimes translated as “living” or “holy,” originated in India and Tibet and became the more traditional name once Buddhism was accepted in Mongolia.

At Bogd Khan, and throughout Mongolia, practitioners came to stone cairns called oovos to pay homage to the deities that inhabited the landscape — a shamanic tradition that was adopted into Mongolian Buddhist practice. Many mountains and streams have deities attached to them, and these deities influenced the naming of much of the landscape. In the 1700s the people who settled what is now Ulaanbaatar began to make semiannual offerings on the mountain and codified prohibitions against hunting and logging.

Mongolian officials established Bogd Khan Uul as a protected area in 1778, predating the establishment of the United States’ Yellowstone National Park by nearly 100 years. Bogd Khan Uul’s protected status may date back even further, as there is evidence suggesting an informal protection as early as the 1200s. According to legend, Genghis Khan was born at the foot of the mountain; while that story is most likely apocryphal, it is known that the great Mongolian emperor’s headquarters were for a time situated nearby.

During the communist era, from 1924 to 1989, Buddhism was suppressed, ovoo worship was outlawed, monasteries were destroyed, Buddhist texts disappeared, and many  monks were killed. However, following the election a democratic government in 1990, Mongolia has worked to restore its spiritual, cultural and conservation traditions.  Buddhist monasteries and ovoo worship have been revived, and some thought-to-be extinct texts have resurfaced. On Bogd Khan Uul, ceremonies led by local Buddhist lamas honoring the deities of the mountain are again taking place.

In 1995, the government designated Bogd Khan Uul a “Strictly Protected Area,” one of several conservation categories established by Mongolian law. This precipitated UNESCO’s awarding of “Biosphere Reserve” status to the mountain in 1996. Mongolia also submitted Bogd Khan and two other sacred mountains for tentative inclusion on UNESCO’s World Heritage List as a mixed cultural-natural site. In addition, Bogd Khan Uul is one of three sites recognized by Mongolian presidential decree as a natural sacred site.

The blending of traditional shamanistic Mongolian beliefs with Tibetan Buddhist thought has produced perhaps the best model for modern conservation efforts. According to Sukhbaatar, the main feature of Mongolia’s strength in protecting nature is buried deep within its legends, stories and names about the natural surroundings. “Flowing from pre-Buddhist cultures, enhanced and often codified by Buddhism and now fused with environmental awareness, the ancient names of sacred mountains, lakes and rivers indicate a profound respect for nature which is one of the hallmarks of Mongolian culture.”

Current Challenges and Preservation Efforts

In recent years, tradition-inspired approaches to conservation have been the blueprint for local protection efforts and have inspired ideas for solving Mongolia’s pollution, overgrazing, logging and waste-disposal problems.

In 2000, the Buddhists of Mongolia restored traditional hunting and logging bans. The following year, expanding on the ban, they reintroduced the concept of Buddhist Sacred Reserves — areas designated as protected by the deities — which date back hundreds of years but had been destroyed under communism. Bogd Khan is among the seven reserves that have since been resanctified. To further strengthen the conservation concept among the citizens of Ulaanbaatar, in 2003 the Buddhist community unveiled a carving of the mountain’s protector deity on the slope facing the city.

On the mountain’s south side, monks are rebuilding the Manzushir Monastery. Built in 1750, it housed more than 350 monks and 20 temples before it was destroyed in 1936. The Dashchoilin Monastery in Ulaanbaatar looks after ovoos on Bogd Khan, and in 2006, monks planted 1,000 trees. In 2008, a team from the National University of Mongolia established a signposted tour path to the mountain’s peak, the first in the site’s history, and produced educational brochures and a video to strengthen conservation efforts.

Unfortunately, despite its official moniker, the Bogd Khan Uul area is far from “strictly protected.” Over the past six years, urban sprawl from Ulaanbaatar has been creeping south; hotels, tourist facilities and residential developments, often surrounded by high fences, are rapidly filling many of the valleys. In November 2009, Mongolia’s first ski resort opened on the mountain’s northeastern slopes, and an associated golf course is slated to open in June 2010.

Because of these developments, Bogd Khan Uul was dropped from a World Bank forest conservation project that would have linked Bogd Khan with other nearby protected areas, allowing species to move into new ranges as an adaptation measure to climate change. Project administrators, however, could get no assurance from the Mongolian government that conservation was a priority in the protected area.

Local residents are also hunting and grazing animals and logging wood within Bogd Khan Uul. A 2005 report published by the WWF and the Alliance for Conservation and Religions noted that community involvement in protected-area management was limited and that members of the local population were often alienated from that management.

Creative community-based approaches are needed to strengthen Mongolia’s traditional conservation ethic among the broader population. Mongolian Buddhist monks could also benefit from increased ecological training and support, which could in turn affect the larger community. For example, some monks have expressed interest in using biodegradable khadags, or offering scarves, which would have the direct effect of cutting down clutter on mountains and could also encourage the Mongolian people to consider the environmental impact of their actions.

What You Can Do

Consider becoming a member or making a donation to the Alliance of Religions and Conservation, which works with Mongolian Buddhist groups to help them restore the environment in accordance with their traditional principles.

For thoughts on the ethics of visiting a sacred place, familiarize yourself with these guidelines.

To learn more about the development currently going on at Bogd Khan, watch this video.

Sources

Alliance of Religions and Conservation. Mongolia: Buddhists and Environment.

Bedford, Charles. “The World’s Oldest National Park: Ghosts of Monks and Red Deer.” Cool Green Science: the Conservation Blog of the Nature Conservancy, November 10, 2009.

Bulag, Uradyn Erden. Nationalism and Hybridity in Mongolia. Oxford University Press, 1998.

Chimedsengee, Urantsatsral, Amber Cripps, Victoria Finlay, Guido Verboom, Ven Munkhbaatar Batchuluun, and Ven Da Lama Byambajav Khunkhur. Mongolian Buddhists Protecting Nature: A Handbook on Faiths, Environment and Development. Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia: Alliance of Religions and Conservation, 2009.

Croner, Don. “Bogd Khan Uul: One of the Four Sacred Mountains of Ulaan Baatar.” Mongolia Adventure, Summer 2008.

de Gruyter, Walter. Shamanism and Northern Ecology. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1990.

Dudley, Nigel, Liza Higgins-Zogib, and Stephanie Mansourian. Beyond Belief: Linking Faiths and Protected Areas to Support Biodiversity Conservation. WWF and the Alliance of Religions and Conservation, 2005.

“Mongolian Geographical Species Search.” National Red Lists.

Sukhbaatar, Hatgin Osornamjimyn. Sacred Sites of Mongolia. Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia: Alliance of Religions and Conservation, Gandan Monastery, WWF Mongolia, and World Bank, 2002.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. “Bogd Khan Uul.” MAB Biosphere Reserves Directory.

United National Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. “Mongolia Sacred Mountains: Bogd Khan, Burkhan Khaldun, Otgon Tenger.” UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Saltzstein, Dan. “Mongolia’s First Ski Resort Opens.” The New York Times, December 7, 2009.

Whitten, Tony. “Mongolia: tough decisions about the world’s oldest nature reserve.” Mongolia Web, May 12, 2009.

Wild, Robert, and Toby McLeod, eds. Sacred Natural Sites: Guidelines for Protected Area Managers. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 2008.