Extraordinary Meeting of blah blah blah

[Ian Adams]

Graham ..... love it 

Kay,

Ferns and fauna .... well, I don't profess to understand such things or what the distinction is, nor do I know what species they were. It was, however, reported widely in the local papers and also the papers for North Wales and Wales as the filmakers are a "blockbuster" company from Hollywood bringing over "mega-stars" such as Liam Neeson and, of course, the local village would significantly benefit from the 300+ crew staying there for a couple of weeks. It was of little surprise when the film makers reduced the budget for the "on location" shooting and cancelled a significant proportion of the hotel bookings.

It is, however, clear from your post that you do have knoweldge of fauna and ferns and I must ask that you pardon my ignorance (please).

I also would be much happier with a quango staffed with professional biologists than an elected body of MPs but, alas, I am not aware they are "professional biologists". Are they?  In either case, the "debate" remains moot as regardless of their "status", none of the issues have actually been addressed.

good to get more input though - thanks 

Ian

 

[graham]

Jackalpup, I don't recall Ray's particular qualifications, but the man certainly had many decades of experience in dealing with this sort of conservation matter and, judging by his TV appearance this evening still works in that field.

As far as the Dinorweg thing is concerned, it would seem perfectly possible that the local press had their own political axe to grind. Without further information, I would hesitate to comment on the rights and wrongs of that issue. I am aware, however, that Hollywood "blockbusters" do have a very bad reputation in some parts of the world after the mess that they have left behind them. Twentieth Century Fox lost law suits in Thailand brought after they screwed Maya Bay in making the film "The Beach". Ironically the last of the mess they left behind was finally removed by the 2004 tsunami.

And I was serious about the wolves, if not entirely so about the bears ...

 

[Les W]

Hi Ian,
I'm pretty sure that all the scheduling for SSSI's will have been carried out on the advice of relevant experts.
As Graham (and myself) have pointed out, the area scheduled is generally delimited by topographical features (walls, hedges, fences, etc) for legal reasons. The way the scheduling works is that an area is scheduled (after suitable consultation as detailed in the act of parliament) and then the individual land owners may be given blanket permission to carry out certain PDO's where relevant. For instance, if a field contained some rare flora, but only in one corner, they may be given permission to mow the field that is scheduled, but not the particular bit where the flora is, or not that corner during certain times of the year. For these restrictions they can be compensated according to the act, if they are inconvenienced financially due to the scheduling.

The quango's may well have the responsibility for "policing" the scheduled areas, but the areas will only have been scheduled in the first place for very good reasons, the consultation and appeals process should ensure that.

The scheduling of speleological sites were, as has been alluded to here, chosen in consultation with the caving community and on the Mendip's had a huge backlash on access for about 18 months as I recall, until The Nature Conservancy Council, as it was called then (before becoming English Nature and then Natural England) sorted out the approvals for certain PDO's and placated the land owners. The result is that a substatntial number of cave systems have quite strong legal protection and although nobody has been prosecuted (as far as I am aware) it did result in one particular site, that was in filled by a farmer, having to be dug open again as it was an SSSI.

 

[shortscotsman]

Jackalpup

I think I'd like the bodies to have more resources and powers to act proactively. SSSI basically
just lists (as far as I know)  banned activities. It doesn't give CCW many powers to regenerate wilderness.
Ideally, I think a lot of open land and most of the National Parks should really be in public ownership.  
Its a real pity that Coal Board land, such as that entrance to Ogof Draenen lies on, wasn't "returned" to
Public ownership.  

The big problem of course is not cavers but commercial/farming use.  An interesting place in the Brecons
is a little reserve at Craig Cerrig Gleisaid a couple of miles north of the storey arms. Grazing animals have been excluded and the vegetation and wildlife are much more prolific than the surrounding areas.

 

[cap n chris]

The big problem of course is not cavers but commercial/farming use.  

Yes, that would be a very big problem indeed if you managed to get commercial/farming use on SSSIs banned. A huge problem. Think of all the caves which would then be off limits to you as a result.

 

[graham]

The big problem of course is not cavers but commercial/farming use.  

Yes, that would be a very big problem indeed if you managed to get commercial/farming use on SSSIs banned. A huge problem. Think of all the caves which would then be off limits to you as a result.

Why would you wish to get it banned? Land management is a complex process and just about every bit of the UK landscape is or has been managed for some commercial (in the widest sense of the word, from subsistence crop collection to agri-business or forestry). Where land is just abandoned, or left unmanaged, you don't get a miraculous return to some sort of pre-Neolithic idyllic landscape, 'cos that simply ain't possible. In all issues relating to land management you need to specify exactly what you are trying to achieve, work out how to achieve that and then work (usually quite hard) to maintain it. In the case of footpath erosion, jackalpup obviously believes that the objectives have either been poorly thought out or not met (by reason of cost?) I cannot comment not being recently familiar with the area, but I am sure others can.

Two points worth considering are these: especially in times of economic stress, landowners will not necessarily be the best judge of what their land can sustain. Overstocking with sheep in certain areas, for example, has been a serious cause of land degradation, but when times are hard they will take the short term view and not the long term one.

Finally, Kay's point about the ecological importance of habitats like old quarries is an important one and harks back to what I said at the outset, all land in the UK has been managed & if you exclude from conservation-related works anywhere that has been used industrially in the past then you won't have anything left.

 

[shortscotsman]

I think my point is that britain doesn't have a very good structure to administer Wilderness.  SSSI are what
they say: sites where some specific species/feature are protected.  National parks are relatively weak because they don't own the land.  If they did own the land they could introduce areas will relatively little livestock.

I think Ogof Draenen illustrates some of the problems with the UK. 
Bodies such as the PDCMG negotiate with the landowner regarding access.  I imagine this type of discussion is very different depending upon the individual  viewpoint of the landowner. I guess in many cases its questions of disturbance/liability rather than conservation which dominate.  PDCMG then seems to be taking the lead in conservation which is bringing it into conflict with other cavers.  The natural tension is, I think, between
access and conservation. PDCMG seems to be pulling in both ways.



Given that Ogof Draenen is one of UK's and Wales' natural treasures I find it rather bizarre that in 2009
a) access is a privilege bestowed by the landholder rather than a right.

b) no public body is taking the lead in conservation (and administering this right).  I notice that
PDCMG has no membership from any of the conservation bodies.


My solution of choice would be for Ogof Draenen to be owned by a public body whose main remit was conservation but would allow access.

 

[cap n chris]

Compulsory purchase orders, valuing the "national treasure" cave passage at what price per metre to be paid to private landowners* from taxpayers' funds?


* And how does one separate out the ownership of the subterranean passages if no accurate survey has yet been published?


Can opener may be required.

NB: Does anyone sincerely believe that if a public body was given control over a cave with the specific duty of protecting it, they would subsequently allow anyone in there unless they had a proven and compelling reason to do so? - it's easy to imagine that a Lechuguilla-type access protocol would become the default.

 

[shortscotsman]

...I'm not saying its practical or possible in the short term. 

...but I think its interesting to think of what would be the best solution.


also...the land which the entrance of Ogof Draenen lies on WAS in public (sort of - Coal Board) ownership
not too long ago.

and how much compensation would be appropriate for a landowner for the cave under his/her land
to be in public ownership whilst they maintained `surface rights'. It might need legal changes to separate
out different rights but legal changes to land rites happen all the time [eg the Countryside rights of way Act in 2000].

 

[graham]

Unfortunately in this country a publicly owned cave would only last until the next change of government when it would be sold to prevent it being a drain on the taxpayer!

No, what is needed is a private not-for-profit, charitable, even, trust set up specifically for the purpose to buy all the land overlying the cave and to administer it for the long-term good of the site. Ongoing costs could be covered by leasing back the majority of the land for grazing/whatever as at present and, possibly, by opening a small section as a show cave. I won't attempt to justify that last bit in detail save to point readers at Jewel Cave, South Dakota where a similar arrangement is in place.

But this will never happen 'cos UK cavers would never be able to raise the cash to get it off the ground.

 

[Ian Adams]

Looking back at the points raised since my last post ?.

Graham, I appreciate you are unwilling to comment on cases you don?t have detail on (The Dinowig quarry as an example) and as far as the press are concerned ? they always have a motive and that is to sell papers. Highlighting a ?scandal? (whether real or not sells papers). However, it is not the specific instances I am complaining about but rather the whole regime.

Les, I again appreciate your attention to detail and understand the ?boundaries? element of the scheduling. My experience(s) don?t mirror your view that if it were just a corner of a field, the ?farmer? would be freely allowed to mow the rest of the field though.

Furthermore, you allude to the probability that the scheduling would have been done for ?very good reasons? and that the consultation and appeals process would make sure of that. I am afraid this is the crux of the problem and certainly my complaint. Specifically, ?Who? decided something was ?special? and what criteria was used to come to that decision? The legislation you gave a link to that they rely on simply allows them to schedule ?if they are of the opinion that?..?. ?Who? makes the decision as their qualification to do so and their expertise in the field and the rationale of the decision all remain clandestine?

Shortscotsman, I am not sure what ?pro-active? powers you would like these ?bodies? to have but there is plenty of evidence that they are already very pro-active. Whilst out walking in Snowdonia last Friday I walked through a woodland which was actively being ?managed? by conservationists (I do not know which group) which included a ?pond? (a natural one) which has been totally fenced off (sides and top) with chicken wire fencing presumably to stop ?things? getting at whatever was in there (protected newts perhaps? ? I really don?t know). Additionally, they have ?pro-actively? been re-generating footpaths around Snowdonia and (as I have already said loudly), in my opinion, made more than a pig?s ear of it and should be held accountable for the ruination of the ?nature beauty? which is protected under the same legislation.

I also note that you would like to see more done with ?wilderness? and Graham?s further comments that land management is complex (and of course it is).

However, the basic premise of this debate remains moot ? who says something  is ?special? and ?needs protecting? and on what basis? 

And, isn?t the ?pro-activeness? of these bodies just as ?damaging? to the very same land that they are purporting to protect? (by fencing off a pond, aren?t they interfering with the natural cycle of life in that habitat?)

It seems to me that the whole regime is a VERY expensive waste of money that is unnecessary and serves no equitable purpose. Furthermore, I would go so far as to say that these bodies are actually interfering with the ?natural course of events? , ?natural progression? and ?natural evolution?.

I still mean well though



Ian

 

[graham]

Ian

I feel that part of your problem is that you are missing one of the fundamental points that I made earlier. You say:

Furthermore, I would go so far as to say that these bodies are actually interfering with the ?natural course of events? , ?natural progression? and ?natural evolution?.

What, exactly do you mean by "natural"? This is not a trick question it is at the heart of all debates about conservation from kay talking about orchids growing on spoil tips to all the debates about humanly influenced climate change.

 

[Clive G]

 
I imagine you (and everyone) will think that is a ridiculous example HOWEVER, the film company I spoke of earlier filming in Dinorwig quarry in Llanberis were compelled to use camouflage netting on the fauna there and this ?fauna? was common ferns.

Someone got muddled there, then, didn't they? Ferns as fauna  :tease:
But what do you mean by 'common ferns' - what species were they?

flora = plant life

fauna = animal life

This is no slur against Ian, rather an indictment of the treatment given to BCRA and its members by political activists who decided that the 'merger' should be about politics first and science as an afterthought . . .

. . .

I have been a great supporter of the idea of merging BCRA and NCA into a single common national body, but I'm still waiting for this to happen truly. The present takeover of the public face of British caving by a primarily sporting and 'political' body, essentially the NCA with individual membership added on - whereas the public face of British caving had previously been fronted by cave science - shows that Tony Jarratt's comment, as recalled by Alan Jeffreys at last year's Hidden Earth conference, "We may have seen the best of British caving", currently still holds sway.

. . .

Q.    E.    D.

 

[Andy Sparrow]

My solution of choice would be for Ogof Draenen to be owned by a public body whose main remit was conservation but would allow access.

To me that sounds like a nightmare scenario.  A quango obsessed with conserving every patch of mud grudgingly allowing access for the sporting or digging caver.

 

[Ian Adams]

Graham, the distinction of ?natural? is likely to be pounced on and attacked as it is widely open to interpretation but I am using it as meaning in ?the normal course of events?.  To use your example (and Kay?s) of the Orchids on spoil tips ? I would suggest that the spoil tips were created through a normal course of events (ie. quarrying/mining) and that the Orchids subsequently appeared through a normal course of mother nature (I assume no one went there and planted them). Since the original quarrying was a human disturbance to the land (and was part of a normal course of events within the progression and evolution of mankind) I can see no apparent reason why filming an ?on location? scene would be any different (as television is also a normal course of humanity). Indeed, I would argue that preventing a film company from behaving in any way other it would ?normally? have done is, in itself, human interference which is disturbing the natural progression of the evolution of the planet.

You could argue that the Orchid didn?t exist before and that would change the circumstances but you could equally argue the Orchid would not have manifested had it not been for the human disturbance in any event. Equally, if the Orchid were to be protected (as I assume it was in this case) could it not be that the presence of the Orchid might or would change the natural progression of the flora and fauna in it?s immediate surrounding had it not been there?

Furthermore, ?who? says the Orchid should be protected and why ?

As for ?humanly influenced climate change? ? well, this is perfectly ?natural? in the sense I have described. It is inevitable that we (as humans) will have an effect on the climate but I fail to understand why that is ?wrong?. Don?t get me wrong though, I am all for limiting the ?damage? to the environment but in the same token I think it is perfectly reasonable to accept that we cannot eradicate it completely and that other countries and other cultures (China for example) do not feel the same way and do not possess the same ?values? as we (the British as represented by our government) do. The question then begs itself ?how far do we go??. Some people believe we should make every possible effort and I respect that point of view. However, it is equally the case that some people see little or no value ~ can it be said that those persons point of view is likewise respected ?

I personally think that some of our (the British) so called ?green policies? are utterly farcical (such as the government taxing cars on the emissions) as they, in no way, reduce the so called ?carbon emissions? (which is essential to the life of our vegetation).

I hope I have communicated what I mean by ?natural? properly and apologise if I haven?t.

Clive G, I appreciate your definitions of Flora and Fauna although have already openly stated that I do not profess to understand such things. The question still remains ?who? makes the decision etc. etc ??

As for your QED example of political activism, I should point out that I am not a political activist and as I said very early on I am committed to working with the various bodies and not against them. I have no intention to ?fight the system? and have taken no pro-active steps (in any manner) to try to bring about change.

That doesn?t mean I have to like it though (and it is evident I do not) and I recognise, accept and respect that other people feel differently. I also recognise that ?my? caving objectives and goals and, more especially, the caving objectives and goals of those I cave with (the club I am a member of) are best progressed by co-operating fully with the relevant authorities and building & maintaining a good rapport with them ? I have been actively engaged in this for the last 2 years.

I also think that some people within these ?bodies? do a very good job in very difficult circumstances and I applaud their commitment, dedication and achievements.

However, I just don?t think that any of it is necessary and that the ?regime? creates obstacles and causes problems and doesn?t provide solutions (except to obstacles and problems it, itself created).

This being a forum for debate, I thought the matter worth debating.

I still remain well intentioned.

Ian.

PS. Just before posting I noticed Andy?s post ? I can?t help thinking that his comment epitomises the position nicely.

 

[Dear Noel Axle]

Hi Ian,

You can read about the SSSI designation here:

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/designatedareas/sssi/designation.aspx

I think the information presented should answer your questions.

Alexander

 

[graham]

Ok Ian, so if "in the normal course of events", Amey Roadstone buys up all of Mendip from Cheddar to Priddy as it has a good market for limestone aggregate, is that something that should be allowed to happen?

 

[Hughie]

Ok Ian, so if "in the normal course of events", Amey Roadstone buys up all of Mendip from Cheddar to Priddy as it has a good market for limestone aggregate, is that something that should be allowed to happen?

No problem with anyone owning that area of land. If it was for quarrying purpose, they'd need bog standard normal planning permission regardless of environmental status.

 

[graham]

They would indeed, but I am assuming that, as the quarrying of limestone for roadstone is what happens in the normal course of events that Ian would not be concerned, environmentally, that is.

 

[Ian Adams]

?Dear Noel Axle?, your link is extremely useful ? thank you very much and, yes it helps a lot. 


Graham, really sorry, I don?t understand the question you are asking regarding the environment ?.. I am not sure that ?environmentally?, your hypothetical scenario would be any of my business ?  But I agree with Hughie in that the purchase of the land would be a matter for the vendor and the purchaser. The purchasers intentions with the land thereafter is his/her own concern and they can do with it as they like within the limit of the law.

Or am I missing the point of your question ?



Ian