A few clarifications on some of the comments relating to BCA in Stuart France's Access & Conservation News Round-Up on p.3.
1) The quotation attributed to Andy Eavis is incorrect. At the BCA AGM he did not say that he "cannot see how the CRoW Act does not apply to caving" but instead, he "cannot see how the CRoW Act
will not apply to caving." There is an important distinction here, involving at a minimum some changes in legal advice from Natural England first!
2) David Judson's statement about the CRoW Act and its application to caving was removed from the BCA website because it had not been approved by BCA Council (rather than Executive). That's a small point, but I might as well correct it while I'm covering the other things here.
3) There is a reference to the Leck Fell access agreement that implies it is a BCA agreement. It is, of course, a CNCC agreement and BCA does not, nor can it, involve itself in the affairs of any Regional Council.
4) The Conservation & Access Committee's meeting on 16 August is not "between BCA Executive and the Regions". It is actually a meeting of the C&A Committee members (who are the BCA C&A Officer, plus a representative from each of the Regional Councils and each of BCA's Constituent Bodies, plus anyone else the committee wishes to co-opt).
5) The final paragraph is an opinion, rather than factual but I think merits a response. It says ...
It does not take a genius to work out why [The Cave Conservation Handbook] review has got on the BCA ?to-do list? right now. BCA needs robust arguments for its position when its credibility is put on the line by recreational cavers pulling on the levers that the law provides to them so as to carry out their sporting activities unimpeded by a national governing body pursuing restrictive policies that hinder participation in the very sport that this organisation exists to facilitate and promote.
Firstly the update of the Cave Conservation Handbook has everything to do with the fact that we have a new C&A Officer with the drive to make it happen and nothing at all to do with creating arguments to prove BCA's credibility.
Secondly, at the 2013 AGM BCA began responding to the work of a few cavers on CRoW (who had independently been questioning, among others, Natural England). The AGM took the view that BCA could not formulate a considered policy in favour of a change to the current position without fully considering the impact of that change. It therefore set up a Working Party to determine which caves might be affected across England. Only then, the AGM felt, should the membership consider whether to push further on CRoW. However 10 months later, between the deadline for Agenda Items and the 2014 AGM itself, some cavers began independently pushing even further in their quest for CRoW to apply to caving. The 2014 AGM was left with a difficult decision about how to proceed ... and in the end it tasked its C&A Committee with looking at it carefully and managing BCA's response over the next year.
This is not going to be easy as the facts are that the policies Stuart cites as being "restrictive", are seen by other members are being good. If you are a member of any of the following organisations, then talk to them.
Regional Councils (CNCC, DCA, Cambrian CC, CSCC, DCUC)
Constituent Bodies (ACI, ASCT, BCRA, BCRC, CDG, CHECC, NAMHO, WPCST)
They have a seat (and a vote) on the C&A Committee and the AGM has delegated responsibility for BCA's response to CRoW to it.
Damian Weare
BCA Secretary