exsumper said:
The CSCC need to have a serious debate over, whether or not they have fulfilled their obligation to protect the underground environment, or ignored it for selfish short term gain?
Alex, I don't know if you are trolling or if you want a serious debate, but I'll assume the latter for now.
How do you propose that CSCC can prevent pollution incidents from occurring? We are not the police, nor are we the Environment Agency. We have no statuary powers and certainly cannot visit every site that might handle polluting products (this is pretty much every house, farm, shop, etc.) that are sited in karst catchments, to audit their processes or protection measures.
We can only rely on the statuary protection that UK and EU legislation provides and the powers of the enforcement agencies to enforce it. In the case of a pollution incident it is the statuary bodies that are required to enforce the law. Currently the environment Agency is not visiting all premises in the area to check their facilities. I believe that there is, for example, a requirement now that bunded oil tanks are used. I am certain it is not possible to force existing domestic users of heating oil to upgrade their tanks, as all legislation is not normally written to apply retrospectively.
What can be done is place punitive fines to try and scare people into upgrading their facilities. These already exist.
I assume that you are implying, based on your previous opinions on here, that CSCC should involve the Environment Agency and pursue a prosecution of the offenders. This is not helpful for several reasons which should be obvious to most people but I will consider them here.
Prosecution after the even will not "undo the event. As a preventative measure this is pointless. If people want some form of retribution then prosecution is fine but it won't fix the cave.
A prosecution will not prevent this from happening again. Most people don't consider there is a risk until it happens to them. Even if somebody else is prosecuted, they don't believe it will happen to them. Speeding is a case to point here. Even with all the prosecutions and cameras, etc. people still speed.
In this particular case enforcing the bunded tank rules would not have any effect, as the tank was never compromised, it was the pipe that leaked into the ground. I believe, but am not certain, that this particular tank is bunded anyway.
Prosecuting somebody relies on proof. The only proof we have is circumstantial and an admission from the owners of the tank that the oil was theirs. Proving it beyond reasonable doubt, without their honesty, is a non starter (imagine that they changed their story to "oh no, I don't think it was me after all", how would you prove it? It would never get to court as the statuary bodies would not pursue it.
Prosecuting somebody will also have the effect of closing caves. If a land owner or house owner is threatened with prosecution, what do you think their reaction will be if they think cavers are involved?
I don't understand what you mean by "CSCC having an obligation the protect the underground". Other than doing our best to ensure people conserve the caves, CSCC is under no obligation to protect the underground. That is clearly the remit of statuary bodies such as Natural England and the Environment Agency.
What do you mean by "selfish short term gain"? CSCC has nothing to gain from any of this. The people that might gain something are the cavers themselves if CSCC manages to keep caves open.
Remember, CSCC is actually a co-ordinating body that represents the interests of the caving clubs, is composed of representatives of those clubs and carries out their bidding.
