3. OBJECTIVES
3.1 This paper outlines some of the pressures facing cave
access and the factors that need to be considered about the issue of charging. The paper
covers the NCA's current position over charging and access payment schemes.
4. THE PRESSURES FACED BY LANDOWNERS
4.1 Management costs directly associated with
caving. Landowners or occupiers may incur costs directly associated with caving i.e.
through usage of footpaths, maintenance of walls and fences, changing facilities, parking
facilities etc.
4.2 Landowners seeking alternative sources
of income. Many landowners, particularly in upland areas, are under pressure from
falling incomes and recognise the need to diversify and look for alternative sources of
income.
4.3 Increased Use and Commercial Activity.
Caving as an informal recreational activity for individuals has shown an increase in
popularity over the past 10 years and this has been marked with a rapid expansion in the
teaching and outdoor education sector. Landowners are becoming aware that more than ever
before people are making a living from guiding and instruction.
4.4 Management of the Resource. With an
increase in pressure on a finite and often sensitive resource there is understandably an
increasing desire by landowners and conservation bodies to control and manage
environmental impact on that resource. Associated with pressure on the resource are
demands on existing facilities e.g. parking etc.
4.5 Charging for access and Liability Implications.
It is accepted through the Volenti non fit Injuria principle that cavers willingly
cave at their own risk. Where there is a claim by an injured person against the landowner,
this should be defeated by the volenti principle. However where a landowner introduces
charges for access this will change their liability position. The landowner is now
considered to be running a business. By paying an entrance fee a contract is made with
that person or group who has paid. Liability for death or personal injury cannot be
excluded nor can any reasonable exclusion clause be effective in a claim.
5. THE USER’S PERSPECTIVE
5.1 Tradition of free access. There is no
tradition of charging for access to Britain's caves other than payment in some areas of a
small 'goodwill' fee. With the majority of caving areas in Britain under private ownership
there is concern of the precedent that may be set where a landowner starts to charge. The
implication is clear that if the practice of paying for access for some (i.e. groups)
becomes more widespread then the pressure for all to pay will increase.
5.2 Discrimination against easily identified user groups.
The increase in participation in caving has been matched in other recreational activities.
There are concerns that an easily identified user is penalised whilst other informal users
visiting these sites cannot be targeted.
5.3 Pattern of user pressure. The user pressure
on caves is not consistent around the country. Clearly there are some sites with high user
pressure which can relate to many factors e.g. suitability for teaching, historic
importance, range of quantity and quality of caves and access to the site. Equally there
are sites that may not receive more than a handful of user visits per year which are
equally valued.
5.4 Outdoor activity in the National Curriculum.
In the national curriculum 'outdoor activity' is now compulsory at the secondary school
level. The outdoor experience often includes caving. In many instances this is a ‘one
off’ experience and does not reflect numbers regularly participating in the activity.
5.5 Groups perceived to be operating on a commercial
basis. Whilst some groups using the cave resource operate as businesses and
generate a profit, there are many youth, educational and social services organisations
that run on extremely low budgets. These groups may be heavily subsidised by local
authorities or have grant aided status. Whilst an individual fee may be charged for a
caving session by groups, if an additional charge for access is imposed, it is possible
that the extra cost will be simply passed onto the user i.e. the young person. Some
outdoor education centres have agreed to pay (and are financially able to do so) for the
use of crags or land in order to avoid any antagonism with farmers. This action may have
been taken to ensure access to a convenient local resource and, in some cases, because
they see no objection to paying while they themselves are making a living from the land.
This situation may soon occur within caving.
5.6 Military Access Payments. The military are
required to obtain formal consent from landowners for every type of training activity
(including caving) outside the MOD Estates. The formal agreement has a provision for
access charges per head and compensation for use of that site or area. Some landowners may
perceive that all users, particularly outdoor education groups, can follow the precedent
of payment set by the military. This could jeopardise access to sites where formerly there
has been no history of charging.
5.7 Perception of user of paying twice. Whilst
it is generally acknowledged that levels of funding to public or privatised bodies with a
recreational remit for management of the resource are inadequate, a charge for use may be
perceived by users as paying twice and cause resentment.
5 8 Spillover effect. Where private landowners
start charging for caving, particularly where outdoor education groups are concerned, it
is likely the groups will move to adjacent caves where there is no charge. This causes
additional impacts on that site in terms of erosion, disturbance, traffic and parking
arrangements.
5.9 A matter of priority. Payment tends to bring
a feeling of priority to the payer, of enhanced rights. There is evidence that paid access
can lead to less responsible behaviour as there is an expectation that others will tidy up
afterwards. On the other hand voluntary access brings with it an element of free policing.
Hence the 'goodwill fee' system which has worked well in some areas. Informal payments in
kind or favours may be preferable to all concerned.
6. WORKING TOWARDS SOLUTIONS
6.1 The NCA, through the Regional Caving Councils and local clubs
has a long-standing tradition of working with landowners where problems arise. The NCA has
a key role to play in this process by involving cavers and land managers in discussion and
co-operation in working towards long term sustainable solutions. Where a landowner may
seek to introduce charges as a means of controlling level of use of a site the NCA will
seek alternative way to achieve this that avoid charging. Possibilities include voluntary
wardening schemes, booking schemes operated by outdoor centres, and user group meetings
that achieve a satisfactory level of control over use of a site to a mutually agreed
level.
6.2 The NCA believes that caving should take place as a quiet and
informal form of recreation. The impact on the resource should be sustainable. There
should be good understanding and respect by cavers of the needs and interests of the
landowners and managers and other users. The NCA spends a great deal of time and resources
informing and advising cavers on access and conservation.
6.3 The NCA believes that where landowners do incur costs these should
be met by: