Main index     Proceedings main index     Proceedings #5 index

PROBLEMS IN MANAGEMENT OF CAVES AND KARST ON PRIVATE LAND IN VICTORIA

Ian Houshold, Department of Geography, The Faculties, Australian National University, Canberra City, ACT 2801
Nicholas White, 123 Manningham St, Parkville Vic 3052

INTRODUCTION

Private land management in Australia has traditionally been accepted as the owners responsibility and his alone to do as he sees fit. There is little or no accountability to anyone for his actions. There has been a traditional entrenched suspicion and mistrust of authority in the form of government by landholders, and they have jealously guarded what they believe to be their rights. However, natural features, and in this case caves and karst are valuable to the community as a whole. An increasing number of people are becoming concerned that management of these resources solely by the owner may not be sufficient to guarantee their future usefulness as community resources, as opposed to purely private ones.

Victoria does not have many caves or karst areas and because of their value as agricultural areas only a few are in the public domain. Because Victoria was settled relatively early and at the time cave values were poorly recognised, only a minority are protected by reserves. In this regard the Buchan area stands out. Apart from the river flats the most arable areas are on the limestone hills. Therefore, apart from the seven caves reserves in the area, the majority of caves are located on private land. This situation is also true in the Western district, where many of both limestone and lava caves occur on private land.

Because it is unlikely that owners' traditional values will change noticeably in the near future, the aim of this paper is to find a method of management amenable to both owners and community users, particularly in the areas where their interests overlap. Ideally this method should be applicable to all natural features, whether they be geological, geomorphological, botanical or zoological, but in the context of this paper its use will be restricted to the conservation of areas of caves and karst.

1. VALUES OF CAVES AND PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR USE BY BOTH CAVERS AND OWNERS.

If this aim is to be met, it is first necessary to delineate areas of conflict and areas of agreement between landholders and other users. Although few caves on areas of private land are suitable for commercial tourist development they do have other values. In broad terms the value of caves and karst areas to groups such as cavers, scientists and teachers are:

  1. As areas of scientific interest - to geologists and geomorphologists - to archaeologists and palaeontologists - to zoologists.
  2. As recreational areas - to cavers - to youth and other outdoor groups - to tourists.
  3. As areas of landscape interest
  4. As educational areas - to school and university groups

These values form a gradation from low to high, and studies of the relative significance of different areas have been commenced by the Ministry of Conservation. However, although sites have been identified presently there is no satisfactory method of protecting sites which are found on private land in Victoria.

Values of caves and karst areas to landowners are often very much the same as those of other community users. Owners value the recreational and scenic aspects of their landscape and very often their management objectives would coincide with those of cavers and scientists. However caves also have value as a source of groundwater for stock and domestic use, as potential quarrying sites for limestone and marble, and as rubbish dumping sites. These values and uses are often in conflict with those of conservation and preservation.

Problems to owners occur due to inconsiderate behaviour by outside groups, stemming from the present lack of access control to private land.

These include:

  1. Damage to gates and fences.
  2. Stock disturbance.
  3. Perceived risks such as fire.

Other perceived risks due to the special nature of karst terrain include:

  1. Stock falling down caves.
  2. Vermin and noxious weeds finding a haven in and around caves.
  3. Liability of the owner for caving injuries occurring on his land.

Problems in regard to site damage can be caused by both owners and other users. Recreational cavers cause problems ranging from over-trafficking of sensitive areas as is occurring in many of the best known recreational caves in the Buchan area, through to deliberate vandalism by spraygun wielding yobbos. The Mt Widderin cave at Skipton has suffered at the hands of both graffitists and gemhunters who have destroyed deposits of rare minerals which once formed the floor of the cave. This cave is also being gradually degraded by people trampling the remaining minerals on the cave floor. Although in Victoria it is not a large scale problem either at present or in the past, the collection of speleothems in the U.S.A. has been on a large enough scale to warrant prohibitive laws. Speleothems take geological, not human times to grow, and their collection is for most people a foolish exercise, as out of the damp, calcium rich environment of the cave they quickly degrade.

Disturbance of cave fauna such as bats and invertebrates is also a major problem. In S.A. the owner of Johanna Bat Cave permanently closed the entrance. This action destroyed the habitat for an overwintering colony of bats and the cave is thus unavailable as a shelter site. Collecting of the large footed bat (Myotis adversus) from Clogg's Cave at Buchan was an act of "scientific vandalism" in that it probably contributed to the local extinction of this species from the Buchan area. Other acts of scientific vandalism have included very poorly conducted palaeontological excavations of cave sediments in the Buchan area in the past.

Cave owners have used karst areas as convenient rubbish tips. Caves used for rubbish tips are found at Buchan, some lava caves in the Western district, and in caves and sinkholes in the Portland Shire.

Fertilisers and other forms of pollution can upset karst processes and in extreme cases pollute groundwater supplies for domestic users. Sinkholes in the Allansford and Timboon districts of Western Victoria have been used as waste disposal pits by dairy factories. Although to date gross contamination of water tables in Victorian karst areas has not to date presented a serious problem, contamination of the water table in the lower south-eastern parts of S.A. from a multitude of sources has made some of the water unsuitable for domestic use.

Cave entrances have been closed to prevent stock from falling down them when a simple grille or cover would have sufficed. Dolines have been bulldozed to reduce vermin and noxious weed numbers when, in the long run this may well have the opposite effect. Tufa terraces in the Scrubby Creek area have been trampled due to uncontrolled stock access and some land management practices such as catchment clearance and overgrazing have led to serious siltation problems.

These are isolated acts of destruction, but between these there is also the continual attrition of speleothems and cave fauna by even the most well meaning recreational cavers and landowners.

There are thus many cave management problems associated with Victoria's privately owned karst resource. However, with proper management of resources in combination with an effective method of communication between both private and public users a satisfactory solution could be achieved. Many existing land uses are in fact compatible with cave conservation. The catchments of most Victorian cave and karst areas are not, at present under any intensive land use. The Buchan area for example, is either used for extensive cattle and sheep grazing with little fertiliser and insecticide input, or is covered in semi-natural forest. These land uses are compatible with most cave conservation objectives and there is no reason why they shouldn't be continued in a responsibly managed form.

Apart from situations where a direct conflict in land use values exists, education of landowners should improve both attitudes and practices concerning caves, and a management scheme to control use and access by the community could be implemented. Issues of management of cave resources have been discussed in considerable depth in the past, so the remainder of the paper will address itself to various methods of communication and legislation affecting cave owners and users.

2. EXISTING LAND TENURE AND PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION.

The first question to be asked here is: Are present methods of communication and legislation adequate to the task of resolving conflict?

The Land Act and various land use acts such as the Mines Act, the Extractive Industries Act and the Town and Country Planning Act present the traditional background of ownership and permitted use of private land in karst areas. Most land in Victoria is presently held under Torrens Title allowing private ownership to a depth of 50 feet below the surface of the ground although in some areas declared prior to the Torrens system title extends to the Centre of the Earth and includes mineral rights.

On land held under Torrens Title permits to quarry limestone must be obtained if it is proposed to extract stone below a level of two metres below the surface of the ground, under the Extractive Industries Act. Below 50 feet an Extractive Industries Lease must be acquired. Land use is determined by the Town and Country Planning Act which controls the granting of extractive industries permits. These four Acts in combination with local councils by-laws have traditionally covered the majority of land use decisions covering karst areas.

With this as a backdrop, various other methods are presently used to reach agreements between landholders and community users. In increasing degree of heavy handedness these are as follows:

The most common form of negotiation is a simple verbal agreement between landowners and cave users, in combination with a code of ethics built up over the years, informally binding people as to their rights and responsibilities. In the past, with only small numbers of cavers using private resources, in a generally responsible way, and landowners using only very extensive land use methods this has worked quite well. But it works essentially on a system of trust, and as pressures from both sides of the fence increase with demand for both caving areas and land productivity traditional farmer-caver relationships can only become more strained. Cavers have suddenly been denied access to sites because of the irresponsible behaviour of others as seen by the farmers, and many caves are threatened by damaging land use practices as described earlier.

More formally, and though it is yet to be utilised by people in the conservation of caves and karst areas the recently passed amendment to the Victoria Conservation Trust Act allows owners to enter into a covenant with the Trust which "binds him as to the development or use ... or the preservation or care of any bushland, trees, rock formations, buildings or other objects on the land."

Under this act incentives to the owner include Land Tax rebates and council rates exemptions on any land under the covenant. This act is useful if what is required is restriction of land use within certain areas but does not include provision for the management of the resource other than management advice to the landowner, or for money to be made available for fencing or access to the site. Because caves and karst have so many values other than those which could be satisfied by purely preserving the site - and without management it is not probable that even this could be achieved - this act could not, on its own be an adequate vehicle for managing our cave resources. The concept of a covenant is also unpopular with landholders because they see it as a burden on their land; it is even described as a "burden" within the act.

Use can be made of Planning Schemes and Interim Development Orders to "... regulate, restrict, restrain or prohibit the use of land" under the Town and Country Planning Act. At present when a new site of significance is identified it is not automatically recorded in the schedule of planning schemes, making the lengthy process of amendment to the schemes highly likely. With new discoveries of caves being made all the time it would probably be too cumbersome to amend a planning scheme every time a new cave is discovered. This method of site protection is also unnecessarily heavy handed when it comes to the management of caves. Rather than trying to find a common position with the landowner it rings of a confrontational "thou shalt" attitude. No compensation is offered to the landowner unless the land affected is to be used for public purposes, and there is no direct provision for site management to be made available.

Local council by-laws have also been used from time to time to prevent rubbish from being dumped in dolines, particularly if this practice threatens ground water supplies. Again, no direct assistance is given to the landholder, either for alternatives or management advice.

Compulsory acquisition of land should only be sought where an area of significance is directly threatened either by quarrying or serious degradation by land use practices. V.S.A. has made recommendations to the L.C.C. for various areas in Buchan to be acquired and classified as reserves for public purposes and the protection of natural features. There is no reason why existing land uses should not continue on these areas, possibly under a form of leasehold. These areas include the Potholes, the Pyramids, Scrubby Creek, and Cloggs Cave. This type of acquisition is only really necessary in areas of direct conflict and where reasonable procedures for compensation of the landowner exist under, for example the Crown Lands Reserves Act.

As well as State legislation there is Federal legislation to protect sites under the Australian Heritage Commission Act. This Act provides for a register of sites to be compiled and that ministers and authorities of the federal government shall not take any action that adversely affects sites that are found on the register. It also has provision for the commission to spend federal money to help conserve items on the register and to make grants to states, local government and other organisations and individuals for the conservation, improvement or presentation of the National Estate. It does not, however bind the owner of the site as to how it is to be used or developed and is probably of greatest use in trying to instil a sense of pride in the ownership of a part of the National Estate.

For caves which are also areas of archaeological interest the Victorian government has passed the Archaeological and Aboriginal Relicts Act. This is a very good piece of legislation in regard to this very specialised type of feature in that it involves the landowner in management of the site, allows access control to be carried out and allows compensation to be made to the owner for any damage or disability incurred. Sites are kept on a register and management plans for each specific site are also prepared. So for cave conservation purposes it is a distinct advantage if it contains archaeological or aboriginal relicts.

Taking all of the previous methods into account, possibly the best method available at present to adequately manage caves and karst on private land in Victoria is:

  1. Maintenance of good relations between farmer and caving societies, including as a basis the Australian Speleological Federation Code of Ethics.
  2. Parallel usage of Australian Heritage Commission and Victoria Conservation Trust Legislation.
  3. Enforcement of council bylaws to prevent rubbish dumping in caves.
  4. Use of the Archaeological and Aboriginal Relicts Act where applicable.

This combination would:

  1. Allow an inventory of sites to be made on the register of the National Estate.
  2. Provide incentives to landowners in the form of Land Tax and Rates rebates.
  3. Provide funds for bodies to manage cave and karst areas.
  4. Allow the site to be permanently protected through covenanting.

The major drawback with this method of parallel legislation is that there is no guarantee that all of these provisions will be carried out simultaneously. Also, as described earlier the concept of covenanting as it stands would probably be unpopular with farmers because there would be no guarantee that additional money for site protection and management would be available. Also the community users, who would have access to federal money would have no guarantee that a landholder would enter a covenant.

What is needed is a single all inclusive form of legislation in which the best elements of the above could be included. A good model for this is the S.A. Heritage Act, as amended in 1980. This Act provides for:

3. CONCLUSION.

This type of agreement should satisfactorily overcome the negative and prohibitive nature of the covenanting and planning machinery presently in use in Victoria. The establishment of a Heritage Commission with provision for input by groups of consultative experts would allow management to be carried out on a state and local level, which is not at present possible under the federal Heritage Commission Act alone.

Victoria should legislate to provide a mechanism for the protection of natural features, similar in substance to that found in South Australia. This, in combination with existing acts such as the Environment Protection Act and the Fisheries and Wildlife Act would allow for the permanent management of sites of significance on private land, including cave and karst resources. The presently unused Ministry of Conservation and Planning Dept. lists of sites of significance could be investigated by the Commission as the start of utilising this type of act in a practical and useful manner.