TOURIST CAVES - WHO SHOULD ADMINISTER THEM?
Delegates may recall that at the last conference in Waitomo I stated in my paper on 'Planning for the Development of a Tourist Cave' that the responsibility for developing a tourist cave should always rest with the state, that the lifetime of a cave was infinitely greater than that of any one generation and that a cave once modified can never be returned to its natural state. I still hold the premise that tourist caves like National Parks and Scenic Reserves should have some kind of state control especially in their development phase, but do the assumptions we make about state involvement always apply?
Can we assume that the state is the best operator of a tourist cave? Can we assume that public scrutiny of state enterprise always functions for the public good and can we assume that it will not allow commercial interest to over-rule conservation?
A look at the administration of tourist caves in Australia and New Zealand reveals the involvement of a large number of state agencies and a great diversity of management styles, departmental philosophies and attitudes, and a varying degree of involvement in the planning, decision making and day to day running of the cave itself. This diversity of involvement I expect will be seen here at this conference and this may be a good opportunity to categorise the various types of tourist cave administration systems that exist today.
Three broad categories can be defined:
- State owned, State operated by
- a land management body
- a government tourist body
- a local body.
- State owned, privately operated.
- Privately owned, privately operated.
By far the great majority of the seventy or so tourist caves in Australasia fall into the category of state owned, state operated, again most of those are administered by a land management body. In Australia this can be, for example, the Department of Crown Lands and Survey as at Buchan Caves in Victoria; the National Parks and Wildlife Services as in Yarrangobilly Caves, New South Wales; the Forestry Commission as in Princess Margaret Rose Cave in Victoria. In New Zealand the equivalent land management authority is the Department of Conservation who administer, for example, Metro Cave in Westland.
The long established tourist caves that fall into this category are amongst the most successfully managed. Conservation, interpretation and education are high priorities and if sometimes financial efficiency and profit motives are not the same as would be found in the private sector, departmental policies often allow carrying to occur, usually to the benefit of the visiting public.
In the past in some caves there have been problems turning rangers into cave guides, rangers sometimes are reluctant to get too close to tourists on an every hour every day basis. These attitudes however are fast disappearing on both sides of the Tasman as the 'user pays principle' and the growing awareness of tourism as an economic force in state owned land become part of policy making at the state and national government level.
Australasia's two biggest tourist cave operations fall into the category 'State owned caves administered by a government tourist body'. Jenolan Caves are administered by the New South Wales Department of Tourism and Waitomo Caves are administered by the Tourist Hotel Corporation of New Zealand. It is no accident that the two most visited and profitable tourist cave operations are administered by government tourist agencies with a long established obligation for revenue generation and with an operating philosophy vastly different from land management departments. In their long history of service these caves have been developed without good long term planning and very little effective public scrutiny. Many mistakes have been made and the question has been asked - is a profit oriented Government tourist body the most suitable agency to administer our most delicate and fragile natural wonders?
On the positive side because of their sheer size of operation and profitability both Waitomo and Jenolan have broken new ground in cave management techniques and cave research and have been keen to share ideas and knowledge with others. Guiding and interpretation are well developed and both the public and the administering bodies are well serviced by these caves.
The remaining categories tend to include those tourist cave operations at the lower end of the visitor number scale. Because of the low number of visitors investment in development and management is often limited. Some of the caves are open for short periods during the year, others are struggling to stay open and many have already been abandoned. Often the administering body or owners are reluctant or unable to take advantage of the considerable expertise in cave management now available in Australasia. There are many notable exceptions to this generalisation and some fine examples of successful well-managed small tourist cave operations both in Australia and New Zealand are evident.
Examples of state owned, local body administered caves in Australia are Yallingup Caves administered by the Busselton Tourist Bureau and in New Zealand, Motupipi/Council Cave administered by the Golden Bay County Council.
Examples of state owned, privately operated tourist caves in Australia are Murrindal Caves administered by the Victorian Department of Crown Lands and Survey but operated privately under permit and in New Zealand Te Ana-au Caves in Fiordland National Park operated by Fiordland Travel.
Private enterprise operating adventure services such as white water rafting and fishing or hunting safaris are growing fast in New Zealand and there is indeed the potential for adventure caving to grow. The combination of a private concession and restraints imposed by a land management authority could be one of the more successful ways of administering and operating a conventional tourist cave.
What are the functions of a tourist cave, what ethics and principles are involved and what are the obligations of the tourist cave operator?
The Conservation Ethic
Many of our tourist caves were developed and commercialised to provide some kind of protection to the cave. Tourist cave operators must look after their caves or their appeal will be lost and visitors will not come but cave conservation is much deeper than that. All aspects of the cave environment need protecting not just those that appeal to the visual senses, this includes cave atmosphere, cave life form (apparent or not) and cave water quality. Caves also need protection from unsympathetic development, too many people, souveniring, vandalism, bad guiding and misleading or incorrect interpretation.
The Obligation to the Visiting Public
A tourist cave provides visitors with a safe and exciting 'cave experience', but as well as being stimulated by the visual experience visitors expect to learn something about what they are looking at. The experience must be safe yet awe-inspiring, entertaining yet informative. Like the cave itself the cave experience needs protection from too many people. Cave visitors expect a high standard of guiding and public facilities, good availability of tour times and good value for money. A successful cave experience reinforces the conservation ethic.
The Commercial Function
Tourist caves should be profitable to economically and environmentally justify the alteration to them caused by development. If the tourist cave is not commercially viable there is a risk that it will be abandoned, but it can also be wrong to extract too much revenue from the cave, overcrowding can not only destroy the visitors experience but pose a very real threat to the cave itself. Private enterprise operating adventure services such as white water rafting and fishing or hunting safaris is growing fast in New Zealand and there is indeed the potential for adventure caving to grow. The combination of a private concession and restraints imposed by a land management authority could be one of the more successful ways of administering and operating a conventional tourist cave.
Long term planning
In so many cases the development of caves as tourist attractions has occurred piecemeal, adding a new building here, cutting a new track there, often in response to visitor numbers at the time or when funds are eventually made available. Sooner or later this kind of development reaches a dead end and the administering body is sometimes forced to take a dangerous and difficult u-turn in direction. Long term planning must not only take into account the infinite life time of the cave but also take into account the visitor carrying capacity that the finite physical restraints of the cave impose. The increasing public demand for more sophisticated and intelligent interpretation and for new kinds of cave experiences such as adventure caving and cave tours for the handicapped must also be planned carefully.
In all of the above categories of tourist cave administration in Australia and New Zealand examples can be found of both good and bad cave management. Even within an individual tourist cave operation some things can be done well and others not so well but does it really matter who administers a tourist cave if the needs of the cave, the operator and the visiting public are understood and carefully balanced?