CAVE MANAGEMENT IN AUSTRALASIA - WHITHER ARE WE TRAVELLING?
INTRODUCTION
The formation of the Australasian Cave and Karst Management Association (ACKMA) in May 1987 has commenced a new era in karst management in Australia and New Zealand. Previously, the biennial conference, at which this decision was taken, had been convened by a Commission of the Australian Speleological Federation. However, it was felt that as cave managers and users did not always have the same perspective on all karst issues, management should have its own organisation.
The formation of ACKMA, if such can be taken as a pivotal point in karst management history, begs the question as to its future aims, objectives and role both practically and intellectually.
Does the Association stay only within the traditional primary role of organising biennial management conferences? Does it evolve into a political pressure group and actually develop and pursue its own policies? Does it take a leading role in karst education both in management and in the community? What philosophic positions, if any, should it take in management?
The aim of this paper is to set out the range of issues involved and broadly examine some of the options.
How is ACKMA to be perceived?
Clearly, this is the first thing that must be examined and over which the Association will have only limited influence. It will be conceded by most that ACKMA is designed to be a professional organisation. It is likely, therefore, as with any such organisation, that the community will expect a range of professional responses from it in its area of endeavour. These expectations are likely to include a philosophic position, or positions and supportable policies in the area of karst management.
Consider a hypothetical case: The New South Wales Government decides to permit the Devil's Coachouse at Jenolan to be used as a limestone mine. The President of ACKMA is approached by the press for a comment. What does he say? One has no doubt that the opinion of the current ACKMA president would be highly terse and somewhat charged with expletives. Nonetheless, currently he can only give his personal opinion, or his personal opinion as the President of ACKMA. what he cannot do is claim his opinion represents the views of ACKMA and its members. Although in this example he would doubtlessly be on very safe ground!
While mining at Jenolan, one would imagine, would be roundly condemned by every section of the community, it might be hard to support the argument that no limestone mine be permitted in Australasia. Many will recall the controversy that has long surrounded the marble quarries adjacent to the Wombeyan Caves. Of course, the long-term battle at Mt Etna in Queensland is another well-known example. Even now, a High Court battle rages between Queensland Cement Ltd and the Central Queensland Speleological Society over blasting and mining near Speaking Tube Cave, which is endangering rare bat populations.
It would seem therefore, that in the future ACKMA is likely to be called upon to take a position on a range of issues affecting its perceived area of expertise and interest. Thus, ACKMA is likely to be forced to move into spheres which did not affect its predecessor. It is also likely that, as its area of interest and endeavour expand, so too will public consciousness of its existence. As a consequence the need for ACKMA to develop positions on a variety of topics will widen and strengthen. In responding to the pressures that are almost inevitably going to be placed upon it, the Association will firstly need to determine its philosophic base.
Philosophy in karst management
It was recently put to me that there are two main schools in karst management - the 'tourists' and the 'purists'. The tourists tend to hold the view that all karst resources were placed on God's earth for the exploitation and enjoyment of mankind; and therefore there is no possible case for restricting access to any cave, or cave system.
The purist school, alternatively, holds the view that all caves should be gated, every existing tourist show cave closed and that no person or thing, living or dead, should be permitted anywhere near a cave - let alone in them (the purists themselves excepted, of course).
Of course, in reality, most would agree that there are considerable difficulties in holding either of these extreme positions and at the same time being taken seriously. Nonetheless, to varying degrees most people involved in karst, whether as a managers or users, hold a position which leans towards one of these schools. It is reasonable to state (one suspects) that the members of caving clubs tend to lean towards purism, whereas cave management tends more towards tourism.
It is probably likely, therefore, that the philosophic approach of ACKMA will lean more towards tourism. Perhaps, over time, ACKMA philosophy should emerge as seeking a balance between tourism and purism - indeed many might say this is already the case. Whatever the philosophic position of the Association, it will become necessary that it is known and understood within the community.
Should ACKMA devise policies?
If, as is likely, ACKMA is called upon to express its opinion on karst management issues, it will become increasingly necessary for it to have at least broadly considered policies. By extension, it will also need the mechanism to determine that policy.
Additionally, if it is to determine its own policies, these will need to cover a broad range of issues. These will doubtlessly range from policies of land usage in karst catchment areas to a position on lighting voltage in tourist caves.
There are probably only two ways that ACKMA can properly determine policy. Firstly, its members can debate policy resolutions at its biennial conferences. Secondly, specific policies could be determined by the plebiscite of members. The democratic determination of policy is made somewhat difficult by the geographic spread of its members. It is not possible to place members together at short notice. If ACKMA was to determine policy positions, then it could realistically only do so to any depth once every two years. Even so, broad policy would be enough. Clearly, any policy needs to be pliable in changing circumstances. A policy determined two years ago may not necessarily be appropriate in a present instance. Therefore, the application of policy would of necessity be left to the ACKMA Executive, with the option of a plebiscite being available should the issue be of such a nature as to require it.
ACKMA as a pressure group
If ACKMA assumes a philosophic position in karst management and develops resultant policies, it follows that the Association must both defend and pursue those policies.
While most members of ACKMA are employed by an arm of government, that does not mean members necessarily approve of all government decisions affecting karst management! Indeed, it is not hard to imagine government policies and, particularly, priorities being different in many areas to ACKMA and its members. Often, individual members are not easily placed to act on positions or decisions with which they disagree. Similarly, it is far from uncommon that higher officials, officials that may have no experience or expertise in on-ground (and underground!) karst management, make administrative or practical decisions which have a negative effect.
A recent example of which I am aware concerns a tourist cave location with a high native animal population in its reserve area. A decision was made by higher authorities (without any on-ground inspection or expert advice) as to where several new tourist sleeping facilities would be positioned. The manager of the caves concerned advised his superiors that the chosen site was in the middle of a native animal run and would have an adverse effect on the fauna should the site not be changed. Upon being faced with the intransigence of his superiors, he was placed in a most awkward position. Eventually he felt compelled to privately consult an outside conservation body, which in turn forcibly raised the issue with government. Upon their original decision being thus challenged, the originally neglected on-ground examination was undertaken and the site of the sleeping facilities was changed.
This is just one of many parallel examples one could quote. It is not hard to continue with hypothetical examples. What would be the thoughts of the manager of the Buchan Cave if the Victorian Department of Conservation Forests and Lands made an arbitrary decision to re-wire his tourist caves in 32 volts (just because the Princess Margaret Rose Cave was)? - or the South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service decided to develop the Bat Cave as a full tourist cave, or even as an "adventure tour" cave, especially for summer inspections? What does the immediate on-ground management do to oppose a decision? Indeed, how willing would such management be to "rock the boat" on what may be only perceived as a minor issue? Sure, I have just quoted a few clearly outrageous hypothetical proposals to galvanise your minds on this issue - but we all could think of numerous borderline examples where the case was far from clear-cut.
These questions are real concerns and an area wherein ACKMA should play a key role. If a cave manager could but quote ACKMA policy, he may well in that alone have support for his case. Indeed, if ACKMA were to make its policies widely known, as conceivably a respectable and respected professional body, this may in itself prevent some problem arising in the first place. Where appropriate, the ACKMA committee could intervene, seek publicity and/or direct access to government as an issue may warrant.
Clearly, we have been reasonably fortunate in Australia and New Zealand that governments and higher public service management have been, it would appear, ready to listen to the advice of acknowledged experts, at least in modern times.
Even so, a not insignificant number of examples exist where this has not been the case. Historically, great inconsistencies have occurred. As just one example, Naracoorte has three show caves, wired respectively in 240 volts AC, 110 volts DC and 110 volts AC.
In total, therefore, ACKMA has a role that it could play in acting successfully as a pressure group on karst management issues - if it sees itself as adopting that role. Indeed, it is likely that it will have little choice as time passes. That being the case, strategies for carrying out that role would be better adopted now, than later.
Karst education
In having broadly examined some of the challenges which ACKMA will face in its future, whether willing or not, it remains to look at practical areas where it can take a leading, instead of reactionary, role.
Foremost of these is both professional and community-based education. It is clear that cave managers have long since recognised the importance of this area. Cave management conferences were originally set up to promote professional interaction and education of Australasian cave managers.
Individual cave managers are now participating in guide exchange programs. ACKMA is well placed to promote guide training on an Australasian basis, perhaps by holding an annual training course in addition to a road-planned guide exchange program. ACKMA could involve itself in a range of publication activities. Of course, we have already established a half-yearly newsletter to keep members abreast of management issues. Papers of management and scientific interest should form part of this publication, rather than restricting the inclusion of papers to the biennial conference proceedings.
ACKMA should also involve itself in the preparation and presentation of a range of educational and promotional publications, both printed and audio-visual. Finally, a key role for ACKMA should be in public education, and in raising public awareness of karst related issues in particular.
Scientific research
This area of involvement is one where cave management should have a role. Of course, few cave managers are scientists. Nonetheless, ACKMA could well act in a coordinating role, and thus greatly contribute to the overall planning, efficiency and outcome of karst research in Australasia. The relationship between cavers and cave management is another obvious area where ACKMA can play a prominent role. This area has often seen fluctuations, and an overall coordinated and cooperative approach, both in policy and practical applications, would doubtlessly be most beneficial.
Planning and national priorities
The great potential of ACKMA as an organisation lies in its Australasian spanning position. It is in a position, by virtue of this fact, to determine and recommend priorities in karst management and development over a wide range of areas transcending the idiosyncrasies and perhaps uninformed position of localised administrations.
As an example, let us choose cave lighting. Not only could ACKMA readily formulate a policy in this area, but it could identify and list Australasian priorities in lighting and recommend the secondment of skilled personnel to specific projects.
Through the setting of priorities, based upon its philosophic position and resultant policies and priorities, ACKMA can positively affect the funding approaches of governmental bodies involved in karst management. By putting aside parochialism, ACKMA is potentially in a unique position to raise the standards of karst management in Australasia to the highest levels.
Of course, hand-in-hand with priority setting is on-ground planning. Few would argue that every karst system should not have a fully developed karst management plan. Yet there are still many systems where this is not yet the case. The Jenolan karst area, arguably Australia's most famous, only gained a draft management plan in the past 12 months. ACKMA is uniquely placed to play a central and pivotal role in on-ground management planning, and should ensure its involvement in every karst planning operation in Australasia.
Conclusion
The Australasian Cave and Karst Management Association is presented with a series of important challenges in the future. The Association will be perceived by both governments and the public alike as representing professionalism in karst management. It will be expected to have a position on major karst issues that arise from time to time. Consequently, it will need to adopt a philosophic position and a range of policies and priorities. Its opportunity to act as a pressure group and as a advisory body, will expand rapidly. It is also uniquely placed to make a major contribution to management training and education; to scientific research; and to broad-based cooperation on karst issues. Lastly, ACKMA is ideally placed to play the dominant role in on-ground karst planning and to recommend and pursue Australasian priorities and standards.
In total, if it takes up the challenge its creation offers, it will herald a new great era in Australasian karst management. However, it is just possible that the reverse might also be true.