Research article
The conservation of Britain’s
limestone cave resource
P. Hardwick 7 J. Gunn
Abstract Limestone caves are an important scientific and recreational resource in Britain. During
the mid- to late 1970s, cavers and statutory conservation bodies cooperated in a review of cave resources which resulted in the designation of 48
caves or cave areas as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). During the same period, the Wildlife
and Countryside Act 1981 was introduced to provide more effective planning controls on activities
such as agriculture carried out within SSSI boundaries. In one case, at Priddy in the Mendip Hills
of Somerset, landowners prevented access to a
number of caves in protest over the new, tougher
restrictions on agriculture. Faced with the closure,
and perceiving that their recreational use of caves
might also be controlled, local cavers joined the
landowners in opposing the proposals for SSSI designation. As a result the proposals were reviewed,
three caves were excluded from the site and controls on the remaining area were relaxed. The case
emphasized a need for an effective system to take
account of all factors affecting cave conservation, a
need which has led to a more constructive dialogue
between nature conservation bodies, caver organizations and other interested parties.
Key words Limestone caves 7 Conservation 7
Agriculture 7 Recreation 7 Britain
Introduction
Limestone caves are an important part of Britain’s natural resources. In the past, some caves may have held considerable religious and cultural significance, the entrances
of others were used for storage, shelter and housing, and
several provided access for mineral mining. Fifteen caves
Received: 1 June 1995 7 Accepted: 4 December 1995
J. Gunn (Y) 7 P. Hardwick
Limestone Research Group, Department of Geographical
and Environmental Sciences, University of Huddersfield,
Huddersfield HD1 3DH, UK
are presently commercially operated for tourism, and
some are used for water storage and supply and for other
storage purposes. The rock surrounding caves is also utilised by extractive industry, and the majority of land
above caves is used by agriculture. However, Britain’s
cave resource as a whole is considered most important
for its scientific and recreational value. As natural phenomena, caves can be studied by a range of scientific disciplines to increase human understanding, and the aesthetic and sporting appeal of cave environments also
makes them a novel and popular form of recreation. Unfortunately, the nature of caves has led to conflict between different individuals and organizations interested
in using caves and hence to problems concerning the
management and conservation of cave resources. Caves,
as with other geological resources, are classified as nonrenewable or stock resources, since they have taken thousands of years to form and are thus in human time scales
fixed in supply (Rees 1985). Caves are also, using the terminology of Pigram (1985), ‘constricted linear resources’,
their limited spatial extent forcing frequently competing
interests into close proximity, thereby creating the potential for conflict. Such conflict has been most apparent between recreational and scientific interests. This paper reviews the recent (post-1979) history of problems and conflict between cave resource users in Britain, and developments in cave management and conservation designed to
mitigate those problems, using agriculture as a case
study.
The conservation and
management of caves in Britain
Organizations with an interest in caves
Statutory conservation measures in Britain date from
1949 with the enactment of the Wildlife and Access to the
Countryside Act in that year. The Act created the Nature
Conservancy as adviser to the Government on nature
conservation matters. The Conservancy was superseded
in 1973 by the Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) with a
remit covering Great Britain as a whole. In 1991/2, following the enactment of the Environmental Protection
Act 1990 and the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991,
the NCC was dissolved into three statutory country conservation agencies: English Nature (EN), the Countryside
Environmental Geology 28 (3) October 1996 7 Q Springer-Verlag
121
Research article
Council for Wales (CCW), Scottish Natural Heritage
(SNH), and their Joint Nature Conservation Committee
(JNCC) which provides a collective view on matters concerning Great Britain as a whole. Other statutory bodies
with an interest in caves include the archaeological conservation agencies English Heritage, Cadw (Wales) and
Historic Scotland. Recreational and commercial interests
in caves are represented by two non-governmental organizations (NGOs): the National Caving Association (NCA)
funded by the British Sports Council, and the British Association of Show Caves (BAS). Cave science (speleological) interests are represented within the NCA by the British Cave Research Association (BCRA). In addition, several universities maintain speleological research organizations. For example, the Limestone Research Group at the
University of Huddersfield provides scientific advice on
speleological matters to the statutory agencies, to a number of NGOs, and to extractive industry.
Impacts on caves
Since inception in 1949, the role of the statutory conservation bodies and their predecessors has been that of
scientific advisers to the government, and not that of
land managers. Therefore, unlike many North American
natural resource management agencies, they have no control over land-uses such as agriculture, forestry, hunting,
fishing, or mining (Eagles 1984). This lack of an effective
natural resource management agency during the post1945 period led to massive damage to Britain’s natural
environment by urban and industrial expansion, and particularly by the industrialisation of British agriculture
(Shoard 1980, Green 1981). One hundred and seventy
caves (6.3% of the cave resource in Great Britain) have
been affected by limestone quarrying, and at least 65 cave
entrances are known to have been totally or partly infilled during agricultural land ‘improvements’ or waste
tipping (Hardwick and Gunn 1993). In addition, much
larger numbers of caves continue to suffer attrition of
their scientific resources by the actions of recreational
cavers (Wilmut 1972, Judson 1985).
Sites of special scientific interest
The relevant statutory duties of the NCC and its successor bodies (EN/CCW/SNH) under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 are to notify any area of land which in
their opinion is of special interest by reason of its flora,
fauna, geological or physiographical features; and to specify any operations (practices) which in their opinion are
likely to damage the special interest. These are termed
potentially damaging operations (PDOs) and the full list
which could be applied to a site is given in Table 1. Importantly, the PDO list applies indefinitely, and therefore
needs to be comprehensive. The notified area is termed a
site of special scientific interest (SSSI), and the extent of
an SSSI is defined by a boundary map. The site owner or
occupier has a statutory duty to inform EN/CCW/SNH if
they wish to carry out any PDO specified at the time of
notification. There is then a 4-month consultation and
negotiation period during which the operation may not
122
Environmental Geology 28 (3) October 1996 7 Q Springer-Verlag
Table 1
Operations likely to damage the special interest of cave SSSI
NCC
Reference
Number
1
2a
2b
3a
3b
4a
4b
5
6
7
8a
8b
9
10
11
12a
12b
13a
13b
13c
14
Type of operation
Cultivation including ploughing rotovating,
harrowing, and re-seeding, and mushroom
cultivation within caves
The introduction of grazing
Alteration in present pattern/frequency of grazing
Introduction of stock feeding
Changes in stock feeding practice
Introduction of mowing or other vegetation
cutting
Changes in mowing/cutting regime including
haymaking to silage, and cessation
Application of manure, fertilisers, lime
Application of pesticides and herbicides
Dumping, spreading, discharge of any waste
materials
Burning of vegetation
Changes in pattern/frequency of burning
Deliberate introduction of any wild/domestic
animal, plant or seed
Killing or removal of any wild animal except pest
species
Destruction, displacement, removal, cutting, of
any plant or plant remains including tree, shrub,
herb, dead or decaying wood, moss, lichen,
fungus, leaf-mould, turf etc.
Tree planting, including afforestation
Changes in woodland management
Modification of field drainage and the use of
mole, tile, tunnel, or other artificial drains
Modification of rivers, streams, ditches, and
drains, including their banks and beds, as by
re-alignment, regrading, dredging and cleaning
Management of aquatic and bank vegetation for
drainage purposes
Changing of water levels, water tables, and water
utilisation (including irrigation, storage and
abstraction from existing water bodies through
boreholes)
be carried out (Richards 1987a). If agreement cannot be
reached in that period, EN/CCW/SNH may apply to the
Secretary of State of the relevant government department
(Department of the Environment, Welsh Office and Scottish Office in England, Wales and Scotland, respectively)
for a Nature Conservation Order under Section 29 of the
1981 Act. This prohibits the carrying out of the PDO for
a 12-month period (Richards 1987a), during which time
the owner/occupier may either enter into a management
agreement with the relevant body, which may involve
compensation to the owner/occupier for profits foregone
(NCC 1990), or the NCC may invoke powers of compulsory purchase. There is also a statutory requirement for
local planning authorities to consult EN/CCW/SNH on
planning applications within SSSI, or nearby if there is a
potential effect on the SSSI.
Research article
Table 1
Continuous
NCC
Reference
Number
Type of operation
15
Infilling of shakeholes, swallowholes, ditches,
pools, marshes, or pits
Introduction of fishery production or
management
Extraction of minerals including peat, shingle,
sand, gravel, topsoil, subsoil, lime, limestone
pavement and spoil
Construction, removal, or destruction of roads,
tracks, walls, fences, hardstands, banks, ditches or
other earthworks, or the laying, maintenance or
removal of pipe-lines and cables, above or below
ground
Storage of materials (e.g. bale silage) in
shakeholes or caves, on limestone pavements, or
against cave entrances
Erection of permanent or temporary structures or
the undertaking of engineering works, including
drilling
Modification of natural or man-made features
(including cave entrances, shakeholes, or other
natural depressions), clearance of boulders, large
stones, loose rock or scree, and battering,
buttressing or grading of rock faces and cuttings,
infilling of pits or quarries
Removal of geological specimens including rock
samples and cave formations
Use of vehicles and craft likely to damage or
disturb features of interest
Recreational or other activities within the control
of the owner or occupier likely to damage or
disturb cave formations, sediments, or features of
botanical interest
Changes in game and waterfowl management and
hunting practice
role of bringing features of local or regional value to the
attention of the planning authorities, so that consideration of their importance becomes integral to the planning
process (NCC 1990).
Cave SSSI
In 1977, the CAVES block working party within the GCR
enlisted the assistance of a NCA/BCRA cave SSSI working
16a
group to identify caves or cave systems which were considered of sufficient geological or geomorphological im20
portance to merit designation as cave SSSI. The designation of caves as SSSI was not new, as some 54 cave sites
were originally identified as being of scientific interest in
21
1956, following the enactment of the Wildlife and Access
to the Countryside Act 1949 (Black 1964). However, the
more systematic approach undertaken by the GCR resulted in the designation of 48 cave SSSI (Table 2) and a
22
process of renotification of old sites and notification of
new sites began. Of the recommended sites, 32 were preexisting SSSI, the remaining 16 were new. The 48 cave
23
SSSI encompass over 30% of the caves in Great Britain
and over 75% of surveyed cave passage (Hardwick and
24
Gunn 1993). Some smaller bone caves lie within SSSI designated for their palaeontological interest and there are
also several caves in SSSI designated primarily for their
karst as opposed to cave interest.
The 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act provided for 3
months notice to be given to owners/occupiers of inten25
tion to designate an SSSI. In several cases, the scientific
26
interest of sites was deliberately damaged or destroyed by
owners/occupiers during this 3-month period when a site
27
received no statutory protection (Richards 1987b). Following marked public concern over this loss and damage
to SSSI, a further Amendment to the Act in 1985 led to
the removal of the 3-month loophole and to a major im28
provement in the control and management of land-use
activity within SSSI. However, there was now no statutory
duty on the NCC to give warning of notification or to engage in prior discussions with owners and occupiers, and
this upset a number of landowners (Richards 1987b). In
In 1977, the then Nature Conservancy Council initiated
addition, the requirement in the 1981 Act for the NCC to
the Geological Conservation Review (GCR), a 12-year sys- provide site owners/occupiers with a PDO list meant that,
tematic review of all Britain’s earth science (geological
for the first time in British history, there were statutory
and physiographical) resources covered by the existing
planning controls on agricultural practices over large arSSSI network. The GCR was divided into working subject eas of privately owned countryside.
areas or ‘blocks’. The main blocks with cave interest were The notification of the Wookey Hole catchment including
CAVES and KARST, with some lesser cave interest in the the Priddy area in the Mendip Hills of Somerset, during
Vertebrate Palaeontology and Quaternary blocks. The
1986, caused considerable controversy in the recreational
main criteria for the selection of particular sites as SSSI
caving world, and led for the first time to open conflict
is that they should be of national or international impor- between cave recreation and cave science and conservatance and that they should be fundamentally conservable tion interests. The repercussions of the case have directly
(NCC 1990). A uniformly high standard of selection is es- affected subsequent cave conservation practice by all parsential since the scientific defence of a site under the
ties in Britain. The brief review of the case which follows
planning system relates it to the status of other sites in
is based on the fuller discussion in Richards (1987b).
the network (NCC 1990). Sites which do not meet the national importance criteria set by the GCR but which are
of regional importance may be designated as Regionally
Important Geological Sites (RIGS). These are overseen by
non-statutory site conservation groups which have the
Environmental Geology 28 (3) October 1996 7 Q Springer-Verlag
123
Research article
Table 2
Summary scientific interest designation criteria for the 48 cave SSSI in Britain
Key: [1] Features of primary importance
[2] Features of secondary importance
[P] No scientific interest
Cave SSSI site name
124
(Area)
Macroscale
interest:
geology/
hydrology/
geomorphology
Microscale
interest:
speleothems
Clastic
sediments
Minerals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Upper Dentdale Caves
Short Gill
Leck Beck Head Catchment
Kingsdale
Ingleborough
Birkwith Caves
Brants Gill Catchment
Pikedaw Calamine Caverns
Sleets Gill Cave
Boreham Cave
Strans Gill
Birks Fell Caves
Dow Cave System
Black Keld Catchment
Stump Cross Caves
Upper Nidderdale
Crackpot Cave
Fairy Holes
Knock Fell Caverns
Hale Moss Caves
N. Pennines
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
P
P
P
P
2
P
P
P
P
1
1
1
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
2
2
P
2
P
2
P
P
2
P
P
P
P
2
1
P
P
1
2
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
1
P
P
P
P
P
P
2
P
P
P
P
P
21
22
23
24
25
26
Castleton Caves
Bradwell Dale
Poole’s Cavern
Upper Lathkill Dale Caves
Stoney Middleton Caves
Masson Hill Caves
Peak District
1
1
1
1
1
1
P
2
2
2
P
P
1
P
2
2
1
2
P
P
P
P
P
P
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Charterhouse Caves
Cheddar Caves
Priddy Caves
Wookey Hole
Lamb Leer Cavern
Thrupe Lane Swallet
St. Dunstan’s Well Catchment
Mendip Hills
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
P
2
P
1
1
P
2
P
2
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Dan-yr-Ogof Caves
Ogof Ffynnon Ddu Area
Little Neath River Cave
Porth-yr-Ogof
Nant Glais Caves
Mynydd Llangattwg Caves
Siambre Ddu
Otter Hole
S. Wales
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
P
P
P
2
P
1
1
P
P
P
P
1
2
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
42 Buckfastleigh Caves
43 Napps Cave
Devon
1
P
1
1
2
P
1
1
44 Beachy Head Cave
E. Sussex
1
P
P
P
45 Minera Caves
46 Alyn Gorge Caves
N. Wales Clwyd
1
1
1
1
1
P
P
P
47 Allt nan Uamh Caves
Highlands
1
P
P
P
48 Traligill Caves
Sutherland
1
2
2
P
Environmental Geology 28 (3) October 1996 7 Q Springer-Verlag
Research article
the cavers’ position, a local speleologist prepared a memorandum to the landowners in which it was stated that:
“agricultural land-use in open fields poses no permanent
threat to caves, especially those well-away from the entrance where the passages lie several hundred feet below
the surface” (Hanwell 1986). Similar statements can also
A cave SSSI is an example of an ‘integrity site’, that is,
be found in the recreational caving literature of the perione with finite and limited deposits or landforms which
od (for example, Graham, 1986a, b, Hooper 1986). The
are irreplaceable if destroyed (NCC 1990). In such sites,
cavers considered that the major agricultural threat to
the approach to conservation is of necessity weighted
the integrity of cave sites (and obviously to recreational
heavily in terms of preservation and restricting human
access to such sites) lay in the blockage of cave entrances
impacts (NCC 1990). The following case study highlights by dumped materials or by infilling with farm waste in
four interrelated problems which should be viewed within the context of land improvements. Thus, they suggested
this context.
that cave conservation measures should be restricted only
The first problem, that of boundary definition, is unique to the immediate area surrounding cave entrances. This
to cave conservation. Since all active caves are part of
was in direct opposition not only to the earlier (1978)
more extensive karst hydrological systems, conservation
CSCC recommendation that the entire Wookey Hole
measures should logically extend to cover the whole
catchment should be notified but also to the agreed
catchment, so as to protect the cave from the possible
boundary revision of 1983, when it was reduced to an
impact of changes in input water quantity or quality.
area immediately overlying proven cave passage (RichHence, potentially vast areas of land surface with no inards 1987b).
herent scientific interest would have to be designated to
A third problem was that many of the caves of scientific
effectively conserve caves beneath them or downstream
value were also heavily used for recreation, in part a leof them. At Priddy, this approach was recommended by
gacy of the traditionally close relationship between rethe Council of Southern Caving Clubs (CSCC), the recreational caving and cave science in Britain. Consegional NCA body covering the Mendip Hills area, in 1978 quently, many cavers felt that the NCC were planning to
(Richards 1987b). However, the approach proved difficult control access following site designation. The NCC were
to justify and, following meetings of the NCA/BCRA
forced to stress that they had no intention of managing
Working Group on cave SSSI in 1981, the NCC decided
caves and that this was to be left to caving organizations
in 1983 to redraw the Priddy SSSI boundaries to include
and individual cavers (Richards 1987b). Effectively thereonly land above proven cave passage. However, for Land fore, third parties (cavers and their organizations) with
Charge registration purposes, and to enable owners and
little interest in cave conservation where it might affect
occupiers to recognise SSSI boundaries in the field, it was their recreational interests (particularly their access to
necessary to delimit the SSSI boundaries using permacaves), and who themselves had caused considerable
nent recognizable features on the ground such as walls,
damage to cave resources over several decades, were to
fences or tracks.
be allowed to manage underground conservation. In adA second problem was one of multiple occupation and
dition, controls on the activities of cavers, outlined in
ownership, multiple scientific interest, and the statutory
PDOs 25 and 27 (Table 1) were removed, despite these
requirement to notify all owners/occupiers of that interactivities clearly falling within the category of operations
est and to provide them with a comprehensive and polikely to damage the special interest. By omitting them
tentially very long PDO list which applied equally to all
from the list it could be argued that the NCC was failing
land within the site, however small and peripheral to the in its statutory duty to specify inter alia any operation
underlying cave. The PDO list for Priddy was particularly appearing to the NCC to be likely to damage the special
long, due to an overlapping of the cave SSSI with a biointerest under Section 28(4)b of the Wildlife and Counlogical SSSI known as Priddy Pools, both interests being
tryside Act 1981. However, the main argument against
combined in a composite site for notification purposes.
the inclusion of the two PDOs was that it would be very
Despite prior consultation in 1985 (Richards 1987b), the
difficult to enforce consultation or to police any offence
list was perceived as being ‘heavy handed’ by the owners/ under the Act. This argument is difficult to sustain since
occupiers, particularly those with land of no biological
it would equally apply to agricultural operations such as
interest. In protest, the caves were closed, causing great
fertiliser or herbicide spraying or the killing of wild aniconcern to local cavers and to the CSCC. The cavers were mals, all of which could take place without detection.
faced with a difficult choice. Either they supported the
A fourth problem was that of different perceptions of
landowners in their battle with the NCC or the caves
what was ‘important’ in conservation terms between the
would be permanently closed. The CSCC came out in
cave scientists and experienced cavers who had advised
support of the landowners position, the general consenNCC, and the recreational caving lobby. Of the seven
sus in recreational caving being that there was little
caves within the proposed boundary, three were considscientific evidence for impacts on underlying caves durered ‘major’ systems by the cavers (Swildon’s Hole, Easting or following ‘normal’ agricultural land-use managewater Cavern and St. Cuthberts Swallet) and four were
ment covered by the PDO lists (Table 1). In support of
considered ‘minor’ (North Hill Swallet, Sludge Pit Hole,
Cave SSSI designation in the
Mendip Hills: the Priddy case
study
Environmental Geology 28 (3) October 1996 7 Q Springer-Verlag
125
Research article
Nine Barrows Swallet and Hunters Hole). The cavers argued that the four minor caves should be omitted from
the SSSI, largely because their features could be found in
the major caves, and their possible loss by infilling was
considered less important in recreational terms (Hanwell
1986). However, this argument did not take into account
that cave development frequently reflects the elevation of
ancient water tables. For example, Sludge Pit Hole contains complex phreatic passage networks at higher elevations than any known passage in the Mendip Hills (W I
Stanton 1986, unpublished letter to NCC).
The NCC reviewed the site designation, with the aim of
relieving the problems at Priddy. Since biological and
cave interests only overlapped on a small area of the site
(at St. Cuthbert’s Swallet), it was possible to separate
most of the cave site from the biological area, confining
the lengthy PDO list to the Priddy Pools SSSI and St.
Cuthbert’s Swallet. Moreover, Sludge Pit, Nine Barrows
Swallet, and North Hill Swallet were removed from the
notification sheet despite their scientific importance. This
action technically breached the concept of site integrity
(in which essentially a threat to part of a site is perceived
as a threat to the whole), and “... left the caves unprotected against physical closure” (Sparrow 1989). Although
not physically closed, the cave owners continue to deny
access to these caves. The Priddy Pools revised site notification was confirmed in 1986 (Richards 1987b). Most agricultural operations were removed from the PDO list applicable to the site, leaving only PDOs 7, 13b, 21, 22, 23
and 24 (Table 1).
The perceived lack of scientific evidence to support controls on agricultural practices was addressed by the commissioning of independent research to assess the potential impact of a range of agricultural practices on the
scientific interest of caves (Hardwick and Gunn 1990a, b,
1993, 1994). These papers, together with research by the
first author (Hardwick 1995), indicate that there is good
scientific evidence from around the world to support the
NCC’s a priori hypothesis that many of the agricultural
practices undertaken on land overlying cavernous limestones impact on underlying caves, most notably by
changes in recharge chemistry. For example, fertilizer applications can lead to enhanced levels of nitrate and
phosphate ions in autogenic recharge which may affect
calcite deposition and erosion, thereby potentially impacting on speleothem resources (Hardwick 1995). Research by the authors on the impacts of water quality
changes on speleothems is continuing.
At Priddy, and in a number of cases elsewhere, the NCC
was placed in the difficult position of receiving contradictory advice from different organizations and individuals
with equally legitimate interests in a site. The case demonstrated an urgent need for an effective system to be
set in place, which would take into account “... all the
factors affecting the conservation of a cave and which
would command the support of owners, cavers, and conservation agencies” (Wright and Price 1994).
126
Environmental Geology 28 (3) October 1996 7 Q Springer-Verlag
Cave conservation practice in
Great Britain post-1985
The NCA deemed 1985 as ‘Cave Conservation Year’, and
in 1986 published a voluntary code of conduct for cavers.
Extensive consultations were also undertaken between the
NCC and NCA to seek ‘mutually acceptable protective
measures for cave sites’ (NCC 1990). The three main results of the consultations have been the formation of
joint NCA/NCC cave liaison groups, the development of a
Cave Conservation Policy by the NCA, and the formulation of a methodology for cave conservation plans
(CCPs), several of which have since been produced.
Cave Liaison Groups
At a meeting of the NCA in June 1986, the CNCC requested that the NCC should discuss cave SSSI notifications with the regional caving councils. This request was
subsequently met in all regions (Richards, 1987b). As a
further objective, the NCC suggested that, since cave conservation is site specific and that caving in Britain remains very much organized at local (club) level, a liaison
group should be set up for each of the cave SSSI, so that
“... clear lines of communication can be established”
(Richards 1987b). At present, several regional liaison
groups with local and regional caver representation convene on a regular basis.
NCA Cave Conservation Policy 1995
In 1995, the NCA published a document setting out their
policy on issues affecting cave conservation, proposing a
number of initiatives to take cave conservation forwards
(NCA 1995), including: a cave conservation handbook of
which the policy would form part; the formulation of voluntary cave conservation plans and the formation of a
conservation committee to cover each major cave or area;
education and training, including the theory and practice
of cave conservation and practical conservation matters;
commissioned research by the statutory nature conservation agencies; funding and grant aid for cave projects
with a conservation benefit; and future cooperation and
liaison between the statutory conservation bodies and Regional Caving Councils. The policy, which was developed
over a period of 5 years from 1990 and involved consultations with a large number of individuals and organizations and the production of some 15 drafts, is fully supported by all the statutory nature and archaeological conservation agencies.
Cave conservation plans
Cave conservation plans (CCPs) provide for an integrated
approach to cave conservation an individual site basis,
taking into account four key elements (Wright and Price
1994):
1. The documentation of scientific interest, its type, location and existing condition.
2. An assessment of the pressures on the cave, both external (from activities within the catchment; for exam-
Research article
ple, agriculture) and internal (from the activities of
cavers and cave scientists).
3. The assessment, development and description of practical conservation measures formulated on the basis of
the information obtained from 1 and 2.
4. Monitoring to assess the effectiveness of any conservation measures introduced, and the identification and
addressing of any problems or deficiencies which may
occur.
Several CCPs have been produced for recent cave discoveries within cave SSSI (where general access is usually restricted until exploration, documentation and mapping is
completed, and there is a reasonable chance of implementing a CCP). However, at present the CCPs have only
considered key elements 1 and 2 of the framework. Although practical conservation measures (stage 3) have
been proposed, questions of implementation concerning
funding for the proposed measures and which individuals
or organizations (for example, the conservation committees proposed in the NCA Conservation Policy) should be
responsible for monitoring (stage 4), remain as the current challenges facing all concerned.
References
Black GP (1964) The conservation of caves in Britain, Stud
Speleol 1(1) : 16–21
Eagles PFJ (1984) The Planning and Management of Environmentally Sensitive Areas, London: Longmans 160 pp
Graham N (1986a) Regional notes (Mendip), Wessex Cave
Club J 18(209) : 187–191
Graham N (1986b) Editorial Reply to R. Lewis’ Letter to Editor, Wessex Cave Club J 18(210) : 247–248
Green B (1981) Countryside Conservation Resource Management Series Vol. 3, London: Allen & Unwin, 218 pp
Hanwell JD (1986) Memorandum to landowners concerning
Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Priddy on behalf of the
Council of Southern Caving Clubs, 2 pp
Hardwick P and Gunn J (1990a) The Impact of Agricultural
Operations on the Scientific Interest of Cave Sites of Special
Scientific Interest, Commissioned research report for the Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough, 157 pp
Hardwick P and Gunn J (1990b) Soil erosion in cavernous limestone catchments. In: Boardman J, Dearing JA and Foster
IDL (Eds) Soil Erosion on Agriculatural Land. Chichester:
John Wiley 301–312
Hardwick P and Gunn J (1993) The impact of agriculture on
limestone caves. In: Karst Terrains Environmental Changes
Human Impact, Catena Supplement 25, Cremlingen-Destedt:
Catena-Verlag 235–249
Hardwick P and Gunn J (1994) The conservation of cave systems in mixed lithology catchments: A case study of the Castleton karst, England. In: Stevens C, Gordon JE, Green CP and
Macklin MG (Eds) Conserving our Landscape. Peterborough:
The management of the cave resource in Great Britain is
English Nature 198–202
still very much in its infancy, and many problems and
Hardwick P (1995) The impacts of agriculture on limestone
pitfalls remain to be overcome before management and
caves: with special reference to the Castleton catchment, Derhence conservation can be made fully effective. A number
byshire, Manchester Metropolitan University: Unpublished
of other countries, most notably the United States and
PhD Thesis 225 pp
Canada, were able from the outset to adopt a structured
Hooper J (1986) The scheduling of caves – a warning from
classic planning approach to cave conservation and manMendip, William Pengelly Cave Stud Trust Newslett 50 : 34
Judson D (1985) The conservation of caves in Great Britain
agement during the 1970s (Whitfield 1980). However,
VIII: Review, Stud Speleol 6 : 37–39
such an approach has proved extremely difficult to apply
NCA (1995) Cave Conservation Policy, National Caving Associain Britain. The Priddy case shows that communication
tion, Moonmark House, 27 Old Gloucester Street, London
and cooperation between all parties involved, and caver
WX1N 3XX ISBN 0 9525520 0 0
education on the nature of caves and karst and on the
NCC (1990) Earth Science Conservation in Great Britain: A
scientific importance of caves and their features, are the
Strategy, Peterborough: Nature Conservancy Council 84 pp
key factors necessary for successful cave conservation in
Pigram J (1985) Outdoor Recreation and Resource Management, Beckenham: Croom Helm, 296 pp
Great Britain.
Rees JA (1985) Natural Resources: Allocation, Economics and
Policy, London: Methuen 449 pp
Acknowledgements Funding from the NCC for the research
Richards L (1987a) Conserving geological sites. Earth Sci Conproject “Agricultural impacts on the scientific interest of cave
serv 23 : 9–12
SSSI” and support and advice from Dr. L. Richards, Mr. R.
Wright and Dr. N. Glasser are gratefully acknowledged. This pa- Richards L (1987b) Cave SSSIs and the Priddy case. Earth Sci
Conserv 23 : 12–14
per is a contribution to the work of the IGU Commission on
Shoard M (1980) The Theft of the Countryside, London: TemSustainable Development and Management of Karst Terrains.
ple Smith, 202 pp
Sparrow A (1989) Three caves removed from Priddy SSSI.
Descent 86 : 13
Whitfield P (1980) Why manage caves? Proc. Far West Cave
Management Sympos., Redding California 1979, Oregon City:
Pygmy Dwarf Press 36–37
Wilmut J (editor) (1972) Caves and Conservation, National
Caving Association, 38 pp
Wright JR and Price G (1994) Cave conservation plans – an
integrated approach to cave conservation. In: Stevens D, Gordon JE, Green CP, and Macklin MG (Eds) Conserving our
Landscape. Peterborough: English Nature 195–197
Conclusion
Environmental Geology 28 (3) October 1996 7 Q Springer-Verlag
127