Research Ideas and Outcomes (May 2022)

Current cave monitoring practices, their variation and recommendations for future improvement in Europe: A synopsis from the 6th EuroSpeleo Protection Symposium

  • Alexander Weigand,
  • Szilárd-Lehel Bücs,
  • Stanimira Deleva,
  • Lada Lukić Bilela,
  • Pierrette Nyssen,
  • Kaloust Paragamian,
  • Axel Ssymank,
  • Hannah Weigand,
  • Valerija Zakšek,
  • Maja Zagmajster,
  • Gergely Balázs,
  • Shalva Barjadze,
  • Katharina Bürger,
  • William Burn,
  • Didier Cailhol,
  • Amélie Decrolière,
  • Ferdinando Didonna,
  • Azdren Doli,
  • Tvrtko Drazina,
  • Joerg Dreybrodt,
  • Lana Ðud,
  • Csaba Egri,
  • Markus Erhard,
  • Sašo Finžgar,
  • Dominik Fröhlich,
  • Grant Gartrell,
  • Suren Gazaryan,
  • Michel Georges,
  • Jean-Francois Godeau,
  • Ralf Grunewald,
  • John Gunn,
  • Jeff Hajenga,
  • Peter Hofmann,
  • Lee Knight,
  • Hannes Köble,
  • Nikolina Kuharic,
  • Christian Lüthi,
  • Cristian Munteanu,
  • Rudjer Novak,
  • Dainis Ozols,
  • Matija Petkovic,
  • Fabio Stoch,
  • Bärbel Vogel,
  • Ines Vukovic,
  • Meredith Hall Weberg,
  • Christian Zaenker,
  • Stefan Zaenker,
  • Ute Feit,
  • Jean-Claude Thies

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.8.e85859
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 8
pp. 1 – 16

Abstract

Read online Read online Read online

This manuscript summarizes the outcomes of the 6th EuroSpeleo Protection Symposium. Special emphasis was laid on presenting and discussing monitoring activities under the umbrella of the Habitats Directive (EU Council Directive 92/43/EEC) for habitat type 8310 "Caves not open to the public" and the Emerald Network. The discussions revealed a high level of variation in the currently conducted underground monitoring activities: there is no uniform definition of what kind of underground environments the "cave" habitat should cover, how often a specific cave has to be monitored, and what parameters should be measured to evaluate the conservation status. The variation in spatial dimensions in national definitions of caves further affects the number of catalogued caves in a country and the number of caves to be monitored. Not always participants are aware of the complete national monitoring process and that data sets should be freely available or easily accessible. The discussions further showed an inherent dilemma between an anticipated uniform monitoring approach with a coherent assessment methodology and, on the contrary, the uniqueness of caves and subterranean biota to be assessed – combined with profound knowledge gaps and a lack of resources. Nevertheless, some good practices for future cave monitoring activities have been identified by the participants: (1) Cave monitoring should focus on bio- and geodiversity elements alike; (2) Local communities should be involved, and formal agreements envisaged; (3) Caves must be understood as windows into the subterranean realm; (4) Touristic caves should not be excluded ad-hoc from regular monitoring; (5) New digital tools and open FAIR data infrastructures should be implemented; (6) Cave biomonitoring should focus on a large(r) biological diversity; and (7) DNA-based tools should be integrated. Finally, the importance of the 'forgotten' Recommendation No. 36 from the Bern Convention as a guiding legal European document was highlighted.

Keywords