SOLUTION

The most obvious solution is to start again - perform proper studies to confirm the perceived need, to identify an appropriate solution, to identify potential ill-effects of that solution and ways to mitigate them. But if we accept that too much has already been invested in the project, let's look at some alternatives that should be acceptable to all stakeholders

Solution 1:

Limit the scope of the project to the professional sectors. Require clear statements in each AAS document to the effect that these documents describe standards which often exceed those that are required for the responsible enjoyment of natural places, and that individuals seeking guidance on appropriate precautions should look elsewhere. or

Solution 2

Divide each activity into participant sectors, eg commercial, educational, private; seek consultation by sector and devise separate standards for each. Peak bodies where they exist should be given the responsibility to devise any such documents as they desire. If SRV can devise a good template, they will almost certainly follow that example to whatever extent it fits their needs.

(But some organisations may choose radically different approaches. For example the Federation of Victorian Walking Clubs (VicWalk)took its own initiative in this regard but concluded that a set of 'rules' could never be made to fit the diversity of activities called 'bushwalking" and so chose to devise a risk management framework for their clubs. If this turns out not to be sufficient to achieve the desired aims, they will no doubt refine it.)

Other

In relation to either solution, the terms of reference must be made public and the identities of the steering committee members must be made public to ensure accountability.

continue

..................................................................................................................................................