UKC

I noticed on my FB feed, an article in Alpine magazine the suggests the FFME are considering no longer 'insuring' (landowner liability) many cliffs after being sued after an accident at Vingrau. Could have far reaching ramifications

https://alpinemag.fr/fin-des-conventions-en-falaise-escalade-en-danger/

Chris

thanks for posting the link, shame only part is open access

That sounds far-reaching and grim. Do you know what happened at Vingrau?

Not really, I have a vague idea that a bolt failed back in 2012.

The place had been shut for several years and has only be reopened earlier this year,

Chris

A whole area around there was closed after a number of bolt failures and a fatality, that was ten years ago so what happened after no idea but there was a petition floating around in 2018.

I believe that the problem at Vingrau was the use of faulty glue on some new routes leading to anchor failures. In order to attract climbers/tourists the local Maries had paid local guides to equip and maintain the routes. After the accidents the Maries asked the guides to check all bolts on all of the routes which I believe that the guides refused to do unless they received extra funds. The Maries did not pay and had no option but to ban climbing on all of the crags that they were responsible for. So started a stalemate on many of the crags in the Aude which was broken by FFME who resolved to start testing. I understand that the routes with the failing bolts were put up by individuals and not the local guides and it was not possible to identify the routes where faulty glue may have been used. It is not just faulty bolts that are the issue. If any landowner gives permission to climb and someone gets hurt because of loose rock it is possible that the owner gets sued. I know that you will say that the climber takes responsibility for their own actions but the law does not always see it that way and why should a landowner take that risk.

That sounds about what I've heard but I didn't want to point fingers, the whole thing has been grinding on for ten years now to no credit to the climbing community whichever bit is responsible. It's France!

I had it in my mind that it was a loose block that a leader pulled off which hit his belayer. Was this a different incident?

Must have been Jon as at Vingrau it was definitely bolt failure that caused the problem. I climbed there just after the first incident and it was quite nervy lowering off the anchors. jimtitt, I was also a bit wary of replying but obviously the original blame if that is the right word is with the kit used to equip the climbs and secondly with the guides who I understand had already received a payment to maintain the routes. I suppose that maintenance and re-checking every route are not the same. It was difficult for us local climbers but for me in the Capcir I had the option to go west to the Lleida crags.

Didn't get to see the bottom of the article, so not sure if it was covered. Its been coming for while because of the accidents and also the FFME are looking to focus more on the Olympic/sports side of climbing. The assumptions is that the responsibility will pass on to the local major, which caused a few issues last year where one of our local majors got really jumpy about a crag with a loose block  on it and shut it, until a guide went to look at and signed it off. I understand this is one of the solutions they are looking at, where a guide will sign it off. They already do this with via ferrata they all get signed off around may time here, and even with climbing where as if the major hears a complaint about an issue at a crag they send the same team that do the via ferrata to sort it and make it safe.

Now I live near Braincon an area that needs tourism and climbers are a big part of that, so they are really keen to find a solution. some of the other crags that don't need the visitors may feel its not worth it.

I think this points to a wider problem concerning responsibility. I suggest few equippers willingly use faulty bolts, but the question is who can be rightly sued cor an accident. In other contexts - Kalymnos for examples - I strongly argued against the PR notion of safe crags... Once you communicate this as a tourist organisation, you are in a quagmire of sorts. The general idea should be climbers taking the responsibility. 

This is certainly true for alpine stuff, and also for equipped multipitches in the mountains. It is less clear with crags that generate considerable income for local communities. Still I suggest using the crags should be at the climbers responsibility. There will be risks pertaining to crag safety whatever controls you do - you may find the route perfectly equipped one day and bolts destroyed by stonefall the next day. The final judgement has to stay with the climber.

I'm perfectly aware this is against the current mainstream of crags to consume...

Just my 2c

I thought this was the one in 2010 that has cost the FFME 1M+€:   https://blog.escalade-montagne.fr/accident-de-vingrau-la-ffme-declaree-resp... Has there been another/different one?

There was a bolt failure in (I think) the Tarn that closed the crags for a long while, also in 2010, as I remember...

Looking at french climbing posts on FB this morning, it seems FFME are looking to increase the cost of subscriptions to cover some of their liabilities. Not clear from my crap French that cliffs will close as a result - hope not as I'll be living near Vingrau/La Clape from next year.

The accident at Vingau that is causing the FFME's current headache was definitely a climber pulling a block off that landed on his belayer, not a bolt failure. This was in 2010, the court case was in 2016 and the failure of the FFME's second appeal, this year. By coincidence, also in 2010, there was a bolt failure in the Tarn which involved an expansion bolt in a horizontal roof pulling out - not a glue in, which as far as I know was the accident reponsible for the closure of the crags while a complete re equipping went on. 

The FFME are apparently facing two other more recent cases - Sept '19 and Feb '20 - that risk having the same consequences for them down the line as the Vingrau one, so are not in an enviable position. I've no idea in those cases if it's down to gear failure or loose rock. If the FFME withdraw their conventions, then the landowners/communes/Office National des Forêts logically become responsible and could then understandably ban climbing on their land. The fact that it was a loose block at Vingrau makes it even more worrying - how can anyone guard against this? In theory it's straightforward enough to make sure bolts/glue-ins are correctly placed - though obviously not 100% of the time - but loose rock? 

It's important though to bear in mind that many crags have never been 'conventioned' and have never had any problems - maybe they've never had any accidents, of course... 

It'll be interesting - maybe depressing, of course - to see how it gets resolved. Upping subs is the obvious solution, but 1.6M€ each time is a hell of a lot of subs.  

Thanks for that.

Seeing it from a UK perspective it has always struck me as odd that the French have the idea that climbing is/has to be safe, and if there is an accident it has to be someone's fault, and that 'someone' isn't assumed to be the climber,

Chris

I suppose the difference in France is starkly illustrated when you see school's sports afternoon being held at a crag !

On Vingrau in particular, I was intrigued by the fact that the 'climbing banned' signs are no longer visible by the parking bays, although I haven't spotted anyone climbing there in the last few years.

I believe that you are right about the court case in 2010 but the reason the crags were closed was due to a bolt failure/death in 2011. http://article.ffme.fr/image/F1-4468.pdf

The important thing to take from this though that in the case in question it, was just a loose bit of rock that is going to cost the FFME 1.6M€ - not the bolt failure/crag closure you refer to - and the precedent it sets. This in itself makes the whole affair far more worrying and insidious as clearly it's so much harder to control - there are millions of tons of blocks on routes, above crags, on ledges etc throughout France that could come down with rain, in windy weather, knocked down by animals... for which the FFME could be held responsible for not having purged the site sufficiently - a task that is just impossible.  

I am not legally trained but I always thought that the BMC participation statement was to make sure everybody knew the score.

Alan will put something similar in the first few pages of all the rockfax guides.

Jon, do the ffme use any similar statement?

The "climbing banned" signs were taken down about 18 months ago, you will sometimes see people climbing at Vingrau but it's never been a place that gets particularly busy. 

All the crags in the Pyrenees Orientale were closed whilst those in the Aude remained open, perhaps people just got used to going to other destinations? 

Maybe, but the slabs above the road always looked like a popular evening venue.

That little gorge on the way to Tauteval still seems popular. 

The problem seems to be a combination of French laws as well as their desire to regulate everything.

It seems that in France all land has to belong to someone - ultimately the commune if there isn't a "private" owner.

Land owners are responsible for any accidents on their land no matter how they were caused even in the case of a "no fault" accident.

There's an exception for alpinism as there's a law that specifically allows access to mountains.

The problem isn't going to be solved until the law changes to allow the same access to other natural areas as for mountains and all the FFME have been doing is to apply a sticking plaster to a legal nightmare. 

Quite rightly so, it's a lovely spot with some nice routes and a place to swim if it gets a bit warm.

Where are you going to be? We spend a bit of time down there so shout up if you need a partner.

Hi Andrew - Cessenon sur Orb. My wife lives there already. 

It's the same here (in England and Wales anyway, not sure about Scotland).  Most land is owned by someone, but if the owner of a piece of land can't be found it reverts to the Crown.

In principle, landowners here have a duty of care towards people on their land.  However there is a test of reasonableness, and the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 expressly excludes "risks willingly accepted as his by the visitor" so a landowner would not normally be liable for climbing accidents unless they had contributed in some way.

That’s not just France, that’s also a big landowner issue in the UK.

there was also a bolt pulled out (no accident) at Tautavel around the same time as at Vingrau (Alzine?), and a couple of minor injuries following glue ins pulling out on Maury. Tautavel opened a shortish while later. The Maury and Tautavel crags all came under the Voie de la Grimpe project, I think this promotion made the communes more nervous after the accident.

This is a google translate of a recent facebook post from the Ardeche are and how they are looking to deal with it.

You have no doubt, for the most part, read the letter from the president of the French Federation of Mountain and Climbing dated April 22. The announcements that were made raised many questions from you that prompted us to respond.

The problem linked to natural climbing sites is not new and the first questions about the possibility of perpetuating the convention of the cliffs by the FFME dates from 2010. It was following the accident in Vingrau which condemned the Federation as the "guardian of the thing" that the insurer of the Federation, in a purely accounting logic charges / revenues began to cringe…

Three avenues have been explored by the Federation:
- Amend article L. 311-1 of the sports code in order to no longer engage the responsibility of the chosen caretaker in the event of damage during outdoor sports. This legislative work was validated in the Senate on March 5, 2020 ..;
- Increase of 10 € in the price of the license to compensate for the increase in the cost of insurance;
- The termination of all the remaining agreements.

This is the last option that will have been chosen.

So what consequence will this decision have on our possibility of climbing on our Ardèche cliffs?
Besides the importance of the symbol and the message sent by the Federation, we are a few spared from this decision.
It's been 3 years now that the Territorial Committee 07, like the majority of the territorial committees, has been working to perpetuate climbing in a natural environment, a historic and essential practice of our sport.

In 2017, we entered into a new tripartite agreement with the Department of Ardèche (Departmental Council, Town Hall, owner (s)) "for the opening to the public of natural climbing sites located on private property" allowing to replace the FFME conventions. This was validated without hesitation by the Departmental Council thus perpetuating our climbing heritage in a natural environment in Ardèche. In the same way, the Departmental Council reaffirms its commitment in favor of nature sports by registering our sites, newly approved, in the Departmental Plan of Spaces, Sites and Routes (PDESI).

To date we are not very far from a reconstitution of all the sites present in the last edition of the guidebook. This represents more than 250 agreements signed for more than forty sites that have been backed up since joining the famous PDESI.

Rest assured that we are doing our best to perpetuate and develop the practice in a natural environment while respecting private property and different uses. We will follow the parent developments to this decision closely.
We cannot yet really wish you good climbs but the heart is there ... while waiting to be able to enjoy our beautiful cliffs again, patience, they are waiting for us!

Claire Euvrard, President.

Thanks for that, very interesting and sounds like there is some hope of a resolution,

Chris

No, there is not sign of resolution. The insurance will not be extent. They just run out of money.

Actually the same fate can spread to other EU cliffs and that's the disaster.

Here in Italy we see a small issue of contamination from France, but it's a reality that their system needs to be "updated"

Sorry a long one and google translated, but may be of interest to some.

THE DECONVENTIONATION OF CLIMBING SITES

The Isère territorial committee of the FFME wishes to express itself following the letter sent by Pierre You, president of the FFME, concerning the denunciation of the “old conventions” for the management of climbing sites and the conflagration that it has aroused on social networks and other forums where many people have issued strong opinions, harsh judgments, even trials of intent without really knowing the file.

The context:
This decision to replace the old conventions was taken following the Vingrau accident in 2010 and is therefore not new today.
It has just been accelerated because of the insurer who, before the compensation to be disbursed much higher than the contributions collected, issues an ultimatum to the woman by having 3 choices:
1. seek another insurer
2. keep the old conventions with a supplement of 10 € per license for this year
3. denounce these old agreements and keep the cover for new maintenance contracts signed by the FFME, for an additional € 3 per license

The board of directors of the federation chose the 3rd option, which seems the most reasonable because the second would have caused each new loss an identical or even higher increase, which would have been charged in the very medium term for members who asked ended up running away. However, this very important choice should have been the subject of a debate and a vote again for this year during the general assembly rather than a unilateral decision decided in the very particular context of confinement.
As for the first solution, given the current “revenue-expenditure” liabilities, it would surely have been much more unfavorable for a new contract.

So what is it really?

The old conventions which made it possible in their time to develop the escalation in natural site caused their current maladjustment vis-a-vis the legalization of the accidentology and the asserted will to compensate largely the victim when the structure questioned is solvable. Now add unfavorable case law which is developing.
The old conventions totally freed the owner and assigned custody of the "chosen" to the site manager (the FFME) who saw himself thus subject to the rule of Liability without fault. The manager is therefore responsible for the damage suffered by the victim even if no fault has been committed, except for accidents that result from a flagrant error by the practitioner and again, the question during a release of rope in a roping machine was asked whether it was the rope that was too short (fault of the practitioner) or the relay too high (lack of equipment)!
Thus the judgment of Vingrau condemned on appeal the FFME to 1.6 million damages without even taking into account the circumstances of the accident in which the climbers had an obvious responsibility. Two other cases await their judgment and lead to the same result.

The FFME has therefore thought for a few years and proposed another mode of management of the SNE: the community (municipality, department ...) takes or keeps custody of the site and signs a maintenance contract with a service provider to ensure the security of the climbing. In this case, the FFME can and wants to play this role through its departmental territorial committees which have the means and the skills. So in the event of an accident, if the victim thinks that the causes are due to a lack of maintenance, he can challenge the municipality he may challenge the municipality which will turn to the service provider. The fault, the negligence must be proven and proven knowing that:
- the natural environment in essence retains unpredictable hazards
- a defect in the obligation of means must be highlighted and linked to the causes of the accident.
- that the obligation of result is not a postulate in view of the uncertainty that characterizes outdoor activities.
We can imagine that there could be legal battles behind the notions of "fault", "obligation of means" or "result". But in the meantime, the systematic condemnations are over, making this blind assumption of responsibility that guarding a site for the federation represents today unreasonable and unacceptable.

An encouraging legislative track:

At the same time, work has been done at the level of political leaders to change the law on this notion of "faultless responsibilities", especially around activities that are qualified as risky activities and in which the environment, by definition, will never be completely secure. Besides, the practitioner accepts in all conscience this share of residual risk that he must learn to manage.
This lobbying with local elected representatives has paid off. It perfectly resonated with the concerns of mayors in their commune, who were confronted for themselves with this faultless responsibility in many areas.

A first text was thus adopted by the Senate and brought to the National Assembly. He remained stuck and generally buried in the state because some deputies of the majority saw too much disadvantage for the victims.
This fall, a second reworked text was again voted by the senators and proposes to have the law changed. It is or will be deposited before the deputies.

Let us recall the general procedure for drafting a law:
Proposal of a law to the national assembly, entry in the calendar, debate, vote at first reading, return to the senate (debates, amendments and vote), return to 2nd reading at the national assembly (debate amendments and vote) , the Constitutional Council may issue an opinion which, if it is unfavorable, will bury the project as it is.

Then, it will be necessary to wait more or less long for the implementing decrees without which the law remains in the closet, which happens fairly regularly.

If we must remain optimistic about this favorable development of the law which meets the needs of many elected officials but we understand that we are not at all in the same time frame as the ultimatum of the insurer but also there is the risk of a new accident still sinking a little more the situation of the woman facing her insurer.
In the current health and economic context, the resumption of normal political life will be done slowly and there will no doubt be other priorities, this type of law will not be the subject of an ordinance and it will therefore be necessary be patient.

The FFME is today accused of not assuming its role and overall of giving up, or even disengaging from the SNE.

Let's look at things from above!

The climbing site a common good:
The federation directly or indirectly manages around 2,500 sites. It brings together 100,000 licensees, that is 1 / 10th of the practitioners, estimated at more than 1 million. The ffme opens the sites in its care to all these individual or institutional practitioners (school, among others).
Natural sites are therefore part of the common good and as such, it is the role of public authorities to assume legal and even financial responsibility for these facilities, which it also does for other sports. The swimming federation does not have custody of the pools and does not finance its Olympic pools!
It is therefore not the FFME that must be overwhelmed, when a mayor refuses to sign a maintenance contract on a communal cliff which he does not want to manage because it will be a political choice.

A new management model:
Besides, the FFME proposed to replace these “toxic” conventions, a different management, which works well and whose elected officials are customary, setting up a maintenance contract with a service provider for equipment that belongs to them as a gymnasium for example).
Do not believe that assuming a maintenance contract is harmless and any failure will have the same legal consequences as Vingrau, so we can not speak of disengagement of the federation which would have to pay similar compensation if it did not his job properly.

Some small municipalities which have large sites, still fear too much responsibility for their size. It will be necessary to make educational with the elected officials, to be helped undoubtedly by a larger community (Comcom, department, region):

→ first of all, the increase in the contribution of insurance in municipal liability insurance to include a climbing site is very acceptable even for a small municipality in terms of the annual cost of a maintenance contract by the FFME, it remains low and often less than € 1,500, excluding initial equipment which has often been carried out with associative funding.
→ Secondly, the departments which have a legal obligation of a PDESI, can also replace the municipality and assume the custody of the sites, a community of municipalities can also do so. It’s just political will! In Isère, the departmental council plays this role for a few sites and plans to extend this procedure to other cliffs included in the PDESI.

The sites currently under the old convention:

In Isère again, we have some sites under old conventions, others are under maintenance contracts and finally many sites which are in free access but do not have an official manager. In French law, it is the owner who has custody and is responsible for it. Little legal risk for a private owner who very often does not even know that he is climbing on his land, or even who no longer knows too much the limits of his property, moreover, one could estimate that climbing before being prohibited should have been authorized by the owner which is not the case very often and there is no jurisprudence on the matter, no private owner worried by an accident. If an owner installed a refreshment bar at the foot of his cliff, then perhaps he would get in trouble in the event of an accident. For a private individual who would like to protect himself from all potential legal risks, here again the commune or the department could play the interface.
It’s up to a public owner to decide whether to deny access, allow access or authorize escalation officially and manage the site.

Falaisists' reactions:

Many climbers regret and criticize the disengagement of the FFME from these toxic conventions and think that the ffme wants to abandon the management of the sites. They expect a lot from the federation and at the same time, they do not fire and do not get involved!
- "Are you coming to the demo for the climbing sites tomorrow?" "
- "I can't, the weather is nice, I'm going to climb" ...

Should you be a catastrophist?

No doubt, on the other hand, we must not let go, stay mobilized and speak to politicians;

First of all, you have to believe in the evolution of the law which will give oxygen to mayors and make them much more receptive to the establishment of a management of climbing sites with maintenance contract, but it will not be until 2021 and may not even be during this term. We must continue to lobby MPs.

Certain sites will be temporarily prohibited, however, will remain accessible. In any case, we will not equip them because an alternative solution is proposed for their management.

There are also some sites that we had to abandon because neglected, some of them were the subject of an old convention that is still going on.

The majority of sites in Isère are not (more) concerned by its old conventions
The new management is gaining ground and does not shock elected officials when creating a new site.

Climbing is a significant socio-economic issue, especially in mountain areas, and many elected officials do not want to condemn it by closing natural sites, especially since investment is low and attractiveness is high.

A few points to think about all the same:

Access to climbing sites, should it be subject to:
→ license, insurance, sticker? why would 100,000 licensees bear the potential accidentology of all practitioners?

→ The majority of cliff accidents result from the practitioner's fault or error in judgment. In view of the consequences of such dramas, one should not think about the minimum skills necessary to climb a natural site (private climbing gyms have climbers sign a doc above). For his own safety the climber must be responsible

thanks for posting that, I suspect my CAF membership will be going up, again.

If that would solve the problem it seems like a small price to pay, Doug. I’d be perfectly happy to.