BIVOUACKING PROHIBITED: Free camping and bivouacking, a right or a public problem?

Is your right to camp freely in nature at risk, or is it the fragility of the site? Today I will talk about the controversial ban on bivouacking and free camping. You will discover the reasons behind this measure and how it affects the mountaineering community.

• YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN: Bivouac: a guide to go light, move fast and be more autonomous in your activities.

Do you want to know more about cases like the young people who bivouacked at the top of Mont Blanc and face harsh financial penalties? Are you surprised to learn that there are thousands of people protesting in places like Dartmoor to demand their right to camp freely? GO FORWARD VIDEO

Controversy over an illegal bivouac on the summit of Mont Blanc

This past December, a major controversy arose among the mountaineering community (mainly French, but now reaching us here). A pair of young Frenchmen, named Axel and Alexis, undertook a nine-day activity in the massif, culminating in a bivouac at the top of the roof of the Alps.

Free camping on Mont Blanc is completely forbidden within the Mont Blanc Natural Habitats Protection Area.. The only exception would be an emergency bivouac in case of extreme danger, and never in a planned way. On 29 December, the mayor of Saint-Gervais filed a complaint against the two young men, accusing them of being "in search of social recognition" and of being "capable of anything to make themselves visible".

They face the threat of a financial penalty of up to 150,000 euros and even a possible prison sentence of up to three years. However, experts point out that such extremes could only be reached if it can be proved that their bivouacking was detrimental to the conservation of the site, which is difficult to sustain in this case. Otherwise, the offence could result in a fine of just 135 euros..

The response to this situation has been mixed, with some supporting the mayor's actions and the need to protect the environment, while others argue that this ban infringes on individual freedom and the right to enjoy nature.

Free camping in the UK in danger: Dartmoor, the last redoubt 

On the other hand. Recently, thousands of people marched on Dartmoor to demand the right to free camping. More than 3,000 people gathered on the property of Alexander Darwall, a wealthy landowner who won a case that ended the right to free camping in England.

The protesters, who included mountain lovers, families, students and locals, arrived by foot, bus and bicycle in the small village of Cornwood on Dartmoor throughout the morning and then took to the steep, stony moors owned by Darwall.

The controversy was sparked earlier this month when Darwall won a case in the high court which annulled the right to camp freely on much of Dartmoor.arguing that the right had never existed. The area had been the only place in England where the right to camp without a permit existed.

The Dartmoor march was one of the largest nature access protests in the UK and generated much public outrage. Many were angered by a hastily negotiated permissive access agreement between the major landowners on the site and the Dartmoor National Park Authority. 

And nearby: the updated regulations prohibit free camping (with one exception) in the Ordesa sector of the National Park. 

And it is not a trend, that of restricting free camping and bivouacking, alien to the places that are closest to us. For example, with the latest regulatory change, within the Ordesa y Monte Perdido National Park,  in the Ordesa sector, bivouacking or overnight camping is prohibited, with a small exception of a quota of 90 people for the Góriz Moderate Use Zone in cases of full capacity in the refuge. From December 2023, this quota is reduced to only 50 persons and in any case, the overnight stay must not exceed three nights. In the rest of the park, camping is restricted to certain altitudes and overnight stays should not exceed three nights. Añisclo: 1,650 m. (Fuenblanca), Escuaín: 1,800 m. (La Ralla) and Pineta: 2,550 m. (Above the Balcón de Pineta).

We understand that this measure may raise some concerns, but it is important to remember that these regulations are implemented to protect the environment and ensure the safety of visitors.. Or so we would like to believe. Restrictions designed to balance the human impact on the park, allowing everyone to enjoy the natural beauty of Ordesa y Monte Perdido.

We will discuss the different perspectives below. on these prohibitions, and we will reflect (I will reflect) on the importance of respecting environmental regulations in protected areas while enjoying nature. And, also, how often behind this banner there can be hidden interests.

Billy Richomme and his adventure of camping "secretly" on roundabouts in every town in the UK.

Billy Richomme and his adventure of secretly camping out on roundabouts in every town in the UK (here is an article). He began this adventure during the COVID-19 blockades in 2021 and has continued to enjoy this unique experience. Richomme mentions that the roundabouts usually have enough vegetation for cover and he enjoys cooking elaborate dinners for himself while camping there. It must be said that he is a professional cook, and from what we see in his videos he is not bad at it.

But is it really legal to camp secretly on a roundabout? The answer is no. Like the ban on free camping in the Ordesa sector of the Ordesa y Monte Perdido National Park in Spain, secret camping on roundabouts is also banned in the UK. However, Billy Richomme has decided to take the risk and go ahead with his adventure, despite the possible fines.

However, this leads us to reflect on the right to enjoy nature and public spaces. Is it fair that environmental regulations restrict our freedom of access to nature? Is it really necessary to ban free camping in protected areas? These are important questions to consider, to pause and reflect on as Richomme continues his adventure on roundabouts across the UK.

Final reflections.

Faced with this tendency to ban camping or bivouacking, I would like to raise these questions and thoughts:

• Are these measures to avoid overcrowding and deterioration of certain areas? I think generally yes. We are talking about very fragile sites and camping, on a generalised basis, undoubtedly poses a risk to the habitat. In that case I can only support these measures. 
• Are they control measures and do they restrict access to a common, public good such as nature? This is where the problem begins. If you tell me that the fragility of the ecosystem does not allow me to put up my tent (or simply not to sit there with my sleeping bag), but then I see megalomaniacal projects that directly threaten the landscape, flora, fauna, that is, that eliminate the ecosystem as it existed before. I think that in this case, they are limiting access only to a part of the population, who may not be able to afford the luxury hotel room, spa, ski resort, and so on and so forth, as we all know. 
• What bivouacs on summits are becoming more common, so yesWe have already seen this by simply typing in a hashtag (watch VIDEO). That more than the experience, people often look for the photo, too. If this poses a risk to the habitat, action should be taken, but I don't think we've reached that point (on some summits, I'd give it a couple of years if we carry on like this...). And I also don't think that someone who climbs to the top of a mountain to spend the night is going to leave all his "shit" there, I mean, he's not going to leave it as if it were a botellón. Which is often the image that people want to give in order to ban this activity. 
• What is true is that with bans of this kind we are going to towards a future where many mountaineering activities may not be allowed simply because they would have had to spend the night on a ridge, peak or col.