Dear Rock Climbers, 

We would first like to thank you for your support and for showing up for the meetings on 15 and 17 August 2022. It was the first time NParks have met and directly engaged members of our rock climbing community other than us at RCC, and it was very good for them to hear firsthand your thoughts and concerns. 

Present at the meeting were NParks, Ang & Ong Consultants Pte Ltd (civil engineering firm), us from RCC and about 20+ other members of the Dairy Farm rock climbing community for each session.

Background: NParks had engaged Ang & Ong Consultants Pte Ltd to perform a geological survey of the climbing areas at Dairy Farm, which was carried out over a year and a half, to determine the feasibility of resuming rock climbing activities in these areas.

Both meetings began in similar fashion, with the consultants presenting their findings and recommendations. A Q&A  followed, with NParks and the consultants fielding questions, concerns and opinions by climbers.

NParks has declined to release the report to the public, but is open to any climber approaching them directly to access it in full and in person. Please contact Jim at LIM_Liang_Jim@nparks.gov.sg for more details.

At this point we would like to raise a concern, which was echoed by a climber present at the first meeting. If NParks is indeed confident of and stands by the findings of the report as the basis for informing their stance on Dairy Farm, the report should be publicly released in full, so that climbers and other members of the public may have access to this valuable information and be able to make informed decisions with this knowledge. 

Delving into the report, the consultants rate most of the climbing areas in Dairy Farm as medium to high risk for climbers and other users, with exceptions being the bouldering areas and the Boring & Meaningless sector. There was a great deal of emphasis on the fact that Dairy Farm was previously a granite quarry where blast-mining was carried out and as such a man-made hazard with the potential for multiple catastrophic failures. This was supported by citations of observed rock falls (by the consultants) and further rock-fall hazards owing to erosion and weathering due to our climate and environmental conditions. 

For more details with regards to the methodology, mechanics and risk calculus employed, please approach NParks for a copy of the full report.

Climbers present proceeded to ask questions pertaining to the methodology adopted, the way in which the risk calculus was made as well as the specific techniques employed in the gathering of data and information. 

Below are some key concerns raised by RCC and other climbers present, some of which were acknowledged as limitations of the study by the consultants themselves - 

We noted that a civil engineering firm was engaged to perform this survey, without the direct assistance and experience of practising rock climbers, especially for a study that has a big impact on the community. The consultants conceded that their risk calculus was made from an extremely conservative “zero chance of accident” paradigm, which is the standard from a civil engineering use case. It fails to take into account the use case of outdoor rock climbing, where outdoor climbers acknowledge the inherent risks and thereby equip themselves with risk mitigation skills and strategies. We could only surmise that this study was undertaken from a place of bias, with the intent to justify the suspension/closure of climbing areas and activities from the outset. 

We noted that the consultants adopted assessment methodology and risk assessment matrices that had questionable relevance in the context of a quarried climbing area - for instance, the consultants adopted wholesale an assessment methodology used in the United States to assess rocks adjacent to highways, and also imported a separate element from an unrelated methodology used in Malaysia. Questions were asked about the justifications for adopting these methodologies, but none were forthcoming from the consultants. The risk assessment matrix (comprising 8 main elements) adopted by the consultants displayed similar critical flaws, and the consultants were unable to answer what we regard as fundamental questions - such as why risk banding (low, medium, high, very high risk) was formulated in the way that it was. It was pointed out that certain elements of the risk assessment matrix were extracted from a study on open mines no older than 30 days, but the consultants insisted, without offering substantive justification, that this was equally applicable to a 30 year-old quarry. We can only conclude that the consultants adopted the aforementioned methodologies and risk assessment matrices without due consideration to the question of whether these were, in fact, suitable for the purpose of assessing Dairy Farm Quarry. 

We noted that all gathering of data and information at Dairy Farm by the consultants was done based on visual inspection (including drone footage). There was no direct strength-testing performed on rock or the use of technology to penetrate rock surfaces, which would give more accurate measures of the internal integrity and structures of the rock.
We noted that the consultants conveyed multiple observances of falling rocks and how they were hesitant to even approach the base of some of the crags due to “being spooked”. This calls into question how thorough the inspection of the crags may have been. While we can appreciate that not everyone is comfortable spending any amount of time at Dairy Farm, this concern could have been easily mitigated if climbers were involved in this process.

We also noted that the incidence and severity of rock-fall, which is the crux of this whole issue, was not carried out in a longitudinal fashion but only for a year and a half (during the tenure of the consultants’ contract with NParks). As such it speaks to possible dangers but does not provide clear causality for past rock climbing accidents. While there is no official recorded history of accidents at Dairy Farm, the shared anecdotal experience of our outdoor climbing community over the span of 40 years reveal that while accidents and incidents have occurred at Dairy Farm, the overwhelming majority of them were due to human error and lapses in judgement.

Because of the above and other questions asked during the meetings which were not addressed to our satisfaction, we find this geological survey to be incomplete and inconclusive and that the consultants’ recommendations to immediately close Dairy Farm to climbers unfounded and a gross over-reaction, lacking evidence on how rock climbers’ risk mitigation methods are insufficient. Nonetheless, we still thank them for their hard work and professionalism in doing this within the constraints set on them.

After hearing from both the consultants and climbers, Commissioner of Parks and Recreation, Dr Leong stated that he is willing to continue this conversation with the climbing community at Dairy Farm until we can arrive at terms agreeable to all parties to open Dairy Farm for climbing. He then stated that with this “burden of knowledge” placed on him and the question of land-owner/occupier’s liability not being addressed to his satisfaction, he has no choice but to extend the suspension of climbing activities at Dairy Farm indefinitely.  

While we are grateful to him and NParks for not handling this matter with a heavy hand and banning climbing at Dairy Farm permanently, our recommendation to NParks is to maintain the status quo for the time being and move forward with opening Dairy Farm for climbers as a mid-term goal. 

The status quo is such that while Dairy Farm has never been opened to rock climbers officially, climbers have been climbing in Dairy Farm for the last 40 years and we have always maintained good stewardship of the area while practising our sport. As a few climbers have raised during the sessions, the stated closure of Dairy Farm may inadvertently lead to a scenario where climbers still climb there, but are reticent in sharing information about risks and safety (e.g. rock falls, hazards on route) due to concerns about being penalised.

In closing and in light of the impasse we have arrived at in this matter, RCC’s position is this: We neither condone nor condemn rock climbing at Dairy Farm. Our message to rock climbers is this: ‘With all the knowledge and information given to us, we will have to decide if we want to go climbing or not. Rock climbing is an inherently dangerous activity and all participants need to understand and accept its risks and hazards, and that they are solely responsible for whatever consequences arise from their actions.

As a collective, we intend to move forward by focusing our efforts on engaging our community and facilitating a vibrant and constructive conversation on best practices, gym-to-crag transition and outdoor-specific skills. As more people enter this sport, through the burgeoning gym scene, it is inevitable that more climbers will seek out opportunities to take their climbing into the outdoor arena. There is a great disconnect between what climbers have been taught in gyms and what they need to know to keep themselves safe and enjoy themselves in the outdoor arena. We hope to help change that. 

We would once again like to thank those who took time out of their schedules to attend, learn and speak up for the future of climbing at Dairy Farm. We also appreciate all of you who were there with us in spirit, sending your support in the form of questions and opinions to be presented. It is a precious community and space that we have, and RCC maintains our aim to work towards the unequivocal opening and recognition of Dairy Farm for rock climbers.