Barettino et al 2000 - ProGEO Symposium Madrid 1999 EN.pdf

8/18/2019 Barettino et al 2000 - ProGEO Symposium Madrid 1999 EN.pdf

1/204

Instituto TecnológicoG eoM inero de España

ProG EO

Sociedad Geológicade España (Comisión dePatrimonio Geológico)

European Associationfor the Conservation of the Geological Heritage

Editors:

D. Barettino

W. A. P. Wimbledon

E. Gallego

Geological Heritage:

Its Conservation andManagement

Geological Heritage:

Its Conservation andManagement

INTERNATIONAL UNIONOF GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES

Geosites Working Group


2/204

NIPO: 405-00-002-8ISBN: 84-7840-417-1Depósito Legal: M-50019-2000

Editor:©

Instituto Tecnológico Geominero de España

Composed by: Inforama, S.A.Printed by: Grafistaff, S.L.

PRINTED IN SPAIN

Cover page photograph: Formación Mosqueruela. Geological Park of Aliaga (Teruel, Spain)Author: J.L. Simón


3/204

This book contains the lectures

presented in the III Internat ional Symposium ProGEO on

the Conservat ion of the Geological Heritage, held in

Madrid (Spain)

from November 23-25t h., 1999,

as well as its conclusions.


4/204

5

Honoraty CommitteeHonorary Committee

Presidencia d e Honor

S.A.R. El Príncipe de Asturias

Excmo. Sr. D. Josep Piqué i Camps

Ministro de Industria y Energía y Portavoz

del Gobierno

Excmo. Sr. D. Mariano Rajoy Brey

Ministro de Educación y Cultura

Excma. Sra. Dña. Isab el Tocino Biscarolasaga

Ministra de Medio Ambiente

Excmo. Sr. D. Alberto Ruiz-Gallardón Jiménez

Presidente del Consejo de Gobierno

de la Comunidad de Madrid

Excmo. Sr. D. Pedro Sanz Alonso

Presidente del Consejo de Gobierno

de la Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja

Excmo. Sr. D. Santiago Lanzuela Marina

Presidente de la Diputación de Aragón

Excmo. Sr. D. Juan José Lucas Giménez

Presidente de la Junta

de la Comunidad de Castilla y León

Excmo. Sr. D. Benigno Blanco Rodríguez

Secretario de Estado de Aguas y Costas

Illmo. Sr. D. Emilio Custodio GimenaDirector General del Instituto Tecnológico

Geominero de España


5/204

6

Scientific CommitteeScientific Committee

Chairmen

Prof. Todor Todorov(President of ProGEO)

Prof. Angel García Cortés

(Deputy Director for Geology and

Basic Techniques, ITGE)

Members

Agueda, José (Spain)

Alcalá Luis (Spain)

Alexandrowicz, Zofia (Poland)

Azanza, Beatriz (Spain)

Barettino, Daniel (Spain)

Bellido, Félix (Spain)

Burlando, Maurizio (Italy)

Calvo, José Pedro (Spain)

Carreras, Jordi (Spain)Cendrero, Antonio (Spain)

Drandaki, Irene (Greece)

Durán, Juan José (Spain)

Erikstad, Lars (Norway)

Gallego, Ernesto (Spain)

Gerasimenko, Natalia (Ukraine)

Gonggrijp, Gerard (The Netherlands)

Gumiel, Pablo (Spain)Heredia, Nemesio (Spain)

Karis, Lars (Sweden)

Lago, Marceliano (Spain))

Look, Ernst (Germany)

López-Martínez, Jerónimo (Spain)

Martín Serrano, Angel (Spain)

Meléndez, Guillermo (Spain)

Mijovic, Dusan (Yugoslavia)

Nakov, Radoslav (Bulgaria)

Ordóñez, Salvador (Spain)

Pallí, Lluis (Spain)

Pérez-González, Alfredo (Spain)

Pérez-Lorente, Félix (Spain)

Rábano, Isabel (Spain)

Raudsep, Rein (Estonia)Sanz, Eugenio (Spain)

Satkunas, Jonas (Lithuania)

Simón, José Luis (Spain)

Suominen, Veli (Finland)

Wimbledon, W.A.P (United Kingdom)

Zarlenga, Francesco (Italy)


6/204

7

Organizing CommitteeOrganizing Committee

Chairman: Daniel Barettino

Deputy Chairman: Félix Pérez-Lorente

Secretary: Mercedes Vallejo

Members: Beatriz Azanza

Ernesto Gallego

Guillermo Meléndez

Jaime Palacio

Alfredo Pérez-González

José Luis Simón


7/204

9

Organizers, Sponsorsand Collaborating Entities

Organizers, Sponsorsand Collaborating Entities

Organized by:

ITGE. Instituto Tecnológico Geominero de España.

Ministerio de Medio Ambiente (Spanish Geo-min ing

Technological Institute, M inistry of the Environment ).

ProGEO. European Association for the Conservation of

the Geological Heritage.

SGE. Sociedad Geológica de España (Comisión de

Patrimonio Geológico) (Spanish Geological Society

(Commission for the Geological Heritage ).

Spo nsored b y:

Comisión Interministerial de Ciencia y Tecnología

(Inter-ministerial Commission for Science and Technology

)

Fundación ENRESA (Foundation ENRESA)

Consejería de Educación y Cultura. Comunidad de

Madrid (Department for Educat ion and Culture.

Community of Madrid )

Consejería de Educación y Cultura. Junta de Castilla y

Léon (Department for Educat ion and Culture. Council of

Castil la y León )

Instituto Aragonés de Fomento (Aragonese Institute for

Development )

Fundación Patrimonio Paleontológico de La Rioja

(Foundat ion for the Palaeontological Heritage of La Rioja )

IUGS. International Union of Geological Sciences

(Geosites Working Group )Instituto de Estudios Riojanos (Institute of Studies on La

Rioja )


8/204

10

Universidad de Zaragoza (University of Zaragoza )

Instituo de Estudios Turolenses (Institute of Studies on

Teruel )

Centro de Estudios Sorianos (Institute of Studies on

Soria )

SEGAOT. Sociedad Española de Geología Ambiental y

Ordenación del Territorio (Spanish Society of

Environmental Geology and Land Plann ing )

With co llaboration from :

Universidad de la Rioja (University of La Rioja )

SEPGYM. Sociedad Española para la Defensa del

Patrimonio Geológico y Minero (Spanish Society for the

Protection of the Geological and Mining Heritage )

Sociedad Española de Geomorfología (Spanish Geomorphological Society )

Sociedad Española de Paleontología (Spanish

Palaentological Society )

AEQUA. Asociación Española para el Estudio del

Cuaternario (Spanish Association for t he Study of the

Quaternary )

Sociedad Española de la Ciencia del Suelo (Spanish

Society for Soil Science )


9/204

11

SummarySummary

PROLOGUE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 13

LEGISLATION AND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS:THE INTEGRATION OF THE GEOLOGICAL HERITAGEIN NATURE CONSERVATION POLICIES

P.R. Dingwall ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 15

PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT FOR GEOCONSERVATIONG.P. Gonggrijp ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 29

INVENTORY AND CATALOGUING OF SPAIN’S GEOLOGICAL HERITAGE.AN HISTORICAL REVIEW AND PROPOSALS FOR THE FUTURE

Ángel García-Cortés, Daniel Barettino, Ernesto Gallego ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 47

GEOSITES - AN IUGS INITIATIVE: SCIENCE SUPPORTED BY CONSERVATION

W.A.P. Wimbledon, A.A. Ishchenko, N.P. Gerasimenko, L.O. Karis, V. Suominen,C.E. Johansson, C. Freden ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 69

GEOLOGICAL HERITAGE, AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE INTEGRALMANAGEMENT OF WORLD HERITAGE IN PROTECTED SITES

J. Carreras, E. Druguet~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 95

NO CONSERVATION WITHOUT EDUCATION

I. Theodossiou-Drandaki~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 111

EUROPEAN ‘GEOTOURISM’ - GEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION AND

GEOCONSERVATION PROMOTION FOR TOURISTS

Thomas A. Hose ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 127

GEOLOGICAL HERITAGE AND GEO-TOURISM

Guy Martini~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 147

ITALIAN NATIONAL ACTIONS FOR NATURE PRESERVATIONAND GEOLOGICAL SITES

M. D’Andrea, F. Zarlenga ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 157


10/204

12

EXPERIENCES OF GEOCONSERVATION IN LA RIOJA (SPAIN)

Félix Pérez-Lorente ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 165

PROTECTING THE PALAEONTOLOGICAL HERITAGE IN SPAIN:PUBLIC AWARENESS AND LEGISLATION, AND THE ROLE OF THE SPANISHPALAEONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Guillermo Meléndez, Celia Soria-Llop ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 185

CONCLUSIONS OF THE III INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ProGEOON THE CONSERVATION OF THE GEOLOGICAL HERITAGE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 203

IIIRD INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON THE CONSERVATIONOF THE GEOLOGICAL HERITAGE, MADRID - DECLARATION ~~~~~~~~~~~~ 209


11/204

13

PrólogoPrologue

This book rounds off the publications that have come

from the III International Symposium ProGEO on the Conservationof the Geological Heritage, held in Madrid in November of 1999, and organized by the Geological Survey of Spain (ITGE),the European Association for the Conservation of GeologicalHeritage (ProGEO) and the Geological Society of Spain (SGE),under the auspices of the International Union of GeologicalSciences (IUGS).

The conference gathered 180 participating members from35 different countries, who presented more than 90

communications and 11 invited lectures; the event turnedout to be a suitable setting for the exchange of knowledgeand experiences, as well as a forum for debate from a realand global perspective, facing and discussing all aspects of the protection and conservation of our geological heritage.

At a point close to the beginning of a new millennium,the geoconservation community is evolving, passing fromdiscussions about which geological elements are worthy of conservation towards considering how they should be protected

in the framework of modern strategies for sustainable development.It is now that geological heritage planning and managementmay become a truly important integrated part of naturalheritage conservation, capable of many and diverse uses: scientific,educational and training, touristic and recreational.

Therefore, with the aim of discussing all aspects of theconservation and management of our geoheritage, the symposiumwas arranged in six thematic sessions. These thematic sessionswere the following: legislation, planning and management

for geoconservation; inventory and cataloguing of the geologicalheritage; the geological heritage in the framework of theintegrated management of protected areas; educational andinterpretative activities; geological heritage and tourism; andexperiences in geoconservation in southern and south-westernEurope. Each of these sessions was initiated with the presentationof one or more keynote lectures, given by experts on thetopic.

This book collects the papers which reflect the content of

the lectures from each thematic session of the symposium;these are presented along with their conclusions, which area result of the development the debates which followed eachof the sessions. Finally, a specific chapter contains the Declaration


12/204

14

of Madrid, unanimously approved in the plenary session of the Symposium.

This volume completes the published products of the

symposium, and it is the third of a set in which the followingtitles have previously appeared:

–Towards the Balanced Management and Conservat ion of

the Geological Heritage in the New Millennium , (Eds: D.Barettino, M. Vallejo and E. Gallego), 1999, edited bythe Geological Society of Spain (SGE), a collection of the communications given in the Symposium.

– The Geological and Palaeontological Heritage of Central

and Eastern Iberia (Iberian Range, Spain), (Eds: G. Meléndezand C. Soria-Llop), 1999, edited by the University of Zaragoza— the guide for the two symposium field trips.

This extensive literature is a good indicator of the noteworthysuccess of this international conference, both in the matterof participation and in the great interest felt in the growinggeoconservationist community. We believe that these booksconstitute an invaluable and basic tool for the formulation of initiatives directed towards the conservation and management

of our geological heritage in the new millenium-to-come. Wealso believe that they will be very useful from all points of view, from that of the citizen interested in geoheritage conservationto that of organizations in charge of Nature Conservation.

Finally, it is our intention to acknowledge the support of the sponsoring and collaborating organizations of the symposium:without their help this event would not have been possible.Specifically, we are very grateful for the support of the GeologicalSurvey of Spain (ITGE) in the year of its 150th anniversary,

and also of the ENRESA Foundation, for the publication of this volume.

D. Barett ino, W.A.P. Wimbled on & E. Gallego


13/204

INTRODUCTION

The global netw ork of m ore than 30,000 protected areas covering an equivalent ofalm ost 9% of the w orld’s land area (G reen and Paine 1997) encom passes a very

substantial representation of the Earth’s geological heritage. Indeed, geological

features are am ong the m ost fam iliar icons associated w ith protected areas. The

w orld’s first designated national park, at Yellow stone in the U SA , is focused on

geotherm al phenom ena, as is the first such park in C anada, at Banff, w hile in N ew

Zealand the first national park, Tongariro, protects a spectacular volcanic landscape.

G eological features and sites m ay be incorporated in parks either indirectly as a

com ponent of broader landscape or biodiversity protection, or specifically for their

intrinsic character and scientific m erits.

Protected areas take m any form s and are designated under a m ultitude of term s

(G reen and Paine record alm ost 1,400) in accordance w ith the practice of their

adm inistering authorities. U nderpinning this com plex system of protected areas is a

sim ilar diversity of statutory provisions and associated policies, established at various

adm inistrative levels w ithin countries, com plem ented by several international legal

instrum ents. This paper discusses aspects of these legal and policy developm ents as

they affect the protection of geological heritage in the context of nature

conservation. Exam ination of review s of national and international experience in

geological conservation (e.g. D ixon 1996; O’H alloran et al . 1994) reveals several

em erging patterns and trends in respect of legal and policy developm ents, w hichform the fram ew ork for the discussion that follow s.

THE VITAL ROLE OF PROTECTED AREAS IN GEOLOGICAL CONSERVATION

The long-term protection of geological sites is best achieved w here they are m anaged

w ithin legally protected areas. The IU C N W orld C om m ission on Protected A reas

defines protected areas as:

“An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of b iological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural

resources, and managed t hrough legal or other eff ective means (IUCN 1994)”.

15

Geological Heritage: its conservation and management. D. Barettino, W.A .P. W imbledon and E. Gallego (Eds.) pp.15-28

Madrid (Spain), 2000

LEGISLATION AND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS:THE INTEGRATION OF THE GEOLOGICAL HERITAGE

IN NATURE CONSERVATION POLICIES

P. R. DingwallThe W orld C onservation U nion (IU C N )

G land, Sw itzerland.


14/204

In practice, protected areas are m anaged under m any titles and for a w ide variety of

purposes, ranging from strict protection to sustainable uses of resources from natural

ecosystem s, and including scientific, educational, recreation, tourist and other social

and econom ic objectives.

To address this diversity of approach, IU C N has developed a classification of protected

areas based on prim ary m anagem ent objectives (IU C N 1994). Six m anagem entcategories are recognised,viz :

I Strict protection m ainly for science or w ilderness protection (N ature

Reserve, W ilderness A rea).

II Ecosystem conservation and recreation (N ational Park).

III C onservation of specific natural features (N atural M onum ent).

IV C onservation through active m anagem ent intervention (H abitat/SpeciesM anagem ent A rea).

V Landscape/Seascape conservation and recreation (Protected

Landscape/Seascape).

VI Sustainable use of natural ecosystem s (M anaged Resource Protected A rea).

These categories are not ranked according to their im portance or relevance for

conservation, nor do they rate m anagem ent effectiveness. Rather, they im ply a

gradation of hum an intervention, from effectively none in C ategory I areas to

substantial in C ategory V and VI areas. This categorisation of protected areas serves

not only to reveal the breadth of their m anagem ent objectives, it also provides a

com m on international standard for com parative purposes and to facilitate

accounting and m onitoring at national and international levels.

C ountries are encouraged to develop national protected area system s taking account

of key principles for representativeness, com prehensiveness and balance, am ong

others, in the overall system , and guided by the protected area classification schem e

(D avey, 1998). Protection of geological sites m ay be, and indeed is, achieved w ithin

any of the categories of protected area, but is probably best served by C ategories I to

III. C ategories IV to VI are suited to the protection of physical landscapes or seascapes,

and regional landform s.

The guidelines and selection criteria for protected area categories give am ple scope

for addressing the specific needs of geological protection. Thus, Strict N ature

Reserves are defined as (em phasis added):

“Areas of land and/or sea possessing some out standing or representative ecosystems,

geological or physiological features and/or species, available primarily for

scient ific research and/or environmental monitoring”.

Their objectives are specified as:16


15/204

•preserve habitats, ecosystem s and species

•m aintain genetic resources

•m aintain ecological processes

•safeguard structural landscape features or rock exposures•secure exam ples of natural environm ent for scientific studies, environm ental

m onitoring and education

•m inim ise disturbance•lim it public access

In the case of N atural M onum ents, they are defined as:

“Areas containing one or more specific natu ral or natural/cultural featu re

which is of outstanding or unique value because of its inherent rarity,

representative or aesthet ic qualities or cultural signif icance”.

Further, a N atural M onum ent should:

“contain one or more features of out standing signif icance (appropriate natural

features include spectacular w at erf alls, caves, crat ers, f ossil b eds, sand

dun es and m arine featu res, along w ith unique or representat ive fauna and

flora; associated cultural features might include cave dwellings, cliff top forts,

archaeological sites, or natural sites which have heritage significance to

indigenous peop les”.

By 1997, w hen the last com prehensive review w as undertaken (G reen and Paine,

1997; IU C N , 1998), the w orld netw ork of 30,350 protected areas covered a total of

13.2 m illion km 2, or equivalent to 8.8% of the w orld’s land area. The m ajority of

protected areas (59% ) w ere less than 1,000 ha in size, w hile the relatively few (6% )

of areas greater than 1,000 km 2 in size m ade up 87% of the total extent of the

netw ork. A reas in C ategories I to III com prised 35% of the total num ber of protected

areas, covering 45% of the overall global netw ork.

UNEVEN LEGAL RECOGNITION FOR GEOLOGICAL PROTECTION

W ithin the plethora of conservation legislation available for protected areas there are

few provisions w hich m ake direct reference to the protection of geological heritage.

G eological features and landscapes are usually im plicit only, and subsum ed under

term s such as natural features, scenery and ecosystem s. In m ost countries concerns

for conservation of biological diversity rem ain param ount, and in a legal sense nature

conservation is essentially synonym ous w ith biological conservation. Thus, geological

phenom ena have tended to be protected incidentally to the protection of biological,

aesthetic and cultural values, rather than given recognition for their inherent scientific

m erit. G eological protection has thus proceeded m ore by accident than by design.

There are som e instances of explicit reference to geological phenom ena in principal

conservation legislation, such as in N ew Zealand’s Reserves A ct (1977), w hich provides

for “preservat ion and management … o f areas of New Zealand possessing … .

geological scient ific, educational .. features of value ”, including “the preservat ion of 17


16/204

representative samples of all classes of natural ecosystems and landscapes ”. Scientific

Reserves established under that Act are able to protect “types of soil, geomorphological

phenomena and like matt ers of special interest”. Sim ilarly, there is an explicit and equal

biological/geological legal m andate requiring the establishm ent of Sites of Special

Scientific Interest (SSSIs) in the U nited Kingdom w hich m ake an im portant contribution

to protection of significant geological sites and features since 1949.

But these are rare cases. Elsew here, for the m ost part, reference to geological

protection per se is relegated to secondary or special legal provision for establishing

geological reserves over specific geological features and sites –a particular feature of

the statutory regim es for conservation in European countries.

INCREASED STRATEGIC APPROACH TO GEOCONSERVATION POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING

U nder the prevailing legislative arrangem ents of national jurisdictions, protection ofgeological heritage has been som ew hatad hoc and unsystem atic, and has tended to

develop apart from , rather than integral to, m ainstream nature conservation. This

situation is m anifested in national protected area system s by a profusion of sm all

geological reserves of m any varieties.

The m otivating force for this often cam e largely from w ithin the scientific com m unity

rather than from governm ents. A ccordingly, the inventory of sites and establishm ent

of reserves w as prim arily focused on consideration of the scientific and educational

values of geological heritage. In turn, this fostered the creation of sm all, scattered

reserves as key reference sites, “m useum ” pieces and m onum ents, w ith their

m anagem ent often subject to strict rules relating to access and use.

M ore recently has com e the discernible grow th of national strategic approaches to

geoconservation planning and m anagem ent, w hich recognises the broader benefits

of geoheritage. It also provides a policy m andate for a m ore orderly and rational

approach to inventory and assessm ent of elem ents of geological heritage value.

To a significant degree, this developm ent m irrors the initiative of the U K conservation

authority in developing a national Earth Science C onservation Strategy (N C C , 1990).

The strategy w as intended to guide a 5-year plan for im plem enting, in particular, the

results of the G eological C onservation Review . It w as a them atically based approach

and sets a range of objectives, from system atic developm ent and m aintenance of the

protected area netw ork, to im proved site m anagem ent, increased docum entation

and the im perative of raising conservation aw areness and involvem ent am ong

scientists, interest groups and the public generally (O pen U niversity, 1994). A lso

considered are the needs of international linkages w ith ProG EO .

Building on this, som e national conservation authorities have given further attention

to the broader benefits to be derived from geological conservation, including, am ong

others, sustainable m anagem ent of natural resources, landscape conservation, and

socio-econom ic grow th including em ploym ent, recreational opportunities and

revenues from com m ercial tourism . N or have these developm ents neglected concerns18


17/204

for integrating the often com peting issues of conservation and exploitation of

geological resources. The innovative G EO TO P program m e in Sw eden, for exam ple,

aim s not only to establish a system of geological nature reserves, but also to

dem onstrate interrelationships betw een utilisation and conservation of geological

resources (Johannson et al . 1997).

This broadening of the policy orientation of geological protection is consistent w ithparallel developm ents occurring w ithin the protected area m ovem ent generally,

inspired by the im peratives of global conservation under the C onvention on Biological

D iversity and related instrum ents and institutions. The proposed U N ESC O G eoparks

Program m e (discussed below ) is innovative in this regard in giving recognition to the

value of G eoparks for social and econom ic advancem ent, in addition to their scientific

research and education roles.

The future prospects, then, are for increased developm ent of geological protection in

co-operation w ith national nature conservation developm ents generally prom oting

an holistic approach to conservation of biological and geological phenom ena –infurtherance of ProG EO’s stated objectives in this regard.

INCREASING PROTECTION FOR GEOLOGICAL HERITAGE ON PRIVATE LANDS

G eopreservation need no longer rely solely on governm ent protection m echanism s.

Its objectives can also be effectively achieved on private lands, and on the voluntary

initiative of land ow ners and occupiers. Indeed, m any governm ents now actively

encourage protection of private land as a principal m eans of expanding their national

protected area system s.

In N ew Zealand, for exam ple, the Q ueen Elizabeth II N ational Trust A ct (1977)

provides for establishm ent of O pen Space C ovenants to protect “…any landscape of

aesthet ic, cultu ral, recreational, scenic, scientif ic or social interest or value .” Such

covenants are legal contracts w hereby landow ners voluntarily agree to their land

being m anaged to retain its natural character. O verseen by an independent trust,

covenants are registered against the land title and are binding on existing ow ners and

all subsequent ow ners. The land rem ains in private ow nership but public access m ay

be negotiated. The ow ner benefits from rating relief, financial assistance w ith

fencing, and practical advice on m anagem ent. The trust prom otes protection of all

types of land, its docum ents specifying an interest in w etlands, caves, escarpm ents,

rivers, lakes and coasts, am ong others. C urrently, there are alm ost 1,300 registered

O pen Space C ovenants, covering about 50,000 ha. They include m any sites of

geological significance, such as erosional badlands, cave system s, and lim estone

form ations w ith fossil floras and M aori rock art.

Sim ilar legal agreem ents protect geological features on private land elsew here. In

G reat Britain, for exam ple, the extensive netw ork of Sites of Special Scientific Interest

(SSSI) and N ational N ature Reserves (N N R) encom passes areas that are usually

retained in private ow nership but are subject to legally based m anagem ent

agreem ents w ith the national conservation agencies. A ll of these geologically

im portant sites, derive from the G eological C onservation Review (G C R), a decade-19


18/204

long national site inventory of British geological heritage, w hich has had a large

influence on geological conservation in that country (W im bledon et al ., 1995).

C om plem enting the SSSIs and N N Rs in England is a selective system of Regionally

Im portant G eological Sites (RIG S), an initiative by inform ally constituted voluntary

groups, supported by the nature conservation agencies and non-governm ental

organisations, and given inform al recognition in the local authority planning system(H arley, 1994). In W ales, m any m ore second-tier sites are recorded, both geological

and biological, as SIN C s (Sites of Interest for N atural C onservation).

Finland exem plifies this use of private land conservation m echanism s to ensure the

protection of sm all sites and specific geological features, such as caves, erratics and

roches m outonnées, a pattern repeated in other European countries. Various state

governm ents in A ustralia have legislation for establishing conservation covenants over

private land, but these have not yet been used effectively in geoconservation activities.

GROWING INTEREST IN INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION AND RECOGNITIONFOR GEOLOGICAL HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Building on the foundation of strengthened national program m es has com e an

increasing concern for greater recognition of geological conservation at international

level. This is expressed both in term s of m aking greater use of existing international

conservation instrum ents, and in the developm ent of new ones aim ed directly at

prom oting a global netw ork of significant geological sites.

Four existing international program m es already provide considerable scope for

geological conservation and have untapped capacity available for that purpose, as

follow s.

WORLD HERITAG E CONVENTION

The W orld H eritage C onvention (long title: C onvention C oncerning the Protection of

the W orld C ultural and N atural H eritage) w as adopted by UN ESC O in 1972 to

prom ote the protection of cultural and natural properties deem ed to be of

outstanding universal value (U N ESC O , 1999a).

Sites of geological significance are m ost likely to be included w ithin natural

properties, and the qualifying criteria for inclusion of natural properties on the W orld

H eritage List give considerable em phasis to geological values. Thus, under the

C onvention natural heritage is taken to include (em phasis added):

“natural features consisting of physical and biological formations ….. of

out standing un iversal value from the aesthetic or scient ific point of view ;

geo log ica l and physiograph ica l fo rm at ions …of outstanding universal

value from the point of view of science or conservation; natural sites, or

precisely delineated natural areas of out standing universal value from the point

of view of science, conservat ion or natural beauty.” 20


19/204

To be considered of outstanding universal value, natural properties m ust m eet one or

m ore qualifying criteria, tw o of w hich allow directly for inclusion of geologically

significant sites,viz:

“be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth ’s histo ry, including

the record of life, signif icant on-going geological processes in the development

of landforms, or signif icant geomorph ic or physiographic features;contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of except ional natural beauty

and aesthetic importance …”

By Decem ber 1997, there w ere 114 natural properties and 20 m ixed natural/cultural

properties inscribed on the W orld H eritage List, covering a total of approxim ately 1.3

m illion km 2 (G reen and Paine, 1997). A t least 50 of these sites (in 26 countries) are

regarded as having prim ary geological significance (IU C N , 1999).

They encom pass a w ide range of geological features and sites at various scales,

including:

Volcanic landscapes and formationsN gorogoro and Kilm anjaro (U .P.Tanzania),

Kam chatka (Russian Federation), Krakatau (Indonesia), M orne Trois Pitons (D om inican

Republic), H aw aii Volcanoes (U SA ), G iant’s Causew ay (U .K.).

Mountain landscapesC anadian Rocky M ountain Parks (C anada),

Sagarm atha M t. Everest (N epal).

Hydrothermal systemsYellow stone (U SA ), H uanglong (C hina).

Caves and Karst landscapesC arlsbad C averns and M am m oth C ave (U SA),

Skocjanske C aves (Slovenia), A ggtelek Karst (H ungary/Slovakia).

Fiords and GlaciersSouth W est N ew Zealand/Fiordland (N ew Zealand)

Los G laciares (A rgentina), St Elias M ountains (U SA /C anada).

Hydrological featuresIguazu Falls (A rgentina/Brazil), Victoria Falls (Zim babw e/Sam bia), Juizhaigou (C hina).

Coral reefs and atollsG reat Barrier Reef (A ustralia), East Rennell (Solom on Islands).

Fossil SitesM essel Fossil Pit (G erm any), Riversleigh/N aracoorte Fossil M am m al Sites (A ustralia)

Som e sites com bine geological significance w ith religious and cultural values, so are

inscribed as m ixed natural/cultural properties on the W orld H eritage List, including21


20/204

A ustralia’s Kakadu and U luru N ational Parks w ith spectacular and diverse rock

form ations and landscapes of spiritual value to A borigine peoples, and the volcanoes

of Tongariro N ational Park in N ew Zealand, sacred to the local M aori peoples.

It has been suggested that the rem it of the W orld H eritage C onvention restricts its

capacity to fully satisfy the needs of global geological heritage protection (C ow ie and

W im bledon, 1994; Knill, 1994). A t the 1993 M alvern C onference (O’H alloran et al .,1994) the concept has em erged of an Earth Science C onservation C onvention. This

w as envisaged as an international agreem ent to link scientific and conservation effort

on a netw ork of geosites to supplem ent W orld H eritage sites.

There is, indeed, a question over how m uch of the m anifestation of geological history

can be incorporated in the W orld H eritage site netw ork. H ow ever, there should be no

m ajor im pedim ent to extending its representation of geological sites having

outstanding value to science and conservation. M oreover, recent experience suggests

that som e concerns m ay be unfounded. For exam ple, there is a perception that the

W orld H eritage Program m e’s focus on geographically large areas m ight excludeconsideration of m any sm all, but outstanding, geological sites. The likely im m inent

addition of C anada’s Parc de M iguasha to the W orld H eritage netw ork should reduce

such concerns. O nly 87 ha in size, M iguasha is adjudged to be the w orld’s m ost

outstanding fossil site for characterising the D evonian as the “Age of Fishes”, w ith

specim ens revealing evidence of the transition of vertebrate life from w ater to land.

Thus, w here their claim to outstanding universal value can be verified and they satisfy

the requirem ents for integrity of protection, sm all sites m ay be eligible for inscription

as W orld H eritage properties. M oreover, sm all sites that are scientifically linked, but

geographically discrete, can constitute serial site nom inations, as in the case of the

Riversleigh/N aracoorte Fossil M am m al Sites in A ustralia.

Evaluation of M iguasha’s claim to W orld H eritage status w as greatly assisted by a

com prehensive com parative study of the w orld’s Devonian fossiliferous sites (C loutier

and LeLievre, 1998). The use of this report to establish the uniqueness and universal

significance of M iguasha’s place in geological history signifies a deliberate shift by

IU C N to a m ore strategic and scientifically based process for assessing W orld H eritage

nom inations.

In 1996, IU C N launched a them atic global strategy for W orld H eritage natural sites,

as a conceptual basis for guiding further developm ent of the W orld H eritage site

netw ork. A report on geological sites, one of the them es selected, is currently in

preparation (IU C N , 1999). The report review s existing W orld H eritage natural

properties in term s of their geological im portance and sum m arises relevant

inform ation from national and international surveys, to provide a contextual

fram ew ork for evaluating sites of global geological significance. This w ork, w hich

builds on an earlier report on fossil sites (W ells, 1996), is intended to assist IU C N in

assessing site nom inations, to proactively guide U N ESC O in expanding the W orld

H eritage system , and to give parties to the C onvention a useful global perspective

w hen nom inating their ow n sites. The global strategy, thus, holds the prom ise of

replacing the form erly rather reactive,ad hoc and unstructured approach to W orld

H eritage site nom ination and evaluation w ith a m ore proactive, system atic and

scientific process.22


21/204

Further encouragem ent for im proving the prospects of extended geological site

protection under the W orld H eritage Program m e com es from recent initiatives to

encourage co-operation betw een IU C N and the IU G S G eosites W orking G roup. This

m ay allow IU C N to benefit m ore from expert geological advice and assistance, and to

draw upon the strong scientific underpinning of the form er (1991) G lobal Indicative

List of G eological Sites (G ILG ES), w hile coincidentally giving the opportunity for the

replacem ent IU G S G eosites Program m e (W im bledon et al., 1998) to fulfil its aim s insupport of geological site conservation through a global geosite inventory. Such close

co-operation betw een science and conservation at international level has proven

effective in biodiversity conservation, and should be sim ilarly pursued in the cause of

geological conservation.

BIOSPHERE RESERVES UNDER THE UNESCO M AN AND BIOSPHERE

PROGRAMME (MAB)

Biosphere Reserves are established under the U N ESC O M an and BiosphereProgram m e, an interdisciplinary program m e of research and training w ithin the

natural and social sciences to prom ote conservation and w ise use of resources and to

im prove relationships betw een people and their environm ent. The program m e is

based on the creation of a global, biogeographically representative netw ork of

Biosphere Reserves, w hich, despite their title, are not necessarily protected areas as

such. Rather they are areas of terrestrial and coastal/m arine ecosystem s w here,

through appropriate zoning and m anagem ent, ecosystem conservation is integrated

w ith sustainable use of natural resources, including relevant research, m onitoring,

education and training (U N ESC O , 1996). Biosphere Reserves thus fulfil three

functions,viz: conservation, hum an developm ent and logistical support to researchetc., and in practice they should contain three elem ents,viz: core areas for protection;

buffer zones for co-operative, com patible activities such as research and tourism ; and

transition areas containing various sustainable resource use activities such as farm ing

and forestry, and including settlem ents.

Som e countries have enacted legislation specifically to establish Biosphere Reserves,

w hile others have encom passed existing protected areas in Biosphere Reserves.

Sim ilarly, ow nership of Biosphere Reserves varies w idely, from privately ow ned to

public lands. By Novem ber 1997, som e 350 Biosphere Reserves had been established,

covering a total of around 2.2 m illion km2

.

Biosphere Reserves are ideally suited to prom oting the research, education and

training aspects of geological conservation. Exam ples of Biosphere Reserves w here

geological conservation is significant include: A ustralia’s Kosciusko M ountains and

M acquarie Island; C anada’s W aterton Lakes and the N iagara Escarpm ent; the

G erm an Berchtesgaden A lps; W addensea A rea of the N etherlands; N .E. Svalbard in

N orw ay; Rom ania’s D anube D elta; and the Rocky M ountains in the U SA . Som e

Biosphere Reserves are also W orld H eritage sites, viz: U luru in A ustralia, the

Serengeti-N gorogoro in U .R. Tanzania; the G alapagos Islands in Ecuador, and

Yellow stone, M am m oth C ave Area, and the Everglades in the U SA .

To further strengthen the geological conservation achieved under the Biosphere

Reserves and W orld H eritage Program m es, U N ESC O is giving consideration to23


22/204

establishm ent of a global series of G eoparks (U N ESC O , 1999b) Philosophically

founded in the 1991 D igne “Declaration of the Rights of the M em ory of the Earth”

(A lexandrow icz and W im bledon, in press), G eoparks w ould be dedicated areas under

national sovereignty, enclosing features of special geological significance, rarity or

beauty, and representative of a region’s geological history and the events and

processes w hich form ed it. D erived benefits w ould include research, environm ental

education and socio-econom ic developm ent.

RAMSAR CONVENTION

The 1971 Ram sar C onvention on W etlands (long title: C onvention on W etlands of

International Im portance especially as W ildfow l H abitat) is an intergovernm ental

treaty for conservation and w ise use of w etlands, including m arine, estuarine,

lacustrine, riverine and palustrine ecosystem s (Ram sar C onvention Bureau, 1997). The

convention has m ore than 100 contracting parties, and in 1997 alm ost 900 w etlands

had been designated for inclusion in the List of W etlands of International Im portance,covering som e 65 m illion hectares. The focus of the convention is the long-term

m aintenance of the functioning of w etland ecosystem s and conservation of their

ecological and econom ic values. D espite the fact that sites are selected prim arily for

their significance for biodiversity conservation, there is opportunity for inclusion

(either directly and indirectly) of special geological and geom orphological places in

coastal and freshw ater settings such as estuaries, dune system s, coral reefs, lakes,

rivers and m arshlands of various types.

Just a few of the diverse aquatic system s and associated landform s in Ram sar sites

are: the G ippsland Lakes of A ustralia, Botsw ana’s O kavango D elta and the D anube

D elta in Rom ania; the W addenzee in the N etherlands; Severn Estuary in England;

Scotland’s Loch M aree; the C am argue in France; Salinas de Santa Rosa in Spain and

the Secovlje salt pans in Slovakia; and the Everglades of the U .S.A .

THE ANTARCTIC TREATY

C onservation in the A ntarctic region, encom passing som e 10% of the Earth’s surface,

is conducted under the m ulti-lateral A ntarctic Treaty (IU C N , 1991). The 1991 Protocol

on Environm ental Protection to the A ntarctic Treaty (M adrid Protocol), w hich provides

com prehensive rules on environm ental m anagem ent, declares A ntarctica to be “a

natural reserve devoted to peace and science ”. A nnex V of the Protocol addresses the

need for special protection and m anagem ent of areas, including the designation of

A ntarctic Specially Protected A reas (A SPA s) to protect, am ong others, outstanding

environm ental and scientific values. G eological values are am ong those specifically

identified for inclusion in A SPA s, viz: “representative examples of major terrestrial,

including glacial and aquatic ecosystems; and examples of out stand ing geolog ical,

glaciological or geomorphological features” . A SPA s w ill subsum e the form erly

designated Specially Protected A reas (SPA s). Tw o of these afford special protection to

geological sites, one being ice-free terrain w ith associated pristine ice environm ent at

the S.O rkney Islands, the other a geologically representative archipelago and research

area at Terre A delie (Table 1; British A ntarctic Survey, 1997). A SPA s w ill also replace24


23/204

the m ore num erous Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), of w hich 10 are of

geological significance including fossil localities, dry valleys, volcanoes, fiords, and

coastal, lacustrine, glacial and periglacial landform s (Table 2). C onsideration is being

given to further developing the A ntarctic protected area system and extending its

representativeness, thus providing scope for including a broader range of geological

phenom ena (Lew is Sm ith et al ., 1994).

25

SITESOFSPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST

Barw ick Valley, Victoria Land

Fildes Peninsula, King G eorge Island,

S.Shetland Is.

Byers Peninsula, Linvingstone Island,

S.Shetland Is.

"Tram w ay Ridge", M ount Erebus

C anada G lacier, Lake Fryxell, Taylor

Valley, Victoria Land.

D eception Island (parts), S.Shetland Is.

M arine Plain, M ule Peninsula, VestfoldH ills, Princess Elizabeth Land

SPECIALLY PROTECTED AREA

N orthern C oronation Island, South

O rkney Islands

Pointe G eologie A rchepelago, Terre

A delie

GEOLOGICAL FEATURES

C oastal ice-free terrain w ith cliffs, and

perm anent ice; representative area of

pristine ice environm ent, and

interrelated terrestrial, ice and

sublittoral ecosystem s.

Representative area of biological,

geological and aesthetic value; long-

term geological research.

GEOLOGICAL FEATURES

Pristine D ry Valley; extrem e polardesert ecosystem s.

Fossil ichnolites and representative

sequences of Tertiary rock strata.

Ice-free area w ith Jurassic and

C retaceous fossils show ing links

betw een A ntarctica and other

southern continents.

H igh-altitude area of fum erolic activity

and associated vegetation.

O ld m oraines and ancient lake beds,

w ith m osses and algae.

A ctive volcano w ith new surfaces for

plant colonisation.

Fiord environm ent w ith vertebratefossils, including dolphins; freshw ater

lake (form er m arine environm ent)

Table 1: Antarctic Specially Prot ected Areas of geological signif icance.


24/204

CONCLUSIONS

The preferred m eans of achieving long-term protection of geological features and

sites is to m anage them w ithin legally protected areas. O f these, the categories of

strict nature or scientific reserve, national park and natural m onum ent appear m ost

suited for geological protection, and IU C N policy guidelines prom ote the use of them

for this purpose. G eological protection is rarely an explicit objective of national

conservation legislation, but it m ay be im plicit in reference to natural features and

ecosystem s. A s a result, protected area netw orks m ay contain few er sites directly

intended to protect geological heritage. Som e countries have special law s for

geological site protection. Increasing strategic planning of geoconservation is

replacing ad hoc , unstructured approaches. Scientific m otivations for geological

protection are being com plem ented by a m ore holisitc consideration of policy

objectives, including sustainable m anagem ent of natural resources, and socio-

econom ic benefits from associated com patible activities such as tourism . Som e

governm ents are prom oting greater use of legal conservation m echanism s over

private lands, and these have considerable untapped capacity for responding to

voluntary initiatives for geological protection. Increased attention is being given to

the needs of protecting global geological heritage. There is m uch scope for using

existing legal instrum ents and program m es for his purpose, notably UN ESC O’s W orld

H eritage C onvention and the M A B Biosphere Reserves Program m e, the Ram sar

C onvention on W etlands and the Environm ental Protocol to the A ntarctic Treaty.

Further collaboration betw een internationl conservation institutions and the

International U nion of G eological Sciences (IU G S) m ay allow for the G eosites and

related program m es to better achieve their conservation objectives.

26

A blation Point, G anym ede H eights,

A lexander Is.

M ount Flora, H ope Bay, A ntarctic

Peninsula

Lions Rum p, King G eorge Island,

S.Shetland Is.

O ne of largest ablation areas in W est

A ntarctica; com plex lithology, w ide

range of landform s including raised

beaches, m oraine system s and

patterned ground.

Sedim entary rocks w ith conglom erates

and volcanic cap; rich fossil flora for

interpreting history of Antarctica; long-

term research.

Representative terrestrial, lacustrine and

littoral ecosystem s, w ith variety of rock

form ations.

Table 2: Antarctic Sites of Special Scientif ic Interest having geological signif icance.


25/204

REFERENCES

A LEXA N D RO W IIC Z, Z. & W IM BLED O N , W .A .P. (in press). The concept of W ored Lithospphere Reserves. In

Proceedings of t he Second International Symposium on the Conservation of the Geolog ical Heritage .

Rom a, june, 1996. M em oirs of the G eological Service of Italy.

BRITISH A N TA RC TIC SURV EY (1997).List o f Protected A reas in Antarctica. Foreign and C om m onw ealth

O ffice, London, U .K., 33 pp.

C LO U TIER, R. & LELIEVRE, H . (1998). Comparat ive Study of the Fossiliferous Sites of t he Devonian. M inistry

of Environm ent and Fauna, G overnm ent of Q uebec, C anada, 86 pp.

C O W IE, J.W . & W IM BLEDO N , W .A . (1994). The W orld H eritage List and its relevance to geology. In

O ’Halloran, D .et.al . (Eds):Geolog ical and Landscape Conservation . G eological Society of London, U .K. pp.

71-74.

D AVEY, A .G . (1998). National System Planning for Protected Areas. IU C N , G land, Sw itzerland and

C am bridge, U .K., 71 pp.

D IXO N , G . (1996).Geoconservation: an International Review and Strategy fo r Tasmania. Parks and W ildlifeService, Tasm ania, A ustralia, 101 pp.

G REEN , M .J.B. & PAIN E, J. (1997). State of the w orld’s protected areas at the end of the Tw entieth C entury.

Proceedings, IUCN/WCPA Symposium on Protected Areas in the 21 st Century: from islands to netw orks.

A lbany, A ustralia, N ovem ber 1997, IU C N , G land, Sw itzerland and C am bridge, U .K., 35 pp.

H A RLEY, M . (1994). The RIG S (Regionally Im portant G eological/G eom orphological Sites) challenge –

involving local volunteers in conserving England’s geological heritage. In : O’Halloran, D . (Ed.):Geological

and Landscape Conservation. G eological Society of London, pp. 313-317.

IU C N (1991).A Strategy for Antarctic Conservation. IU C N , G land, Sw itzerland, 85 pp.

IU C N (1994).Guidelines for Prot ected Area Management Catego ries. C om m ission on N ational Parks and

Protected A reas, IU C N , G land, Sw itzerland.

IU C N (1998).The 1997 United Nations List o f Prot ected Areas. IU C N , G land, Sw itzerland and C am bridge,

U .K., 412 pp.

IU C N (1999) (in prep.). A Global Overview of Geologically Significant Protected Areas on the World

Herit age List. W orking Paper N o. 5, G lobal Them e Study of W orld H eritage N atural Sites, IU C N , G land,

Sw itzerland.

JO H A N SSON , C .E.et al. (1997). G eological N ature C onservation C o-operation in Sw eden.ProGEO News ,

Internet Report, 3 pp.

KN ILL J. (1994). A n international earth heritage convention –convenience or confusion.Earth Heritage, 1:

7-8.

LEW IS SM ITH R.I.et.al. (1994).Developing the Antarctic Prot ected Area System. C onservation of Southern

Polar Regions No 1, IU C N , G land, Sw itzerland, 137 pp.

N C C (1990).Earth Science Conservat ion in Great Britain : a Strategy. N ature C onservancy C ouncil, U .K.

O ’HA LLO RA N , D . et al. (Eds) (1994). Geolog ical and Landscape Conservation . Proceedings, M alvern

International C onference 1993, G eological Society of London, 523 pp.

O PEN U N IVERSITY (1994).Earth Heritage Conservation. G eological Society and the O pen U niversity, M ilton

Keynes, U .K., 272 pp.

RAM SA R C O N VENTIO N BUREA U (1997). A Guide to the Convention on Wetlands: the Ramsar Convention

Manual. (2nd Edition). Ram sar Convention. Bureau, G land, Sw itzerland, 161 pp.27


26/204

28

U N ESCO (1996). Biosphere Reserves: the Se ville Strategy and the Statutory Fram ew ork of the W orld

N etw ork. U N ESC O , Paris, France, 18 pp.

U N ESCO (1999a). Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.

U N ESC O W orld H eritage C entre, Paris, France, 38 pp.

U N ESCO (1999b).UNESCO Geoparks Programme. Proc. 156th Session of U N ESC O Executive Board, 156

Ex/11, Paris France, 11 M arch 1999, 4 pp.

W ELLS, R.T. (1996).Earth ’s Geological Histo ry – a Contextual Framework for Assessment of World Herit age

Fossil Site Nominat ions. W orking Paper N o. 1, G lobal Them e Study of W orld H eritage N atural Sites, IU C N ,

G land, Sw itzerland, 43 pp.

W IM BLEDO N , W .A .P et al. (1995). The developm ent of a m ethodology for the selection of British

geological sites for conservation: Part 1.Modern Geology 20: 159-202.

W IM BLEDO N , W .A .P et al. (1998). A first attem pt at a G EO SITES fram ew ork for Europe - an IU G S initiative

to support recognition of w orld heritage and European geodiversity.Geologica Balcanica 28: 5-32.


27/204

INTRODUCTION

The geow orld has alw ays played a role in hum an history. G eological processes and

phenom ena w ere feared, adm ired or sim ply integrated in daily life. Som e phenom ena

had a special significance in social life and w ere therefore respected. For instance, in

the northern countries m any erratic boulders have been saved for religious, juridical

or social reasons. The geologically striking steep w all of Thingvellir, in Iceland, w as the

place w here the Viking “parliam ent” yearly m et. Special rock form ations and

landform s in A m erica and A ustralia have a strong religious m eaning for the Indians,

and the A borigines, respectively. The preservation of those phenom ena w as based on

the unw ritten law s of society. They w ere part of the cultural heritage of those

societies. N ow adays, these law s hardly w ork anym ore. The Indians and A borigines

still have to fight for their holy places. Econom ic expansion and overpopulation claim

w ell-form ulated law s and regulations.

G eoconservation is a rather young aspect of nature and landscape conservation,

w hich started in the nineteenth century. The loss of anim al and plant species and the

neo-rom antic spirit of the tim es inspired the conservation m ovem ents. In the course

of tim e, nature and landscape conservation becam e a generally accepted issue in our

societies. H ow ever, in spite of the im portance of the geow orld for the environm ent,

in fulfilling m any irreplaceable functions, geoconservation w as hardly accepted.

Besides its value as the foundation for the biological and cultural historical aspects,

geoconservation has also a value on its ow n as a source of inform ation about the

geological developm ent of the Earth. A lthough the fundam ental values of our

geological heritage get m ore and m ore credit, the recognition of geology as

som ething of value on its ow n is still paid too little attention. It is up to the

geoconservationists to inform society, our fellow Earth scientists, nature conservation

organisations, policym akers and the general public, for it is still a long w ay from

geological phenom ena tow ards protected and m anaged sites. ProG EO , the forum of

international geoconservation and national expertise has to continue its stim ulating

and im portant role in this process of aw akening.

29

Geological Heritage: its conservation and management. D. Barettino, W.A .P. W imbledon and E. Gallego (Eds.) pp.29-45 Madrid (Spain), 2000

PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT FOR GEOCONSERVATION

G.P. GonggrijpEarth-Science C onsultancy G A IA

O dinksveld 1N L-7491 H D D elden

The Netherlands


28/204

FROM GEOPHENOMENON TO MANAGED SITE

G eoconservation practice is like a com plicated play, perform ed in a series of acts w ith

several groups of actors having different interests, played by various rules, and judged

by a critical audience, the general public. Therefore a sound geoconservation policy

and practice dem ands for an effective strategy and a sound legal fram ew ork, a clear

and transparent procedure from basic geological data to protected and m anagedgeosites. The procedure has to be accom panied by a w ell-tim ed and w ell-organised

process of aw akening for in m any countries the subject is still the C inderella of nature

and landscape conservation. This process of aw areness includes for instance the

econom ic role of geology in responsible m ining and w inning of raw m aterials for

housing and roads, of fuel and of drinking w ater, etc., its physical role as a foundation

for housing and infrastructural w orks, its basic role in nature and landscape

developm ent, conservation and appreciation, and, m ore specific the role of

geodiversity in the developm ent of biodiversity and cultural history, and, last but not

least, the im portance of geoconservation for understanding the geological history.

C oncerning geoconservation, the last aspect is the m ost im portant one; how ever thisaspect cannot be and should not be detached from a holistic view .

In the procedure from a geophenom enon to a m anaged geosite, the follow ing steps

can be distinguished: identification of geosites, the protection procedure and

m aintenance of geosites.

IDENTIFICATION OF GEOSITES

There are various w ays to select geosites depending on the state of art in geological

research. In the past, before geoconservation really started, naturalists selected

striking and beautiful exam ples of geological phenom ena, from the large Yellow stone

Park to sm all erratic boulders. H ow ever, w hen the Earth scientists discovered

geoconservation, m ore system atic m ethods based on research w ere used. C riteria

and selection m ethods w ere introduced and used to select sites for various goals and

for various planning levels. G enerally the identification process of geosites follow s

three steps:

-Const ruct io n of t he geological f ramew ork.

The know ledge of the geological history and - if possible - its reflection in geom aps

is a first necessity for a system atic approach in the identification of geosites. This

im plies the inventory of all available geological data, derived from field visits, rem ote

sensing im ages, m aps, literature and personal com m unication, etc., in order to create

the geological overview .

In m any countries geological and pedological m aps are available, given the

econom ical interests in these Earth-science data. H ow ever, the presence of

geom orphological m aps is often fragm entary.

30


29/204

- Development of a classif icatio n syst em (typo log y)

In order to arrange the geological data in a practical w ay for the next step, the

identification, it is necessary to develop a classification system . Such system s can be

based on various starting points, depending on, for exam ple, the state of the art in

geosciences (available inform ation) and the kind of application. H ow ever, first w e

should know w hat do w e w ant or w hat do w e have to protect? A national, top listof geosites needs a different approach form an integrated nature and landscape plan

w hich includes geology. A nyhow , a typology for geosites should be based on the

geogenesis developm ent (G onggrijp, in press; Johansson et al., 1998). For the sitesshould reflect the typical geological developm ent. This requires a com plete geological

covering of the area. If the data are insufficient for a m ap-based approach, a sim pler

system has to be developed.

- Ident i f icat io n o f si tes

A s it is im possible to protect all geological phenom ena, selections have to be m ade.

This m eans that a set of selection criteria and a selection m ethod - determ ining the

im portance of each criterion in the m ethod - has to be developed. The num ber and

the variety of relevant criteria and sets described and used for the selection is large

(Bjorklund, 1987; Erikstad, 1994; G onggrijp, in press). The use and im portance of the

various criteria depends on the follow ing steps in the process: the use of the site

(scientific, educational, etc), the designation of the site for protection and the w ay

this protection w ill be arranged. C riteria like representativeness and rarity are m ore

scientifically im portant, w hile visibility and accessibility indicate typical educational

values. Vulnerability and threat do not indicate the value of a site, but they refer toim pact sensibility and actual and potential im pacts. These criteria select sites based

on their protection priority and m anagem ent aspects (G onggrijp, in press). It is clear

that, in principal sites, are not related to certain dim ensions. Sites can be sm all

elem ents (a geological section in a pit, an erratic boulder or a pingo rem nant),

patterns (several nearby pits show ing a geological transition, an erratic boulder field

or a defined area w ith pingo rem nants) or com plexes (various adjacent exposures

show ing the geological developm ent of an area, or a pattern of pingo rem nants in

relation to its geohydrological system ).

PROTECTION PROCEDURE

- Lobbying

In m ost countries there are available instrum ents that enable protective m easures.

H ow ever, they are not (alw ays) put into action for geoconservation. Therefore, the

first condition is the recognition of geoconservation as an aspect of nature and

landscape conservation. That dem ands for the integration of geoconservation should

be integrated in all relevant law s and in all policies, strategies, plans, etc., of the

authorities, and private and state nature and landscape conservation organisations,

and at all levels. N ational geoconservation organisations should put geoconservation

forw ard, for preference in co-operation w ith established, pow erful nature and31


30/204

landscape organisations or environm ental m ovem ents. A lthough this is not alw ays

easy to realise, because of their strong biological and environm ent-orientated

background. The indisputable relationship betw een geodiversity and (actual or

potential) biodiversity could be the basis for m ore understanding. Popularisation is

the w ay to catch the essential attention of the general public.

- Safeguard ing sit es

There are several w ays to safeguard a site, depending on the national legal and

planning system . N ow adays in m ost countries the follow ing instrum ents can be used

to reach the goals:

•Acquisition by a nature conservation organisation (state and private). G enerally

sites that are vulnerable and need m anagem ent.

•Allocation as a nature m onum ent, nature reserve or national park through anature conservation statute. G enerally sites that are vulnerable and need

m anagem ent.

•Protection by planning m easures supported by relevant law s like the physical

planning act, a m ining act, a raw m aterials act / earth rem oval act, an

environm ental m anagem ent act (including environm ental im pact assessm ent),

forestry act, land developm ent act and m anagem ent agreem ents, etc. These acts

give the legal basis for the various policy plans dealing w ith nature and landscape

conservation. G enerally sites that are m ore solid and w ith very little need for

m anagem ent.

O ften all the possibilities to safeguard geosites are there. But the geoconservationists

are not the only gladiators in the arena. Together w ith biologists, cultural historians,

archaeologists, etc., they have to cross sw ords w ith landow ners, farm ers, developers

and the authorities. But also betw een the conservationists them selves there is not

alw ays peace, for conservation m oney is lim ited. C o-operation w ith the others and

lobbying m ay help to put protection instrum ents into action! The incorporation of

geoconservation in all kinds of projects related to conservation, landscape

developm ent, education, tourism , etc., can help. In spite of the principle relation

betw een geodiversity and biodiversity, there w ill be alw ays sites of only geological

interest. A nd w e have to find resources for conservation for those sites too.

A s m ost of the active geoconservationists are scientists, there is often not m uch

practical experience in the planning procedures and practice. C ontacts w ith planners

(in the N etherlands several geoscientists are w orking in provincial planning services)

can be of great help to understand the planning process and to find the right w ay to

put geoconservation on the agenda. Stürm from Sw itzerland has been very successful

in geoconservation at C anton level (Stürm , 1994; Stürm & H ipp, 1999). The few

publications on planning and geoconservation are from this Sw iss earth scientist and

planner.

32


31/204

MAINTENANCE OF GEOSITES

Legal protection is often not enough to safeguard a site for the future. A fter

realisation of the official protection, a site developm ent plan has to be operative. This

plan includes: design and execution, m anagem ent and m onitoring chapters. It is

evident that those plans should be integrated w ith other involved nature and

landscape elem ents of value - as it should be w ith biologically-orientated sites - toavoid conflict situations.

- Design and execut ion

A design should be the basis for the arrangem ents, w hich have to be executed.

O ptim al visibility and sustainability of the sites are im portant goals. Specially in case

of rock exposures, a design of the plan is necessary, including all the additional

arrangem ents like w ater shields, drainage provisions, shelters, rem oval of trees and

w aste, educational provisions, etc. It is necessary to calculate the costs and to executethe w ork properly.

G eom orphological sites som etim es also need special arrangem ents: for exam ple, to

increase visibility, trees have to be rem oved or, on the contrary, they have to be

planted. Restoration aspects should be part of both the design and the execution. In

the case of active geological processes, the continuation of the process should be

guaranteed.

- M anagement and mon i to r ing

For every site a m anagem ent chapter is essential. Exposures degrade and have to be

cleaned every now and than. Provisions have to be checked and restored.

M anagem ent activity schem es and their execution frequency have been

incorporated. In order to follow the developm ent of the site and the efficiency of the

m easures, and the sites should be m onitored.

In this brief overview , the process of the geosite developm ent from geophenom enon

to protected site has generally been described. It should be realised that all the steps

in this process are im portant. W eak links in the chain frustrate the im plem entation of

geoconservation in the planning and realisation process. A nd geoconservationists are

in m ost cases responsible for just a part of the chain: the identification of the site.

The realisation of a system atic input of geosites in the nature and landscape

conservation itself is a planning authority job. W hile the arrangem ent and

m anagem ent of geosites frequently w ill be executed by nature conservation

organisations, som etim es w ith the help of geospecialists. C oalitions w ith biologists

and cultural historians can pull geoconservation out of its isolation. A nd they can help

to develop a holistic approach based on geodiversity. Involvem ent of all actors and

the public is necessary to succeed in geoconservation goals. Education is the key

w ord! G eotrip (G onggrijp, 1997), a tw o-yearly excursion project organised by

ProG EO and carried out by professionals and laym en for the public, is such a

contribution.33


32/204

AN UNDEREXPOSED ISSUE IN PLANNING

WHITE AREAS

In the N etherlands at the end of the 1980s, the M inistry of A griculture, N ature

M anagem ent and Fisheries started the developm ent of a new N ature Policy Plan

(G onggrijp, 1992). The fram ew ork of the plan w as the developm ent of an EcologicalN etw ork that w ould becom e the fundam ent for nature and landscape conservation.

Vital natural and cultural areas should be connected, to realise a sustainable

ecological future, w ith biodiversity as the m ain keyw ord. But w hat to do about the

geological heritage, specially identified for this N ature Policy Plan? Som etim es the

geological sites coincide w ith the Ecological N etw ork. That is great! H ow ever, very

often they do not overlap, because of the strong ecological deterioration of the

countryside! To solve the problem , a special category of “areas w ith general nature

and landscape values”, including geosites and cultural historical sites, has been

introduced, but w ithout any practical elaboration.

In recent tim es, there has been a new national inventory of geo(m orho)logical

geosites of international and national im portance (for the third tim e). The previous

tw o had no consequences for any planning policy at all. A ccording to the designers,

this new m ap should be im plem ented into a new vision on nature policy. H ow ever,

at this very m om ent policym akers are com paring various m aps (ecological netw ork

m ap, cultural historical m ap, etc.) in order to select those areas that cover m utual

interests. W hat w ill happen to the rest of the national geosites? A re these sites to be

saved by provincial or m unicipal regulations? O f course, that should be the w ay! But

w hat about the provincial and local sites? For these sites the low er authorities carry

responsibility through their regional and local plans.

In every country, physical planning m aps (on the various planning levels) show sm all

and big sites w hich are im portant and w hich have to be protected. Im portance,

vulnerability and a need for active m anagem ent are the m ain criteria for protection.

But on every planning level there is m ore: the areas w hich are not nom inated,

because they not of any particular value! In the D utch term inology those areas are

know n as the so-called w hite areas , areas w ith no special im portant interest, except

that they form the rem aining landscape. G enerally those areas have no spectacular

geological foundation, alm ost no nature is left and the cultural historical

developm ent is far from exciting. But are those areas w orthless and therefore

outlaw ed? Should they be sacrificed w ithout any restriction in the planning process?

In the N etherlands especially, the very flat areas have very often been designated as

w hite areas . Som e claim that these areas have no function relating to im portant

scientific or educational inform ation. M aybe that is true, but that does not m ean they

are of no value at all. Very often these areas are very typical for a special geological

developm ent, not striking but sim ply typical. These areas too represent typical,

som etim es rather dull, but anyhow often vulnerable landscapes.

O f course the designation of w hite areas is a pragm atic choice, since it is not possible

to protect the w hole country; cities w ill expand, agriculture should continue, raw

m aterials are still needed, infrastructure expansion w ill follow , etc. In fact, even green

areas are not safe for som e kinds of im pacts, for not all the activities can only be34


33/204

35

Fig. 1. List of geomorphological sites of (inter)nat ional importance in The Netherlands, version 1989 (Gonggrijp, 1992). In these relatively large areas the typical geomorphological identity

was proposed to be preserved. However this should not mean that the "white areas" are being outlawed! In these areas geoconservationists, the experts on the physical aspects of the landscape, should stress a landscape management based on respect for the general geoidentity.


34/204

36

concentrated in those w hite areas . N evertheless, these w hite areas too deserve a

careful consideration. In a recent study on geosites in the Province of O verijssel, an

expert group has com piled a geosite m ap w ith five categories of areas - of

international, national, provincial, regional and local im portance. In fact, the last

category covers that of the w hite areas . The recom m endation for this category w as

respectful treatm ent of the geo-environm ent . For even in those areas, carefully

balanced decisions have to be m ade in order to do justice to the landscape identity.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

If large-scale im pacts in the countryside are being planned, environm ental im pact

assessm ents studies can be a great help in determ ining the best environm ental

alternative location (Erikstad, 1999). But also in this case the geo-environm ent is just

one of the aspects of environm ent that w ill be studied. Especially in cases w here the

geological features are the only values, for instance because of their intensive,

agricultural land-use background, it is often very hard to w in the battle.

If the battle is lost, and a green or w hite area is to be used for developm ent, a new

item has to be introduced: the adoption of the valuable elem ents into the

developm ent plan. In such a plan the geo(m orph)logical structure of the area could

be the basis for the fram ew ork and som e of the elem ents could be spared and

integrated in the plan. For instance, in the case of urban extension, integration of

geo-elem ents can, related to educational provisions, help to raise public aw areness:

for exam ple, streets follow ing geological structures and called after geotopes.

Fig. 2. Old farm house on top of a Weichselian dune, to prevent the house from being f looded by the nearby (former) Zuyder Sea. Co-operation between geoconservationists and other disciplines can pu t geoconservation forward!


35/204

MANAGEMENT, SOME CASES

Protection of geosites by purchase, law or planning m easures alone is often not

enough to keep the site in an optim al condition. M any sites need active m anagem ent

otherw ise they loose their scientific and educational function. The form er N ature

C onservancy Council (1990) published an excellent overview on conservation

techniques. System atically all the m anagem ent aspects of all kinds of sites (accordingto the Earth Science C onservation C lassification) have been described. This handbook

is a m ust for every geoconservationist.

From a m anagem ent point of view roughly tw o categories of sites can be

distinguished; outcrops (natural and M an-m ade) and landform s (fossil and active).

They require a com plete different approach in m anagem ent.

OUTCROPS:

O utcrops m ake the subsurface visible. They expose form ations from a certain period,

contain special structures, m inerals or fossils, etc. A ccessibility and visibility are

principle conditions for research and educational purposes. A lthough not all sites

should be accessible for education, because of their uniqueness or vulnerability. In

general, natural exposures do not need special m easures to keep the site accessible,

because of the on-going exposing process. A rtificial exposures, how ever, need

regular m aintenance, due to the degradational processes.

In m ost cases, existing exposures in sandpits and quarries are being preserved. But in

special cases or for special occasions form ations can be exposed on purpose foreducational and scientific reasons .

LANDFORMS:

The value of im portant fossil landform s is their soundness especially in our

overcrow ded countries. That m eans that all kinds of affecting activities should be

avoided, particularly in case of relatively sm all, usually vulnerable, sites; because once

destroyed m eans forever destroyed.

In the case of active processes, the situation is slightly different. In general, relatively

sm all im pacts, com pared to the natural activity of the process, w ill hardly affect the

system . H ow ever, activities even in active system s should be avoided if not necessary.

CREATION OF OUTCROPS

D ue to its specific geological developm ent, the N etherlands is very poor in exposures.

Therefore, w e already considered for quite a long tim e the creation of exposures

w here they could support scientific or educational targets. W e realise that this

conflicts w ith our principles concerning landform conservation. H ow ever, the lack of

suitable exposures for scientific and educational purposes is a problem .37


36/204

Galgenberg

In 1997, the top of an ice-pushed ridge in the eastern part of the country w as

declared a geological m onum ent on the occasion of G eotrip 97. From the top

dow nw ard, the parallel outcropping form ations can be distinguished in the arable

land. Recently, a regional project for the design of m arked geological and cultural

historical elem ents has been started. In the context of this project it has beenproposed to create one long or several short exposures to show the outcropping

form ations and the phenom enon of ice-pushing for educational purposes. This

w ould be the first exposure specially created for this purpose.

Salland se Heu velrug

O n the Sallandse H euvelrug (an ice-pushed ridge too) a sim ilar activity has been

planned. This project includes a geological trail w ith several m ainly geom orphological

locations. For this trail, tw o new exposures are planned: one to show pushedform ations and an other that show s the internal structure of a periglacial dune.

VULNERABLE SITES

Som e exposures are so im portant and vulnerable that the sites have to covered after

research or an educational visit

Usselo

In the eastern part of the N etherlands is situated the type locality of the Layer of

U sselo. The site, a sm all sand pit, presents a Late G lacial soil containing artefacts and

an A llerød peat layer. The geologically and archaeologically im portant site (G onggrijp,

1998) w as discovered in 1942.

A fter the research, the pit w as closed and covered to protect the interest. N ew

research w as carried out in 1949 and 1975, w ith new m ethods. In both cases the site

w as closed and covered again. The site is now adays an archaeological m onum ent and

research is only allow ed after perm ission. This exam ple teaches us tw o things: once

researched does not m ean researched forever (as w e all know , but others w ill not

alw ays accept that fact) and the best preservation for vulnerable sites (in loose

sedim ents) is often to cover them . This strategy can of course also be used for sm all

vulnerable educational sites.

A w arning! Som etim es the scientific m aterials are so lim ited that any w aste is

unacceptable. In those cases the com m on interest should prevail over self-interest.

A nd therefore research on a sm all and vulnerable sites should alw ays been executed

in co-operation w ith all scientists interested in it.

38


37/204

39

PRESERVATION IN SITU

G enerally, Earth scientists stress the in situ principle. H ow ever, in cases of, for

instance, fossils, m inerals and erratic boulders, this principle is often violated. Fossils

and m inerals are collected and taken to m useum s. Very often they end up in som e

national collection instead of the local m useum near the location. A nd the naturally

transported erratic boulders continue their w andering by hum an transport to finish

up in som e geological m onum ent, as a victim of collecting’s m ania.

Errat ic bo uld ers

In the countries covered by glaciers during the ice ages, erratic boulders have a special

interest. For centuries people have w ondered about their origin. G iants, the Flood

and other events have been suggested to explain their presence. M any of these

stones, telling the story of glacial (and som etim es fluvial) transport have disappeared.

They w ere used as building stones, crushed and used for dikes, roads etc. H ow ever,

a lot of them still survive and are incorporated in prehistorical graves, erected as

m em ory stones, hidden in boulder clay or just som ew here in the field. N ow adays,

erratic boulders are very popular. M any gardens are decorated by im pressive pieces.

In som e countries (Sw itzerland) these boulders are protected. But elsew here, the

ow ners are free to do w hatever they w ant w ith the boulders. Therefore, m any

disappear from their original position and are sold. But not only ow ners are

transporting these w itnesses of the ice ages: geoconservationists are also guilty. Very

Type section of the Layer of Usselo. A temporary exposure for research, closed again aft er research to protect the site optimally.


38/204

40

often the boulders are being used for boulder m onum ents , geological m onum ents

presenting the w onders of the ice age.

It is tim e to form ulate som e code of conduct for this heritage.

•Big boulders (dim ensions per country or region) should be protected in situ as

nature m onum ents, and their transport should not be allow ed.

•If boulders em erge in glacial areas because of w inning of m inerals, infrastructure

w orks, buildings etc., the boulder collection should be saved and placed in the

neighbourhood of the original site, or in a nearby village as a geological or cultural

m onum ent.

One of the biggest erratic boulders in The Netherlands dug up by construction w orks.However in principal erratic boulders should stay on their original places.


39/204

41

MULTIDISCIPLINARY USE OF GEOSITES

A s m any sites are not just biological, cultural historical or geological the interest is

shared. In these m ultidisciplinary sites a strict m anagem ent plan should include all

special issues, so guaranteeing the optim al condition of all the interests, to avoid

frustration.

Oude M irdumerk l i f

In 1927, a cliff along the inland sea the Zuyder Sea w as protected for its

geo(m orph)logical im portance. It w as a nice cliff, w ith typical D utch dim ensions of

about 5m high and 2km long. D ow nstream a w ell-form ed spit system , built up from

the cliff’s m aterials, had been developed. A fter t

Barettino et al 2000 - ProGEO Symposium Madrid 1999 EN.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Barettino et al 2000 - ProGEO Symposium Madrid 1999 EN.pdf