4b) 2006 BELFAST GEOPARKS CONFERENCE

Narciso Barrera Bassols, Chair of the IGU Task Force on Geoparks was unable to attend, and at the request of the IGU-EC Anne Buttimer was not only able to attend, but also to write the following report:
Geoparks 2006 UNESCO Conference
Belfast, 17th-21st September, 2006
Anne Buttimer, Past President of the International Geographical Union
Several hundred earth scientists, from 40 countries and all five continents attended the Second UNESCO International Conference on Geoparks at the Waterfront Hall, Belfast, 17-21 September 2006. Since the first conference in Beijing 2004, the number of geoparks has doubled, each one now eager to share information and enthusiasm via newletters and networks. Hosted by the Geological Survey of Northern Ireland, this four-day event involved over 90 paper presentations, several poster displays and eight workshops. Published materials by GSNI and other bodies were of superb quality, and a cordial atmosphere prevailed.
The Opening Session, chaired by Garth Earlse (GSNI), featured greetings from the major sponsors of the Geoparks initiative. Walter Erdelen, UNESCO Assistant Director for Natural Science, outlined the evolution of this idea from earlier initiatives on world heritage sites, noting the now combined goals of heritage protection and economic development. Peter Bobrowski, President of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) reported on the collaborative projects by ICSU Geo-unions, various steps undertaken by IUGS/UNESCO since 2004, and the potential contributions of geoparks to the International Year of Planet Earth (IYPE). A stirring lecture by Aubrey Manning (Edinburgh) on "Life and the Earth: Interlocking Histories" re-iterated the importance of IYPE. "Rocks tell a story" Stuart Munro reminded the audience and again with splendid illustrations, demonstrated the importance of tactile and emotional aspects of environmental education and the vital need for cross-disciplinary collaboration. Peadar McArdle (GSI), welcomed participants to Ireland and then two illustrative case studies were presented, one from the Aegean by Nicolaus Zouros, the other from Ireland by Pádraig McKeever. Most of Europe's 25 geoparks have some national support, but vitally important development funding has also come from EU LEADER schemes and Interreg III.
Nine thematic conference sessions involved short presentations on particular geoparks, with well illustrated details on the where, why and how, for whom and by whom actions were undertaken. Twenty papers were presented in the popular session on "new and aspiring geoparks", fifteen on "geology and tourism", eleven on "the role of geoparks in the protection of geological heritage", ten each on "marketing geological heritage" and "how to make a successful geopark", with five each on "geoparks and outreach" and "geoparks and geosites". EGN, GGN and a plethora of networks
The Geoparks initiative traces its origin to the 1991 symposium held at Digne-les-Bains (France) on geological heritage. The European Geoparks Network (EGN), founded in 2000, made an agreement of cooperation with UNESCO in 2001 and in 2004, on the occasion of the First International Conference, the Global Geoparks Network (GGN) was founded. The Madonie Declaration (2005) defined EGN as the integrating organization for all global networks. Since then, a plethora of "networks" has surfaced, EGN and GGN now finding themselves juxtaposed with a range of already established regional, thematic and discipline-based networks whose substantive foci overlap substantially with theirs. For each of the numerous area-based programmes in place over the latter decades of the XX century, e.g., national parks, nature reserves, natural protected areas, heritage sites, areas of outstanding beauty, etc., there is a corresponding network. And as Aubrey Manning pointed out in the Opening Session, this causes much public confusion.
The central role assumed by EGN for all geopark networks in Europe does imply major responsibilities. Speakers offered toolkits to aid in the definition, auditing and monitoring of geoparks, and there were proposals for inventories of best practices, branding of successful spaces, such as "quality coast" labels. While general guidelines based on experiences to date are no doubt valuable, it may be prudent, however, to reflect carefully on the appropriateness of criteria now negotiated for earlier European geoparks to developments in other cultural and geo-physical contexts around the world? EGN members are keenly aware of this. Some of the restrictions on economic activities which are now applied within Europe may not be feasible elsewhere, as Schneider's paper on the proposed geopark in Namibia pointed out. Other basic details, now proclaimed by EGN, might also merit further reflection: spatial boundedness of geoparks, harmonising the interests of natural heritage and sustainable development, bridging the concepts of "geodiversity" and "biodiversity", locality as frame for inter-disciplinary, inter-generational and inter-cultural dialogue, and perhaps most importantly, the value of geoparks for environmental education.
Geoparks as bounded domains: the "paper park phenomenon"
Clear-cut spatial boundaries are among the fixed imperatives for a geopark. There are no specific guidelines on size and scale except that each should adumbrate the two essential conditions of (1) protection of geological heritage and "geodiversity", and (2) sustainable economic development. Existing geoparks range greatly in size and detail. They vary also in structures of management, in relationships with governmental authorities, universities and schools. All, however, are bounded areas. Spatially-circumscribable boundaries for geoparks make sense for the protection of geological heritage in the context of particular sites, e.g., Ayer's Rock, Grand Canyon, Giant's Causeway and other geo-physically circumscribable places. Yet the historical record of zonally-defined protected areas with prescriptions and proscriptions for access and use would suggest some caution about this approach. In some cases, e.g., where a geopark is nestled within a national park, as in the case of Fforest Fawr in Wales, consensus on appropriate policies may be easier. But the "cookie-cutter" approach to spatial planning can lead to a confusing mosaic of overlapping and often conflicting codes of conduct for park activities. Spatially circumscribed planning zones have tended to not only drive "undesirable" activities elsewhere, but have also tended to "fossilise" activity within the domain itself. And how might the humanly-defined "fossils" co-exist spatially? As Wang Lianyong illustrated in the case of Sichuan province in China, much of the ground occupied by the twelve geoparks in that province has already acquired multiple designations (national park, scenic and historic interest, nature reserve, outstanding universal geological interest, heritage conservation, etc.). China is not the only place where one needs to 'avoid the paper park phenomenon'.
Sustainable development?
Geotourism is regarded in most European cases to be a viable basis for economic development. This implies a commercial "selling" of geological heritage, potentially a supply-induced demand for visitors. How sustainable might this be in the long term? And what would the implications be for other livelihoods within the parks? Unlike the geomorphology of natural forms, or the processes underlying the relatively stable landscapes of the biosphere, the processes of economic development today are better framed in terms of nodally-organized - spatially footloose - networks radiating from global metropolitan centres. To focus on geo-tourism as the main (and sometimes exclusive) path toward economic development implies an acceptance of this globally unsustainable model. Glimpses on alternative earth-friendly modes of economy did come through in some papers; dominant emphasis, however, was on geo-tourism. While tourism currently plays a major role in European economic development, it is questionable whether this would be necessarily appropriate in other parts of the world. Globally what is needed are alternative, more earth-friendly livelihoods at scales which are less energy-consuming and involve less long-distance circulation of goods and people. "Bottom-up" involvement of locally-based long-term inhabitants of places now designated as geoparks - farmers, fishermen or local entrepreneurs - should therefore be vital. Many may need more convincing about the values of geological heritage; geopark enthusiasts may also need better understanding of locally-based livelihoods.
Geodiversity and Biodiversity
Other conceptual issues evoked some passion at the Belfast conference, i.e., definitions of geodiversity and biodiversity. It was argued, with some justification, that flora and fauna (biodiversity) had more successfully claimed attention on issues of climate change and environmental integrity than rocks (geodiversity). Definitions of geodiversity varied, but there was a strong tendency to equate the term with rocks, minerals and caves. In the case study of Psiloritis Natural Park (Crete) geodiversity was defined in terms of the "non-living environment". A subsequent presentation on the formation of the Moravian Karst Geopark used a much broader definition: geodiversity included ways in which farmers, pastoralists, foresters and other livelihoods had clearly left their mark on the landscape. Besides, it was proposed, the numbers of tourists were to be restricted. To separate geo- and bio-diversity may be analytically convenient, but for practical landscape management it would seen unnecessary. For geographers, geodiversity would be better defined in terms of processes yielding tangible earth surface and landscape effects, not only the long-term movements of tectonic plates or short-term tsunami events, but also the dynamic processes underlying land use, transport and settlements that shape the living landscape. Bridges are needed to span the perspectives of economy and ecology, geography and geology in elucidating landscape geo diversity.
Geology, geography and geoparks
There were geographers at this meeting though few seemed eager to acknowledge this. At session 9, however, a Canadian geographer (B. Sharpe) argued for "A Place for Geography in the Geopark Initiative" displaying the relevance of disciplinary concepts, tools and techniques. This led to some affirmation of geography's actual and potential contributions to the initiative (GIS in particular) and the prospect of linking geoparks initiatives to the IYPE was applauded. Geoparks and environmental education
It is on the educational frontier indeed that inter-disciplinary collaboration seems far more feasible. The place where young minds first encounter natural science and environmental questions, most delegates agreed, was in courses on geography, at primary and secondary school levels. To open geoparks to visits by teachers and students of geography was one goal on which there was unanimous approval. Marble Arch in Fermanagh, Kirstin Lemon reported, has success stories to tell about "spreading the geological message" not only to students, but also to parents, week-end and holiday occasions for families now highly popular. Countryside Rangers play the major tour-guide and educational role in the Northwest Highlands Geopark in Scotland, M Krabbendam revealed, and Jutta Weber's account from Bergstrasse-Odenwald described novel concepts to demonstrate connections between geological heritage and everyday ways of life: soils and farming, nature and art, culinary tastings, e.g., wine and water, rocks and wine. Satisfied guests and producers become "geopark ambassadors"; so, too, are teachers of geography. This Second International Conference on Geoparks (2006) was a memorable event for many. Several new geoparks were announced, many in China. Projects are underway in Romania, Czech Republic, Pakistan, Japan and elsewhere in Ireland. Enthusiasm grows and an atmosphere of genuine openness for dialogue, cooperation and partnership across national, linguistic and disciplinary fences was there in abundance. Hopefully the International Year of Planet Earth will also benefit from the harvest of the Geoparks programme internationally.