UNESCO's Geoparks Guidelines: a Reflection on Policies and Practices

O EOL GIC G A D D A E D C E I H C I L E O S F u n 2 d 6 la serena octubre 2015 ada en 19 UNESCO’s geoparks guidelines: A reflection on policies and practices Hernan Bobadilla1, Fabiola González2 and Pamela Jara3 1Science and Technology Studies Department, Faculty of Mathematical & Physical Sciences, University College London 2Departamento de Geología, Facultad de Ciencias Físicas y Matemáticas, Universidad de Chile. 3Departamento de Ingeniería en Minas, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Santiago de Chile. *Email: [email protected] Abstract. Geoparks are an example of anticipatory effective relies on subjective values, and moral values are projects, which attempt to deal with shaped by what we regard as effective. conservation/protection, education and sustainable development issues. In particular, UNESCO’s guidelines This way, the tension between efficiency and values for Global Geopark Network (GGN) are based in these becomes a guiding principle itself in policy-making and same principles. We suggest that conservation/protection attitudes and sustainable development claims need to be anticipatory governance. Indeed, the acknowledgement revisited. Indeed, as they are currently presented, they of a tensional context in politics should not prevent active can contribute to the same processes they are trying to discussion and further efforts to develop responsible and prevent. We suggest that the design of the GGN lacks integrative policies. Furthermore, as societies are what Isabelle Stengers has referred to as an ecology of continuously changing, the way in which we organize in practices. the public domain will never be final. Keywords: Geoparks, UNESCO, anticipatory In particular, we argue that a sensitive, but critical, governance, Isabelle Stengers. sometimes sceptical, attitude toward anticipatory policies should persist, even if they are seemingly based in 1. Introduction: Anticipatory Governance allegedly shared social values. With this claim, we are and the Ecology of Practices not attempting to delegitimize major trends in social construction, or indefinitely sabotage emerging Michael Polanyi, in his now classic paper “The Republic anticipatory programs. Rather, what we want is to of Science”, said that science, in regard of its progress, is address two normally overlooked issues. essentially unpredictable (Polanyi, 1962: 62). In addition, the practical social benefits of science are described as First, the normativity of the majority. Indeed, in modern ‘incidental’ or, in other words, they cannot be forecasted. democratic neoliberal societies, the practices of the This way, science is unpredictable in, at least, these two majority legitimate public policies, which arise as norms senses. for the society as a whole, reinforcing the existence of a majority and progressively marginalizing minority Nevertheless, the unpredictable character of science does practices (see, e.g., Stengers, 2005: 184-5). Notably, not imply a political inability for anticipation, i.e. the different minority practices can conflict with each other creation of political conditions that allow societies to deal and be ethically questionable themselves. with unpredicted and unpredictable risks. David Guston (2008) highlighted this important difference, inviting us Second, an overall uncertainty about policy efficacy and to engage in public policy and social-minded scientific scientific knowledge. As we said before, efficiency can research to develop anticipatory policies and programs. be regarded as relative, but it also remains roughly uncertain. Indeed, as political systems become more Problematically, anticipation is not a straightforward complex, by integrating a myriad of different players, path. Indeed, there is a tension between two aspects of engaging in dynamic and intricate interactions, the anticipatory public policies: their efficacy and their chances of forecasting future effects are radically value-laden character. In accordance with Guston (2008: diminished. Similarly, scientific knowledge, has 940), public policies are meant to materialize shared particular shortcomings in understanding the future of public values. But, at the same time, we want public natural phenomena. First, at any given point in time, policies to be effective instruments. Problems arise when science provides both an incomplete and a changing we consider efficient methods that not always match portrayal of the natural world (Guston, 2008: 940). moral values. The tension strengthen as we realize that Second, science is shaped and biased towards political there is no general agreement on how should we assess priorities. For example, competition for funding and effectiveness, as there is no universal consensus on moral governmental research programs are ways in which principles neither. Furthermore, what we assess as science follows politics. 488 AT 4 Impacto de las GeocIencIas en la socIedad So, how can we develop anticipatory policies, taking into 2.1 Conservation and protection consideration the dynamics of minority practices and uncertainty about the future? Stengers (2005) suggests Protection of our environment is generally regarded as a that we should develop an ecology of practices. This positive environmental attitude. However, there is a means to approach the distinct human activities as difference between a protective consistent attitude and a particular, but part of common ecosystems. Then, she localized protective policy. A misunderstanding between suggests that public policies should be thought ‘par le this two positions may retain a long term harmful milieu’ (ibid: 187). This French expression involves two dynamic. Indeed, policies that create protected areas, distinct ideas. First, think ‘through the middle’, making instantaneously define unprotected areas, dividing the policies without definitive concepts or restricted ideal land as receptacles for different human purposes. The horizons. Second, think ‘with the surroundings’, making basic reasoning here is ‘as we exploit a given ecosystem, policies that do not separate practices from their and we need to continue exploitation, we also need to environments, and do not attempt to identify particular protect other areas from being exploited’. This becomes a practices with majority practices. mere balance procedure; it does not achieve an integrated and holistic protection dynamic. In sum, by appealing to the ecology of practices, anticipatory programs should resign to the absolute; they In this sense, geoparks emerge as legal artefacts to should take the contextual nuances and contingencies protect our geological heritage. They can be effective in into account. Evidently, the ecology of practices is preserving geological heritage, but we suggest this is sceptic about anticipatory policies of global dimensions. limited to an immediate context. Furthermore, it Consequently, we will now analyse how an anticipatory reinforces the idea that there is geological heritage more program of global character, the Global Geopark worthy of being protected than other. Network, can affect this ecology: It is also important to highlight that, in practice, the legal 2. Geoparks guidelines in context processes involved in establishing these legally new protected areas are complex and bureaucratically Geoparks are a rather new entity for conservation and prolonged. Contrastingly, in market driven societies, sustainability. Their focus is to preserve geological companies have a comparative advantage to make use of heritage, but they also consider other relevant features in the land, thanks to legal voids or proper laws and their design, such as historical values, cultural legacy and governmental programs that promote entrepreneurship, in biotic diversity. This way, geoparks are part of the name of economic development and progress (A anticipatory programs that attempt to preserve resources notable exception of a legal void that benefited a and build institutions to deal with environmental and protectionist project is the Glacier Republic project, by social risks. GreenPeace-Chile; GreenPeace, 2014). Geoparks came to worldwide recognition when On the other hand, conservation reasoning may arise UNESCO Geoparks Programme was proposed in 1999 significant drawbacks as long as conservation policies are (UNESCO, 1999). Two years later, at the 161th session meant to create pristine, everlasting areas. Taking local of UNESCO’s Executive Board, the project was practices into consideration, what we may want to assure modified, assuming a more passive role. UNESCO is a sustainable, ecological relation with our environment, delegates decided “not to pursue the development of a rather than an immaculate space. Worryingly, some UNESCO geoparks programme, but instead to support ad conservation policies have required the removal of hoc efforts within individual Member States as communities from newly defined restricted areas, appropriate” (UNESCO, 2001). interfering with their local practices and survival (see, e.g., Schwartzman et al., 2000: 1352ff.). Furthermore, Nowadays, UNESCO supports geoparks projects all this kind of conservation policies undervalue the political around the world through the Global Geopark Network and ecological activism that communities exert over a (GGN; UNESCO, 2015). The GGN is formed by 111 broader areas or in the long-term. Moreover, it is unlikely geoparks in 32 countries. To become part of the GGN, a that these local communities were the cause of regional geopark project has to fulfil

Load more