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 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, . 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. -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 certain guidelines established environmental problems in the first place. Hence, local by UNESCO. These guidelines focus on three main and native communities are used as scapegoats. In our aspects: 1) Conservation and protection; 2) Research and opinion, such conservation policies attempt to create a education; 3) Sustainable development, mainly embodied false image, for the rest of society, in which concern as and related activities. We will argue that the about the environment has been held. first and third criteria of these guidelines are based on social public values that seem to be globally Overall, we do understand that, in terms of geological acknowledged and shared. Nevertheless, at the same heritage, some areas may be in a critical situation. In this time, these criteria can enhance the very threats that this sense, geoparks do play a role in the conservation of the anticipatory program is trying to prevent. specific geological feature. But we think it is a short-term 489 SIM 6 CIENCIAS DE LA TIERRA, EDUCACIÓN Y SOCIEDAD

and local impact. Our main point is that our relationship governments. However, given the reputation of the UN’s with nature, and in particular with our geological agency, they are vastly influential and arise as the heritage, has become polarized into a matter of ‘establishment’ way. unplanned consumption or immaculate protection. We have not reached a real sustainable dynamic. Remarkably, beside the GGN guidelines and international Furthermore, we recognize a certain confusion between conferences on global geoparks, UNESCO is not taking sustainable relation with the environment and sustainable an active role in the development of specific geoparks. development. This is why we now turn to this point. Geopark management depends on the local legislation of every country or state. Then, GGN guidelines can be 2.2 Sustainable development ignored or misrepresented by the local laws. On the other hand, if the GGN guidelines are universally followed, In the last decades, several governments across the globe problems like the ones previously described can emerge. have included policies for sustainable development in As UNESCO is not engaged in the management of variable degrees. This is a broadly accepted and specific geoparks, it is relevant to reflect upon the appreciated value in western globalized societies. The channels that these problems can use to become useful way in which this idea is incorporated in geoparks design feedback to the guidelines. is through touristic activities. Nevertheless, there are two downsides to this approach that we would like to In our opinion, it is irresponsible that, such an influential highlight. agency as UNESCO, promotes the creation of geoparks through certain specific and value-laden criteria, to then First, as Bartlett et al. (2004) suggest, it is an intellectual only assume a passive administration role, just granting fallacy to talk about sustainable development in GGN membership. As UNESCO is the agency placing conjunction with exponential growth of consumption. In the guidelines on the table, they should be more aware particular, geological resources, especially fossil fuels, about their shortcomings. have been consumed exponentially during the last century, with no evidence of change (REN21, 2014; Global Geoparks Network is an anticipatory program, REN21, 2012). Therefore, any sustainability program but one that is, in our opinion, ill-constructed. It solves should explicitly state degrowth policies. In neoliberal immediate problems by posing different ones, namely the globalized societies, this is hardly the case. In other duality between protected and unprotected areas, which words, we cannot afford to call a project sustainable if it affects sustainable relations, and the non-ecological does not affect the unsustainable context in which it is attitude towards local minority practices, by posing circumscribed. global strategies, established in terms of ruling economic paradigms. Secondly, sustainable development in the form of tourism has particular downsides that could be found in geoparks: References

‘Environmentally friendly’ intervention inside the Bartlett, A., Fuller, R., Plano Clark, V. & Rogers, J. (2004). The Essential Exponential! For the Future of Our Planet. Lincoln: protected area. It is debatable if these modifications Center for Science, Mathematics and Computer Education, are desirable or even harmless. University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Accidental events inside the protected area, GreenPeace (2014). Republica Glaciar. Retrieved on 14th July. perpetrated by tourists. For example, great fires http://www.republicaglaciar.cl/index1.php provoked by tourists (e.g. 2011 Torres del Paine Guston, D. (2008). Innovation policy: not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature, 454, 940-941. National Park), or unintended damage over the Polanyi, M. (1962). The Republic of Science: Its Political and cultural heritage (e.g. Machu Picchu). Economic Theory. Minerva, 1(1), 54-74. Impact in surrounding areas (e.g. hotels and roads), REN21 ( Policy Network for the 21st Century) which follows the logic of protected and unprotected (2014). Renewables 2014: Global Status Report. Report, areas. If tourism becomes a competitive economic REN21, Paris, France. http://www.ren21.net/ren21activities/globalstatusreport.aspx activity (see, e.g., Sernatur, 2015), these effects REN21 (Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century) cannot be overlooked. (2012). Renewables 2012: Global Status Report. Report, Introduction of globalized practices in local REN21, Paris, France. communities and potential impact on their identities http://www.ren21.net/Resources/Publications/REN21Publicatio and traditions. ns /Renewables2012GlobalStatusReport.aspx Schwartzman, S., Moreira, A. & Nepstad, D. (2000). Rethinking tropical forest conservation: Perils in park. Conservation 3. Conclusions Biology, 14(5), 1351-7. Sernatur. (2015). Informe Turismo Emisivo: Primer Trimestre UNESCO’s geopark guidelines are in an interesting 2015. Ministerio de Economía, Fomento y Turismo. 26 pp. middle point. They are not compulsory, granting a Stengers, I. (2005). Introductory notes on an ecology of practices. Cultural Studies Review, 11(1), 183-196. flexible geopark design and management for different UNESCO. (2015). Global geoparks. Retrieved on 14th July, 2015. 490 AT 4 Impacto de las GeocIencIas en la socIedad

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural- sciences/environment/earth-sciences/global-geoparks/ UNESCO. (2001). Decision adopted by the executive board at its 161st Session. 161 EX/Decisions PARIS, 29 June 2001 UNESCO. (1999). Unesco geoparks programme: A new initiative to promote a global network of geoparks safeguarding and developing selected areas having significant geological features. 156 EX/11 Rev. PARIS, 15 April.

491