Geological Heritage and Geoconservation in Spain: Past, Present, and Future

REVIEW ARTICLE

Geological Heritage and Geoconservation in Spain:Past, Present, and Future

Luis Carcavilla & Juan José Durán &

Ángel García-Cortés & Jerónimo López-Martínez

Received: 3 June 2009 /Revised: 14 August 2009 /Accepted: 17 August 2009# Springer-Verlag 2009

Abstract Geoconservation in Spain dates back to thebeginning of the twentieth century. During the first decades,the protection of biotic and geological heritage developedtogether, and geologists played an important role, but theconservation of geological values was overlooked duringthe second half of the twentieth century. As a general rule,the protection of geological heritage was limited to scenicelements of a great value in the landscape but did not payattention to their scientific interest and representativeness orto geological exclusiveness criteria. On the other hand, thebeginnings of the study of geological heritage in Spain dateback to the 1970s. Although the methodological bases weredefined at that time, the work done on research, promotion,and conservation of the geological heritage has been mainlydeveloped in the last 15 years. The increasing presence ofgeological heritage in the Spanish scientific and socialfields has been completed with Law 42/2007 on NaturalHeritage and Biodiversity, which mentions the conservationof geodiversity and geological heritage as one of its sourcesof inspiration. This Law replaces the Law 4/1989 on theConservation of Wild Flora and Fauna that was the main

legal framework for nature conservation in Spain duringthree decades. The purpose of this paper is to analyze—from a historical perspective—the evolution of the studyand protection of the geological heritage in Spain since thebeginning of the twentieth century, both referring to thelegal framework and the studies required. Finally, anestimate is presented of challenges to be faced by geo-conservation in Spain in the next decades.

Keywords Legislation . Protection Features . Geodiversity .

Geological Heritage . Geoconservation . Natural Heritage .

Spain

Introduction: Geoconservation and Geological Heritage

The concept of geoconservation is closely connected to thatof geological heritage, as geoconservation means a series ofactions intended to preserve the geological heritage of acertain place (Brocx and Semeniuk 2007). Both, geo-conservation and geological heritage, have been understoodas new challenges in geological research in the last years ofthe twentieth century (Gray 2004). Even though in somecountries like Great Britain this topic has been studied forover 50 years (Black 1988; Wimbledon et al. 1995), inmany other countries, geoconservation is still at its firststages (Sharples 2002). On the other hand, it presents thesame problems and needs in many countries, as theapproach to geology has been often traditionally linked tothe exploitation of resources rather than to preservation ofsites of geological value. It should be also noted the factthat geoconservation has always been generally dependenton, or linked to, the conservation of biodiversity.

Geoconservation work involves the assessment of thegeological heritage in order to manage the territory, mainly

L. Carcavilla (*) : J. J. Durán :Á. García-CortésInstituto Geológico y Minero de España,C/Ríos Rosas 23,Madrid 28003, Spaine-mail: [email protected]

J. J. Duráne-mail: [email protected]

Á. García-Cortése-mail: [email protected]

J. López-MartínezDpto. Geología y Geoquímica, Facultad de Ciencias,Universidad Autónoma de Madrid,Madrid 28049, Spaine-mail: [email protected]

GeoheritageDOI 10.1007/s12371-009-0006-9

by protecting places of geological interest through a law;therefore, to achieve effective geoconservation, it isnecessary to have a legal framework adapted to the needsof geological heritage (Carcavilla et al. 2007). In Spain, therecent renewal of the National Law on Protection of NaturalAreas and Wildlife (2007) has included some crucialchanges in the protection of the geological heritage, thusoffering new opportunities to solve some classical problemsaffecting the geological heritage that were not set orregarded in the former legal framework. Paleontologicalheritage in Spain was originally regarded in culturalnational laws (Law 16/1985), but different autonomic lawshave developed new categories bringing different opportu-nities of protection. In order to better understand theopportunities posed by these new laws and the challengesthat geoconservation is facing in Spain, the history ofgeoconservation and the study of geological heritage inSpain is presented here.

The Study of Geological Heritage in Spain

The National Context

The study of geological heritage in Spain began in the1970s. During this decade and the subsequent years, severalresearchers collaborated with the Spanish GeologicalSurvey (Intituto Geológico y Minero de España) andcarried out both methodological and applied work. Threestages can be distinguished in this process (Durán et al.2005a):

– The first stage ran from 1978 to 1989, a period inwhich the basis of the National Inventory of Places ofGeological Interest (also called points of geologicalinterest) was established (Elízaga 1988; Elízaga et al.1980, 1983). Within the framework of this importantproject, some inventories were made in various placesin the center and north of Spain, covering up to 16% ofthe country, until the project was abandoned in 1989for budgetary reasons. A total of 889 places ofgeological interest were defined and inventoried, butonly 252 were described in detail. In addition, videosand informative publications were made to contributeto raising awareness in other administrations, especiallyat regional and national levels. Most of the placessubjected to inventory were of geomorphologicalinterest, followed by those of stratigraphic and tectonicinterest.

– The next phase, between 1989 and 2003, involved theincorporation of the geological heritage inventory tothe production of the 1:50,000 National GeologicalMap. No specific projects concerning geological

heritage were carried out in this period, but rather, thesystematic geological mapping was used to locate thedocumented localities.

– The third stage began with the integration of studiesand inventories from several institutions. Variouspublic bodies and regional and national administra-tions, as well as some private companies, promoted thecompilation of inventories. The most comprehensiveand ambitious complications were made in Cataloniaand Andalusia. Also, the latter commissioned theAndalusian Strategy for the Conservation of Geo-diversity, thanks to which, several inventories andprotective and updating actions have been carried out(Villalobos 2001; Villalobos et al. 2004).

The methodological development for the study of geolog-ical heritage in Spain is based on lines developed in the first ofthese three stages. Subsequent works by Cendrero (1996),Elízaga and Palacio (1996), or García-Cortés et al. (2000),among others, have become the basis to make ultimately themost important inventories. More recently, various workshave developed complementary methodologies, and severaldoctoral theses have been written about this topic (Romero2004; Bruschi 2007; Carcavilla et al. 2007).

Nowadays, there are two Spanish scientific societiesdevoted to boosting the study of geological heritage. The firstone is the Commission for Geological Heritage of the SpanishGeological Society, which was created in 1995. From thebeginning, this active commission, which now has about 100members, has organized eight national geological heritagesymposia running and also an active forum of discussion onthe Internet (Patrigeo). The Society for the Defense of theGeological and Mining Heritage, which was also constitutedin 1995, publishes a periodical journal, organizes scientificmeetings, and edits proceedings.

The study of the 157 presentations throughout the sevennational geological heritage meetings held between 1995and 2008 can be used as an indicator to analyze ‘maturity’in its study topic. We can see that a third of the works refersto site descriptions, whereas those about geoconservation,methodology, and legislation are a minority (11%, 9%, and3%, respectively), although they show a progressiveincrease yearly. Parallel to the increase of researchpublications, in the future, it would be good to see anincrease in the number of works referring to these lines ofwork, as a result of the progressive development of realgeological heritage projects.

In the last few years, many initiatives for the extensionof the geological and mining heritage have been proposed.The recovery of abandoned mining areas, development oflocal museistics, including the opening of museums andinterpretation centers, as well as the signing of geologicalitineraries, are becoming more frequent in Spain. This way,

Geoheritage

the Spanish geotouristic possibilities have increased. How-ever, so far in Spain, only few initiatives, not manyvolunteer initiatives, to protect the geological heritagepromoted by local associations have been developed, as itis the case of the Regionally Important Geological Sites inthe UK.

The International Scope

The study of geological heritage started playing animportant international role, as the knowledge and under-standing of the history of the Earth went beyond nationalborders. Spanish researchers took part in internationalgeoconservation initiatives and meeting as Digne (Elízagaet al. 1994) and Malvern (Alcalá and Morales 1994;Meléndez and Soria 1994). The Spanish Geological Survey(IGME) joined ProGEO in 1996.

A milestone in the history of geological heritage in Spainwas the III International Symposium on the Conservation ofthe Geological Heritage, held in Madrid in 1999 (Barettinoet al. 1999, 2000; Meléndez and Soria-Llop 1999). Thenext edition of this symposium took place in Braga,Portugal, in 2005 (Earth Sciences Centre 2005). It alsohad a relevant participation of Spanish researches (13 talksout of 133) as well in the next meeting held in Rab, Croatia,2008 (Marjanac 2008).

The Spanish participation in the Global Geosites project(ProGEO and International Union of Geological Sciences)started in 1999, following the standard methodologyestablished (Wimbledon 1996). Spanish Geological Surveymade a preliminary list of 18 frameworks subsequentlyextended to 20 after consultation with many specialists. Thefinal list was presented at the 31st International GeologicalCongress in Río de Janeiro (García-Cortés et al. 2001). In2007, a project led by Spanish Geological Survey wascompleted identifying the geosites that are typical inframeworks. The result was a list of 144 geositesdistributed all over the national territory (Carcavilla et al.2008b). Results of this project were published in twoseparate memoirs (García-Cortés 2008, 2009b), includingthe description of frameworks and geosites with abundantreferences and illustrations. An informative edition iscurrently being developed. Portuguese colleagues publishedtheir list in 2005 (Brilha et al. 2005), and work is inprogress to develop the first list of Iberian frameworks in2009.

On what concerns the development of European GeoparkNetwork, Spain has always taken an active role in thedefinition and declaration of Geoparks. One of the four initialgeoparks defined by the European Geoparks Association wasAliaga (located within the Cultural Park of Maestrazgo,Fig. 1). There are three more geoparks in Spain (Cabo de

Gata in Almería; Sobrarbe in the central Pyrenees; andSubbetic mountains in Córdoba, within the Betic MountainRange, Fig. 1). Further projects are also in progress toanalyze the feasibility of new geoparks, some of them incooperation with Portuguese researchers. Some othersGeological Parks has also been recently created. There arealso other Geological Parks in Spain developing importantactivities oriented towards education and the promotion ofGeology (Santisteban 2004), such as the Chera GeologicalPark in Valencia and the Isona Cretaceous Park (Lérida).

The Beginnings of Geoconservation in Spain(1916–1936)

First steps towards nature conservation in Spain date as farback as the beginning of the twentieth century, five decadeslater than in some countries, such as the USA. Natureprotection laws had appeared as a response to industriali-zation and urbanization, whereas in Spain, public concernfor nature protection and conservation was rather a feelingof appreciation, similar to what can be hold for art andbeauty (Casado 1996), also connected with cultural andscientific modernization currents in the Spanish society.Therefore, a special emphasis was made on the protectionof the main forests and the most emblematic and endan-gered animal species, as well as some geological elementsof geomorphological interest.

Following the model of national parks definition of theUSA, the conservation of nature in general and geo-conservation in particular started at the same time. In theyear 1916, the Law on National Parks was enacted, and in1918, the first Spanish national park was declared atCovadonga (Figs. 1 and 2; Asturias). The actual reasonsto protect this area were in fact a combination of natural,historical, and religious values, as well as the added valuepf “representing” the national identity. Only 1 month later,the Ordesa Valley national park (Huesca) was created,mainly thanks to the work of the French researcher LucienBriet. Nowadays, both protected areas belong to the broadernational parks of Picos de Europa and the national park ofOrdesa-Monte Perdido, respectively (Fig. 1).

In the initial stages, geomorphological relevance was oneof the main reasons to justify the classification of an area asa national park, and so outstanding landscapes rather thanscientific relevant areas were searched. Not long after that,in 1927, two new protection categories were created:natural monuments of national interest (Figs. 1, 3, and 4)and places of national interest. With this last category, manylocations of a high geological value were protectedthroughout the country, thus combining criteria of singu-larity and representativeness.

Geoheritage

Fig. 2 Enol Lake near Cova-donga (Asturias) was declaredthe first Spanish national parkin 1918

Madrid

Por

tuga

l

France

N

Barcelona

Valencia

Sevilla

MEDITERRANEAN SEA

ATL

AN

TIC

OC

EA

N

Canary Islands

BalearicIslands

200 km0 km

1

2 34

56

89 10

11

12

13

1415

16 1718

19

20

21

2223

7

2425

26

27

2829

Fig. 1 Location of places cited in text. 1 Natural monument ofdinosaur ichnites of Asturias; 2 national park of Covadonga/Picos deEuropa; 3 Natural monument of Ojo Guareña Cave; 4 Pirineos-MontePerdido World Heritage (WH); 5 Sobrarbe Geopark; 6 national park ofAigües Tortes; 7 Isona Cretaceous Park; 8 national park of IslasAtlánticas; 9 Las Médulas WH; 10 Sierra de Atapuerca WH; 11 LaRioja dinosaur ichnites; 12 Geologists’ Spring; 13 MaestrazgoCultural Park and Geopark; 14 Chera Geological Park; 15 national

park of Monfragüe; 16 national park of Cabañeros; 17 national park ofLas Tablas de Daimiel; 18 Ibiza WH; 19 Natural monument ofCancarix Volcano; 20 Natural monument of La Celia Mines; 21national park and WH of Doñana; 22 Sierras Subbéticas Geopark; 23national park of Sierra Nevada; 24 Natural monument of NigüelasFault; 25 Cabo de Gata Geopark; 26 national park of Caldera deTaburiente; 27 national park and WH of Garajonay; 28 national parkand WH of Pico del Teide; 29 national park of Timanfaya

Geoheritage

Spanish geologists played an important role in the initialstage of nature conservation. In 1932, the Geologists’Source Natural Monument was inaugurated, dedicated tothe work of four outstanding Spanish geologists (Casianodel Prado, Salvador Calderón, José MacPherson, and

Francisco Quiroga) that were defined as ‘the first men inSpanish science that really felt love towards nature’(Hernández-Pacheco 1933).

Second Stage: 1936–1989

The Spanish Civil War (1936–1939) interrupted conserva-tion works, and under the political regime that followed thewar, nature conservation was left behind over threedecades, without an organizational system, financial back-ing, or autonomy (Ramos 2006). Geoconservation was noexception, as nature conservation was mainly limited toforest management. The technical basis and scientificknowledge to support environmental management werelost. At the beginning of 1960s, a new ecologist movementappeared in Spain parallel to the rest of Europe. However,in the midst of a period of development, this ecologicalconcern movement and the government paid little or noattention to geoconservation (Ramos 2006).

Two laws were in force at the time regarding natureconservation. The first one, enacted in 1957 and known asthe Forests Law (Ley de Montes), included a chapter onnational parks. Thanks to it, the following parks weredeclared: Doñana (1969), Tablas de Daimiel (1973), andTimanfaya (1975; Fig. 1). In 1971, the National Institute forNature Conservation (ICONA) was created, recasting thestate forestry heritage, the hunting and fishing service, andnational parks. In 1975, the law on Natural Protected Areaswas enacted, defining four protection categories: nationalpark, natural park, integrated reserve of scientific interest,and natural resort of national interest. The natural spaces

Fig. 4 Ciudad Encantada de Cuenca (Haunted city of Cuenca) wasalso declared a natural monument of national interest in 1927

Fig. 3 In the first half of thetwentieth century, different pla-ces were protected as naturalmonument of national interest.Torcal de Antequera (Málaga)was one of them

Geoheritage

declared before then as other types had to adapt to thesenew categories, but the truth is that today, some are yet tobe reclassified. This law was to resolve the delay in Spainin nature conservation in comparison with other Europeancountries. We must bear in mind that, in 1973, the GermanFederal Republic had already protected 14% of its territory,the UK, 9%, France, 4%, and Spain only 0.2% (Mulero2002). However, the 1975 bill, even though it was veryambitious at first, kept being shortened, so it did not addthat much (Ramos 2006).

Geoconservation in Recent Stages (1989–2007)

In 1989, the Law 4/1989 National Law on the Conservationof Wildlife and Natural Areas was enacted. Besidesregulating protected areas, this law presented a more globalvision and also regulated the conservation of wild flora andfauna, whose management had been only based on usingregulations linked to the use of resources. However, again,geoconservation was barely represented.

The 1989 Law defined four protection categories basedon those defined some years before by the InternationalUnion for Conservation of Nature (IUCN): parks, naturalreserves, natural monuments, and protected areas. It alsodefined some crucial concepts such as ‘peripheral protec-tion areas’ and ‘areas of socioeconomic influence’, in orderto promote socioeconomic development. In addition, theLaw 4/1989 defined the so-called Plans for the Regulationof Natural Resources (PRRN), which are regarded as legaltools for planification, orientated towards the definition andassessment of the state of conservation of natural resourcesand ecosystems at a regional scope. The activities inprotected areas are also regulated here. The law states thatin order to be declared, Reserves and Parks (either naturalor national) needed to have their PRRN approved. Onlyexceptionally could the PRRN be approved within amaximum period of 1 year after the declaration of naturalprotected area. However, there are still some spaces waitingfor their PRRN approval, even decades after their declara-tion as protected areas. Regarding geoconservation, actuallyfew PRRN have managed to achieve any effectiveregulation of geological resources and have just made abrief—sometimes even incorrect—description of the geo-logical content of the area. Some exceptions have revealedthe fact that—when dealing with geological heritage andgeodiversity —these management tools can be very usefulto plan and manage protected areas and geoconservation(Carcavilla et al. 2005).

The Law 4/1989 was intended to come up with a methodto bring about an important legal-administrative change:since 1984, nature conservation responsibilities hadbelonged to the central government through ICONA, and

these were transferred to Spain’s autonomous regions ondifferent dates. Since then, the central government has onlybeen in charge of the management and declaration ofnational parks, as well as those areas that cross two or moreregions or those including marine extensions. The remain-ing areas and categories to be protected were the respon-sibility of each autonomous region, which could enact newlaws and protection categories to be applied in theirterritory, and which would be managed by the regionaladministrations.

The result of transferring such tasks to the autonomicregions was the progressive enacting of natural areas and/ornature conservation laws in 16 out of the 17 Spanishadministrative regions (only the region of Madrid has stillnot established its own law). However, in these regionalautonomic laws, based on the National Law 4/89 (whichpaid a little attention to geoconservation), geological andgeoconservation heritage concepts were ignored. That iswhy, even though the vast number of laws could havecovered geoconservation, the truth is that it was ignored inalmost all of them. Only one law (Law 4/2003 on theConservation of Natural Areas of La Rioja) used the term‘geological heritage’ (together with paleontological heri-tage), although it did not mention any specific measures orlegal features for its management. Only one other law, Law9/1999 on Nature Conservation of Castilla-La Mancha,considered the option of declaring Sites of GeologicalInterest. Others’ regions have inventories of Sites ofGeological Interest (e.g., Aragón has 536) but withoutincluding this category in the legislation.

Thanks to the development of regional regulations, in Spain,there are over 50 different protection categories, but only veryfew of them (seven) refer to geological elements (Tables 1 and2). The most common situation for geology appears assomething theoretically implicit in other categories such asecosystems or natural systems. The result is that even thoughthe national monument is not the only legal feature used toprotect geological elements, a majority of protected areas aredefined as natural monuments, besides the generally largerareas covering a greater territory, such as a national or naturalparks. It should be noted that in Spain, the term naturalmonument is a legal feature defined by law, and refers tolocations that have been protected under this legal category,whereas in other countries, it may refer to geological elementsof interest, whether they are protected or not.

The legal feature of natural monument has beenmassively implemented in Spain the last few years. Bythe end of the year 2007, there were 202 natural monu-ments in Spain (according to data from Europarc): 141 ofthem of a clear geological nature, but the monumentcategory has been used very differently in each region.Some have declared many areas under this heading, butothers have used it to protect other kinds of sites, such as

Geoheritage

unique, remarkable trees. The scale of the protected area isalso different, with extreme cases of small places (generallybelow 10 ha) as opposed to others surpassing 18,000 ha. Eventhough under this category, we could protect locations fortheir ‘singularity or the importance of their scientific, culturalor scenic values’ as monuments, almost all natural monu-ments declared in Spain refer to locations of a geomorpho-logical interest, that is to say, with a high scenic interest inconnection with geological elements. Nevertheless, thenumber of exceptions begins to grow, such as tectonicstructures (e.g., Nigüelas fault and Andalusia), tracks fossildeposits (e.g., dinosaur traces and Asturias), mineralization(apatite in La Celia and Murcia), volcanic structures (volcanicneck in Cancarix and Albacete), or caves (e.g., Ojo Guareñaand Burgos). The case of the Canary Islands should be alsomentioned, where volcanic formations have a broad legalcoverage under types such as national parks, natural monu-ments, places of scientific interest, or reserves.

Current State of Geoconservation in Spain

National Scope

The protection of the Spanish geological heritage wasanalyzed by Gallego and García Cortés (1996) for the

period between 1918 and 1994. These authors saw that ofthe only 33 (7%) of the 469 natural protected areas declaredin that period of time were classified as such on the basis togeological criteria, and 79 (17%) for various, mixedreasons, although for geological. Taking into account that96% of these protected areas are recognized for geomor-phological reasons and many of them were declared beforethe Civil War, it seems clear that geoconservation in Spainin this period was still poorly developed. There arecurrently 1,500 protected areas in Spain (1,000 more thanin 1994), which gives an idea of the boost experienced bynature protection in Spain in the last decade. As anindicator of their level of coverage for geology, 41 (28%)of the 144 places selected in the Global Geosites project(Fig. 5) are included within some kind of protected area.

At present, the protection of geological heritage andgeodiversity in Spain is lacking in many aspects (Nieto etal. 2006; Carcavilla et al. 2007). It is obvious that ignoringgeological interests when declaring protected sites isunacceptable for conceptual reasons and unfair if we thinkabout what these aspects contribute to many sites, espe-cially the geomorphological elements. Sixty-five percent of99 natural parks declared in Spain in 2002 were of obviousgeological interest (as it was specifically noted in thereasons for declaration; Mulero 2002), and 17% had ageomorphological-scenic interest (Fig. 6).

Table 1 Historical development of heritage laws and legal acts in Spain

Year Legal framework

1916 Law on national parks

1918 Establishment of the first two national parks in Spain

1927 Creation of the category of “places of national interest”

1957 Forest Law (Ley de Montes)

1985 National Law on historical heritage (including palaentological heritage)

1989 National Law on the conservation of wildlife and natural areas. Nature conservation responsibilities transferred to Autonomous regions

2007 National Law on natural heritage and biodiversity

Table 2 Summary table showing the categories and number of protected areas in Spain

Category Number Surface(sq km)

Surface relative tonational territory (%)

Geological aspects consideredfor the creation of protectedareas

Geological aspectsconsidered as a partof the natural heritage

National parks 14 3,471 0.7 Yes Yes

Natural parks 155 36,268 6.9 Yes Yes

Reserves 265 1,767 0.3 No Yes

Natural monuments 291 933 0.2 Yes Yes

Protected landscapes 53 1,505 0.3 No Yes

Others 533 3,300 0.6 Yes Yes

Proposed for Natura 2000 network 111 10,016 1.9 No Yes

Total 1,422 54,290 10.9

A mention of the role of Geology in each category is included

Geoheritage

International Scope

In present times, geoconservation is reaching a greaterinternational dimension (Dingwall 2000). In recent years,several international working groups have been created

about this topic, as well as intergovernmental (Brocx andSemeniuk 2007). Currently, three international programsare offering direct proposals and opportunities to protect thegeological heritage: United Nations Educational Scientificand Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage

Fig. 5 Distribution chart of the144 places of geological interestin Spain identified in the Geo-sites Global Project. Satelliteimage: courtesy of NASA

Fig. 6 Most of Spanish natural parks have a geomorphological-scenic interest. Peñón de Ifach Natural Park (Alicante)

Geoheritage

Convention, Biosphere Reserves, and Wetlands of Interna-tional Importance (Ramsar agreement).

UNESCO World Heritage Convention This was promotedby UNESCO and created in 1972. In connection withgeological heritage, three categories can be distinguished(Dingwall et al. 2005): (1) Human heritage locations withgeological aspects as their main feature—three of them outof 71 are in Spain: Pyrenees-Monte Perdido (shared withFrance, Fig. 7), Peak of the Teide (Canary Islands, Fig. 8),and the Pleistocene deposits of the Atapuerca mountainrange; at present, a proposal for including the dinosaurfootprints of the Iberian Peninsula is in progress. (2) Placesof geological value that are not listed as such but includedin the list for other non-geological reasons—two of thisareas out of 53 are located in Spain: the Doñana Park inHuelva, Andalusia, SW Spain, and the ancient, open-air goldmining Roman exploitation of Las Médulas, in León, N

Spain. (3) Areas with ‘minor’ or indirect geological value—two areas out of 60 are in Spain: Ibiza and Garajonay.

Biosphere Reserves This heritage feature is erected within theMan and Biosphere (MaB) Program of the UNESCO. Thisprogram aims to promote conservation and improve therelationships between man and the environment. In Spain, thereare 26 such reserves, and almost all of them hold importantgeological heritage values (Fig. 9). However, only very few ofthem have been identified and used properly. Recently, aSpanish nature conservation law recommends these areas to beprotected by the regional administration, as there was aparadox, for though these sites had been internationallyacknowledged, they had no effective local protection.

Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Agreement) Thiswas approved in 1971 and commissioned in 1975, referringto the conservation and sustainable use of the most

Fig. 7 Pyrenees-Monte Perdidoworld heritage area andnational park

Fig. 8 Teide national park, in Canary Islands, the most-visited Spanish national park, with more than 3.5 million visitors per year

Geoheritage

important wetlands. Even though it focuses on biodiversity(especially water birds), the ecological and hydrologicalaspects of these wetlands also concern the geology.Therefore, the Spanish Geological Survey started a projectthat used a geological and hydrographical point of view toclassify the Spanish Ramsar wetlands (Durán et al. 2005b).In Spain, there are now 63 wetlands included in the list (thefourth country in the world in the number of wetlandsincluded).

There is another program of the European Union (andother nearby countries that have joined it), which is theNatura 2000 network. It is the main initiative for natureconservation commissioned by the European Union and itsaim is to create a network to stop the loss of biodiversity inEurope, through the protection of habitats and floral andfaunal species of community interest. The network covers20% of the territory of the European Union and represents anew supranational approach in nature conservation: it issupposed to become a political commitment at a commu-nity level. The network is built on the legal basis formed bytwo European directives: Directive on Birds (79/409/EEC)and the Directive on Habitats (92/43/EEC). In spite of thegreat biological and especially phytosociological impor-tance, the Directive on Habitats deals with geological andgeomorphological aspects, as some of the habitats such ascavities, dunes, glaciers, or limestone formations are of ageological-geomorphological nature (Fig. 10), and inothers, the geological conditions play an important role(as in wetlands). Therefore, some work has been developedto analyze the geological participation of these habitats and

estimate their level of conservation and evolution in thefuture (Carcavilla et al. 2008a).

On the other hand, there is no exclusive Europeandirective on geoconservation. In 2004, the EuropeanCouncil wrote a series of recommendations concerningthe conservation of geological heritage (Rec 2004-3), whichhad little effect on nature conservation policies in Spain.

Recently, the Spanish Geological Society and the SpanishGeological Survey (IGME) promoted in the fourth IUCN heldin Barcelona a proposal that geological heritage and geo-diversity be taken into consideration when designing IUCNprograms. This proposal was unanimously approved, thusopening a new field to discuss experiences and strategies forgeoconservation (Díaz-Martínez et al. 2008).

Current Problems of Geoconservation in Spain

One of the greatest problems of geoconservation in Spain—until the enactment of the new Law 42/2007 on NaturalHeritage and Biodiversity—has been its lack of connectionwith the other initiatives for nature conservation.

The current situation and problems in Spain can besummarized as follows:

– There is lack of inventories of places of geologicalinterest (geosites) made with scientific rigor and contrast-ing methodologies. Only few regions in Spain haveproduced updated inventories of geological resources,including precise information on their location, state ofpreservation, value, and fragility to enable their manage-

Fig. 9 La Pedriza delManzanares (Madrid) oneof the 26 Spanish BiosphereReserves. Like most of them,it has an important geologicalheritage component

Geoheritage

ment. This fact has historically hindered a propermanagement of georesources and sites.

– Many relevant sites of high geological value hold noprotection at all. All Spanish regions have places ofgeological interest of national or even internationalrelevance, but they are not protected by any specificlegal feature (Fig. 11). This fact is especially important

in some regions that have not updated their network ofprotected spaces for years.

– There is certain complexity in applying the category of“natural monument” to those geological elements thatare not spectacular or ‘monumental’. Historically, anatural monument was defined in terms of its scenicvalue and beauty besides its scientific interest. The

Fig. 11 Aalenian global standard stratotype section and point (GSSP) at Fuentelsaz, Guadalajara, an important stratotype without legal protection.Red line shows the position of the GSSP of Aalenian stage

Fig. 10 The cave of “ElSoplao” (Cantabria), an exampleof a Red Natura 2000 site wheregeological conditions play animportant role

Geoheritage

same applies to outcrops resulting from human activity,such as road cuttings or quarries (Fig. 12). All of thishappens, even though the new Law 42/2007 includes,within the category of natural monuments, geologicalformations, paleontological and mineral deposits, stra-totypes, and other elements within inanimate naturedue to their uniqueness or the importance of theirscientific, cultural, or scenic values.

– Geomorphological elements have high specifical pro-tection, but only few protected sites in Spain specifi-cally refer to interesting sedimentary areas, relevantfossils sites, tectonic structures, mineralization, or oil-bearing outcrops (Fig. 13).

– There is lack of reference to the concept of geologicalheritage and geodiversity in regional legislation, whichhinders the efficient adaptation of the regulations topoints of geological interest. In addition, the use ofvague or imprecise legal terms to define localitiesmakes it difficult to do a correct implementation andusually neglects the geological elements.

– Regional networks of protected natural areas do notreflect the geodiversity of the territory they represent.Except for the autonomous community of CanaryIslands, Andalusia, and Castilla-La Mancha, the pro-tection of geological elements appears as somethingisolated rather than as part of a plan focusing onrepresenting the geological character and importance ofthe region.

– Not all the sites of geological interest located withinprotected natural areas are considered as such orprotected. This is often due to the fact that managershave no knowledge of their existence, importance, orvulnerability, so their potential as a resource is notproperly used either. Integrated management of eco-systems (biotic and abiotic) is not a common practice.Geological heritage and geodiversity are not usuallyincluded in the management tools for protected sites.

– European Union diversity does not consider theprotection of geodiversity or the unique geologicalelements: the Natura 2000 network does not refer togeological preservation, and there is no equivalentdirective referring to geological/inanimate nature. Al-though there are several international agreements onthe conservation of biodiversity, there is nothingreferring to geoheritage.

– Paleontological heritage in Spain was originallyregarded in cultural national laws (Law 16/1985). Thissituation, for some years, created serious problems dueto an undesired subordination of paleontologicalheritage to historical and archeological heritage. Thisway, some relevant fossil sites had to be legallyprotected as “historical site” or “archeological zone”(e.g., Fig. 14). The paleontological heritage is ruled bytwo separate laws and its protection subjected to twoseparate administrations. Subsequent development ofregional heritage laws in the autonomous communities

Fig. 12 Syntectonic slumps in the Carretero Formation (Jaén), discovered when a new motorway was constructed

Geoheritage

created the specific category of “paleontological zone”,thus bringing a legal possibility to an effectiveprotection of relevant paleontological sites. The recentLaw on Natural Heritage and Biodiversity (2007) hasincluded the paleontological heritage in the naturalheritage. However, in many regions, it is still regardedas, and ruled by the, Historical Heritage Law.

The Future of Geological Heritage and Geoconservationin Spain

During the year 2007, three new laws brought a radical changeregarding the legislation on geoconservation in Spain: the Lawon Natural Heritage and Biodiversity (42/2007), the Law onthe National Park Network (5/2007), and the Law onSustainable Development in the Rural Environment (45/2007).

The Law 42/2007 on Natural Heritage and Biodiver-sity revoked the previous Law on the Conservation ofNatural Areas (4/1989). The active participation of theSpanish Geological Institute (IGME), the Official Pro-

fessional Association of Geologists, and the SpanishGeological Society, as well as the receptive attitude ofthe Ministry of Environment led, for the first time sincegeoconservation started in Spain, to the appearance of alaw that included the conservation of geological heritageas one of its foundations. The presence of geodiversityand the geological heritage in this law is considerable.There are three main aspects: (1) specific reference togeology, the geological heritage, geoparks, and geo-diversity; (2) boost for inventories and measures for theconservation of the geological heritage and geodiversity;and (3) enhancement of protection mechanisms.

This law explicitly states that the Ministry of Environ-ment, working jointly with regional governments andscientific institutions and organizations, will make aSpanish Inventory of Natural Heritage and Biodiversity. Itwill include an inventory of places of geological interestfeaturing at least the geological units and contexts (frame-works) in the Global Geosites project, as well as eightsignificant geological systems that constitute the Spanishgeodiversity (Table 3). In order to produce such inventory,the Spanish Geological Survey, as an adviser for theMinistry, has developed a specific methodology (García-Cortés and Carcavilla 2009a) and has actively participatedin the drafting of the regulations developing the Spanishinventory mentioned in the law.

The Law 42/2007 also regards the elaboration of aStrategic State Plan of Natural Heritage and Biodiversity,including a diagnosis of the situation and progress of thenatural heritage, biodiversity, and geodiversity. As men-tioned earlier, it also specifies that stratotypes and otherelements of inanimate natural resources may be declarednatural monuments. In addition, administrative dutiesinclude integration within sectorial policies of the objec-tives and provisions required for the conservation, assess-ment, and protection of geodiversity. The plans forregulation of natural resources must at least describe andinterpret the physical and geological features of any areaunder consideration. These three measures should provide asolution to some of the major issues regarding geoconser-vation in Spain, which have been described above. TheMinistry of Environment is in charge of the legaldevelopment for the implementation of this Law, in whichthe Spanish Geological Survey and the Spanish GeologicalSociety will take an active part.

In 2007, the new law of national parks gave an answer toa verdict of the Constitutional Court, which in 2004transferred the management of national parks to theregional, autonomous governments, while the centralgovernment kept its role as a network coordinator. The 14national parks at the present time (see Fig. 1) were nolonger co-managed by the Ministry of Environment andregions. This modification required a legal change in the

Fig. 13 Zumaya flysch and beach (Guipúzcoa), a world relevant sitefor the study of the K/T boundary has been recently protected asbiotopo (2008)

Geoheritage

regulations of the new competences of each region.Previously, the Board of National Parks had approved anambitious project for the identification of areas that werecompatible with the national park concept in Spain (Casaset al. 2006). Twenty specialists of different disciplines ofEarth Sciences worked during 2 years to define key areasthat would improve the representativiness of the parknetwork if declared national parks. Seventy areas were

identified, 12 of which were in the sea. For every area,geological representativiness and the value of the elementspresent were assessed. In order to do so, some geologicalsystems or ‘geological landscapes’ were identified (asgeomorphology played a major role) in order to set thefeatures of the selected areas (Carcavilla 2006). These‘landscapes’ were used to define the natural systems in thenetwork and were included in the Law of National Parks

Fig. 14 La Rioja dinosaurfootprints, protected underCultural Heritage Law

River network, rañas, and Appalachian landscapes of the Hesperic massif

Low coasts of the Iberian Peninsula

Carbonate and evaporite karstic systems of the Iberian Peninsula and the Balearic Islands

Lower and Middle Paleozoic stratigraphic series of the Hesperic massif

The Carboniferous period in the Cantabrian Chain (NW Spain)

Mesozoic series in the Betic and Iberian chains

Fossils and ichnofossils of the continental Cretaceous on the Iberian Peninsula

Stratigraphic sections of the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary

Southern Pyrenean synorogenic basins

Continental tertiary basins and associated vertebrate fossils in Aragon and Catalonia

Olistostromic units of the Betic foreland basin (southern Spain)

Evaporitic Messinian episodes (Mediterranean salinity crisis)

Vertebrate-bearing deposits of the Spanish Plio-Pleistocene

Neogene ultrapotassic volcanic associations of southeastern Spain

Volcanic structures and morphologies of the Canary islands

The Iberian Hercynian orogene

Miocene extension in the Alborán Domain

Mercury mineralization in the Almadén region

The Iberian pyrite belt

Urgonian mineralizations of Pb-Zn and Fe in the Basque-Cantabrian basin

Table 3 The 20 Spanish frame-works of Global Geosites

Geoheritage

(Annex II). The problem was that the selection of thegeological systems to be represented was not done by EarthScience specialists, this resulting in many of the definedtypologies being incorrect or redundant. Only the interven-tion of the Spanish Geological Society managed to correctsome of the errors to obtain the list of geological systemsmentioned in the annex of this law (Díaz-Martínez et al.2008).

In 2008, a project was commenced to produce geologicalmaps of the Spanish natural systems where geology playsan important role, in order to analyze the representativinessof the national parks network and define a monitoringsystem of the state of conservation at short, mid, and longterm. The Spanish Geological Survey participates in thisproject by describing the Spanish geodiversity and carryingout preliminary methodological works (Carcavilla et al.2008c) in order to define the essential risks threatening thegeodiversity of national parks and establish a suitablemonitoring system. The results of this works, added to theresults of the Global Geosites project already mentioned,will surely supply a crucial information on Spanishgeological systems, which will be essential to guaranteegeoconservation in Spain.

On the other hand, Law (45/2007) for SustainableDevelopment in the Rural Areas explicitly suggests theexploitation of geological and mining tourism (geo-tourism) and proposes the use of the geologicalresources to promote development in the rural areas,granting importance to the conservation of the environ-ment, the landscape, and the natural and culturalheritage, which clearly mark the main lines of actionof Geoparks guidelines.

Also, in 2009, the Spanish Geological Survey commis-sioned a project to define a system for the genericprotection of certain geological elements. It is a geologicalequivalent to the Managing Board of the Natura 2000network, so a working group has been created to design atheoretical model for this system (Carcavilla et al. 2008a).Then, the Region of Castilla-La Mancha (southern CentralSpain) has offered to undertake the implementation of thismodel in its territory. The project is expected to bedefinitely fulfilled by 2009–2010, and it could constitute amodel for other Spanish regions or even for the implemen-tation and testing of the regulation at a European level.

As it can be seen, the new regulatory network provides atheoretical solution to some of the basic problems ofgeoconservation in Spain, such as the lack of a suitablelegal framework, the absence of complete inventories, orthe unsuitable definition and application of the legalprotection categories. Challenges for the next few yearsinclude using the opportunities offered by these new lawsand keeping up with international initiatives (mainly Geo-parks and Global Geosites) so that from both national and

international perspectives, even worse to geoconservationin Spain can undergo a quick, real development similar toother regions.

Conclusions

Geoconservation started in Spain at the beginning oftwentieth century with the protection of many geologicalsites, but in the last two thirds of the century, Geologywas relegated to the background. The new regulationsdeveloped in recent years can turn the situation around,as they are setting the basis and the legal framework forsolving some of the worst problems affecting theconservation of geological sites in Spain. Moreover,the recent momentum given to studies on geologicalheritage allows geoconservation to be supported on asuitable methodological framework. The Spanish partic-ipation in international projects connected with geo-conservation and geological heritage (Global Geositesand European Geoparks) is increasing, and the experi-ence of Spain can be used as a reference by othercountries with similar geoconservation issues. Thechallenge we shall be facing in the next few years istwofold: firstly, learn how to use the opportunitiesafforded by new laws, and secondly, to participateactively in international programs in order to substan-tially improve the situation of site conservation inSpain, which, for the first time in 100 years, has apromising future, largely due to the increasing involve-ment of the Spanish geoscientists.

Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to Drs W. Wimbledon,J. Brilha, and two anonymous referees for their constructive commentsthat have contributed to improve the manuscript.

References

Alcalá L, Morales I (1994) Towards a definition of the Spanishpalacontological heritage. In: O’halloran D, Creen C, Hartes M,Síanley M, Knill K (eds) Geological and landscape conservation.Geological Sociecty, London, pp 57–61

Barettino D, Vallejo M, Gallego E (eds) (1999) Towards the balancedmanagement and conservation of the geological heritage in thenew millenium. Sociedad Geológica de España. Instituto Tecno-lógico Geominero de España and European Association for theConservation of the Geological Heritage, Madrid

Barettino D, Wimbledon WAP, Gallego E (eds) (2000) PatrimonioGeológico: conservación y gestión. Instituto Tecnológico Geo-minero de España, Madrid

Black GP (1988) Geological conservation: a review of past problemsand future promise. In: Crowther PR, Wimbledon WA (eds) Theuse and conservation of palaeontological sites. Spec Pap Palae-ontol 40:105–111

Brilha J, Andrade C, Azevedo A, Barriga FJAS, Cachao M, Couto H,Cunha PP, Crispim JA, Dantas P, Duarte LV, Freitas MC, Granja

Geoheritage

HM, Henriques MH, Henriques P, Lopes L, Madeira J, Matos JMX,Noronha F, Pais J, Piçarra J, RamalhoMM, Relvas JMRS, Ribeiro A,Santos A, Santos VF, Terrinha P (2005) Definition of the Portugueseframeworks with international relevance as an input for the Europeangeological heritage characterisation. Episodes 28(3):177–186

Brocx M, Semeniuk V (2007) Geoheritage and geoconservation:history, definition, scope and scale. J R Soc West Aust 90:53–87

Bruschi VM (2007) Desarrollo de una metodología para la caracter-ización, evaluación y gestión de los recursos de la geodiversidad.Universidad de Cantabria, Santander

Carcavilla L (2006) Los dominios geológicos y las unidadesmorfoestructurales. In: Casas J, del Pozo M, Mesa B (eds)Identificación de las áreas compatibles con la figura de ParqueNacional en España. Organismo Autónomo de Parques Nacio-nales, Madrid, pp 50–54

Carcavilla L, López-Martínez J, Durán JJ, Martín J, Ruiz R (2005) Thegeological heritage as support for the identification and managementof natural protected areas. The case of Castilla-La Mancha (Spain).Abstracts IV International Symposium ProGEO, Braga, p 116

Carcavilla L, López-Martínez J, Durán JJ (2007) Patrimonio geo-lógico y geodiversidad: investigación, conservación, gestión yrelación con los espacios naturales protegidos. Instituto Geo-lógico y Minero de España, Madrid

Carcavilla L, De la Hera A, Durán JJ, Gracia FJ, Pérez Alberti A,Robledo PA (2008a) El papel de la geología y la geomorfologíaen la Directiva Hábitats de la Unión Europea. In: Benavente J,Gracia FJ (eds) Comunicaciones de la XII Reunión Nacional deGeomorfología, Cádiz, pp 431–434

Carcavilla L, García Cortés A, Díaz E (2008b) The Spanish globalgeosites Project and its influence on recent legislation for theconservation of natural heritage. Abstracts 33th Internationalgeological Congress, p 114

Carcavilla L, López Martínez J, Durán J (2008c) Different approachesfor the study of geodiversity. Abstracts 33th InternationalGeological Congress, Oslo, p 114

Casado S (1996) Los primeros pasos de la ecología en España.Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación, Madrid

Casas J, del Pozo M, Mesa B (2006) Identificación de las áreascompatibles con la figura de ParqueNacional en España. OrganismoAutónomo de Parques Nacionales, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente,Serie Técnica Naturaleza y Parques Nacionales, Madrid, pp 50–55

Cendrero A (1996) El patrimonio geológico. Ideas para su protección,conservación y utilización. In: MOPTMA (ed) El PatrimonioGeológico. Bases para su valoración, protección, conservación yutilización. Ministerio de Obras Públicas, Transportes y MedioAmbiente, Madrid, pp 17–38

Díaz-Martínez E, Guillén-Mondéjar F, Mata JM, Muñoz P, Nieto L,Pérez-Lorente F, Santisteban C (2008) Nueva legislación espa-ñola de protección de la Naturaleza y desarrollo rural: implica-ciones para la conservación y gestión del patrimonio geológico yla geodiversidad. Actas del VII Congreso Geológico Nacional,Sociedad Geológica de España, pp 1307–1310

Dingwall PR (2000) Legislation and international agreements: theintegration of the geological heritage in nature conservationpolicies. In: Barettino D, Wimbledon WAP, Gallego E (eds)Geological heritage: its conservation and management. InstitutoTecnológico Geominero de España, Madrid

Dingwall P, Weighell T, Badman T (2005) Geological World heritage:a global framework. A Contribution to the Global Theme Studyof World Heritage Natural Sites. Protected Area Programme,IUCN

Durán JJ, Carcavilla L, López-Martínez J (2005a) Patrimonio geo-lógico: una panorámica de los últimos 30 años en España. Bol RSoc Esp Hist Nat (Sección Geológica) 100:277–287

Durán JJ, García de Domingo A, López-Geta JA, Robledo PA, SoriaJM (2005b) Humedales del Mediterráneo español: modelos

geológicos e hidrogeológicos. Instituto Geológico y Minero deEspaña, Madrid

Earth Sciences Centre (2005) Abstracts of the IV InternationalSymposium ProGEO on the Conservation of the GeologicalHeritage. University of Minho, Braga, 16 Sept 2005

Elízaga E (1988) Georrecursos culturales. In: Ayala-Carcedo FJ, JordáJ (eds) Geología ambiental. Instituto Tecnológico Geominero deEspaña, Madrid, pp 85–100

Elízaga E, Palacio J (1996) Valoración de puntos y/o lugares de interésgeológico. In: MOPTMA (ed) El Patrimonio Geológico. Basespara su valoración, protección, conservación y utilización.Ministerio de Obras Públicas, Transportes y Medio Ambiente,Madrid, pp 61–79

Elízaga E, Abril J, Duque LC, García Salinas F, Murcia V (1980) Lospuntos geológico-mineros de interés singular como patrimonionatural. Su inventario y metodología de estudio. I ReuniónNacional de Geología Ambiental y Ordenación del Territorio,Abstracts Volume, Santander, 21

Elízaga E, Palacio J, González Lastra JA, Sánchez de la Torre L(1983) Inventario Nacional de los Puntos de Interés Geológicodel sector occidental de la Cordillera Cantábrica. InstitutoGeológico y Minero de España, Madrid

Elízaga E, Gallego E, García-Cortés A (1994) Inventaire national dessites d´interêt géologique en Espagne: Métodologie et déroule-ment. Mem Soc Geol Fr 164:103–110

Gallego E, García Cortés A (1996) Introducción. In: MOPTMA (ed)El Patrimonio Geológico. Bases para su valoración, protección,conservación y utilización. de Obras Públicas, Transportes yMedio Ambiente, Madrid, pp 11–16

García-Cortés A (ed) (2008) Contextos geológicos españoles: unaaproximación al patrimonio geológico español de relevanciainternacional. Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, Madrid

García-Cortés A (ed) (2009b) Spanish Geological Frameworks. Anapproach to Spanish Geological heritage of internacional rele-vance. Instituto Geológico y Minero de España

García-Cortés A, Carcavilla L (2009a) Documento metodológico parala elaboración del Inventario Español de Lugares de InterésGeológico (IELIG). www.igme.es/internet/patrimonio. p 61

García-Cortés A, Barettino D, Gallego E (2000) Inventario ycatalogación del patrimonio geológico español. Revisión críticay propuestas de futuro. In: Barettino D, Wimbledon WAP,Gallego E (eds) Geological heritage: its conservation andmanagement. Instituto Tecnológico Geominero de España,Madrid, pp 51–71

García-Cortés A, Rábano I, Locutura J, Bellido F, Fernández-Gianotti J,Martín-Serrano A, Quesada C, Barnolas A, Durán JJ (2001) FirstSpanish contribution to the Geosites Project: list of the geologicalframeworks established by consensus. Episodes 24–2:79–92

Gray M (2004) Geodiversity. Valuing and conserving abiotic nature.Wiley, West Sussex

Hernández-Pacheco E (1933). La Comisaría de Parques Nacionales yla Protección de la Naturaleza en España. Guía de los sitiosNaturales de Interés Nacional. Organismo Autónomo de ParquesNacionales (2000), Serie Histórica, Madrid

Marjanac T (ed) (2008) Abstracts of the 5th International ProGEOSymposium on Conservation of the Geological Heritage andProGEO Working Group. Rab, Croatia, 1–5 Oct 2008

Meléndez G, Soria M (1994) The legal framework and scientificprocedure for the protection or palaeontological sites in Spain:recovery of some special sites affected by human activity inAragón (eastern Spain). In: O’halloran D, Creen C, Hartes M,Síanley M, Knill K (eds) Geological and landscape conservation.Geological Sociecty, London, pp 329–334

Meléndez G, Soria-Llop C (1999) The geological and paleontologicalheritage of central and eastern Iberia (Iberian Range, Spain).Publicaciones del Seminario de Paleontología de Zaragoza, Zaragoza

Geoheritage

Mulero A (2002) La protección de espacios naturales en España:antecedentes, contrastes territoriales, conflictos y perspectivas.Ediciones Mundi-Prensa, Madrid

Nieto L, Pérez-Lorente F, Guillén-Mondéjar F, Diaz-Martínez E(2006) Estado actual de la legislación para la geoconservaciónen España. Trab Geol 26:187–201

Ramos JL (2006) Gestión ambiental y política de conservación de lanaturaleza en la España de Franco. Rev Hist Ind 32:99–140

Romero G (2004) El patrimonio paleontológico de la región deMurcia. Tesis Doctoral. Universidad de Murcia, Murcia

Santisteban C (2004) El Parque Geológico de Chera (Valencia) comomodelo de protección del patrimonio geológico para la promo-ción del desarrollo rural y turístico. In: Guillén Mondéjar F, DelRamo A (ed) El Patrimonio Geológico: Cultura, Turismo yMedio Ambiente, Murcia, pp 51–58

Sharples C (2002) Concepts and principles of geoconservation.Tasmanian Parks & Wildlife Service, Hobart

Villalobos M (2001) Estrategias en la protección del patrimoniogeológico andaluz. Medio Ambiente, Junta de Andalucía,Consejería de Medio Ambiente 37:36–39

Villalobos M, Braga JC, Guirado J, Pérez Muñoz AB (2004) Elinventario andaluz de georrecursos culturales: criterios de valor-ación. De Re Metallica 3:9–21

Wimbledon WAP (1996) GEOSITES, a new IUGS initiative tocompile a global comparativesite inventory, an aid to interna-tional and national conservation activity. Episodes 19:87–88

Wimbledon WAP, Benton MJ, Bevins RE, Black GP, Bridgland DR,Cleal CJ, Cooper RG, May VJ (1995) The development of amethodology for the selection of British sites for conservation.Part 1. Mod Geol 20:159–202

Geoheritage