Geoheritage (2021) 13:69 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-021-00595-3 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Linking geological heritage and geoethics with a particular emphasis on palaeontological heritage: the new concept of ‘palaeontoethics’ Daniel DeMiguel1,2,3 · José Brilha4 · Laia Alegret3 · Ignacio Arenillas3 · José A. Arz3 · Vicente Gilabert3 · Flavia Strani5 · Alberto Valenciano3 · Enrique Villas3 · Beatriz Azanza3 Received: 15 February 2021 / Accepted: 23 June 2021 © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract Geoconservation and geoethics are two emergent domains in geosciences. During the last decade, both topics have increas‑ ingly gained the attention of geoscientists and the society, but the main geoethical dilemmas related to the conservation and management of geoheritage are not clearly identified yet. This work aims at providing an overview on the meaning and scope of geoethics and how it intersects geoheritage and the practice of geoconservation. Some case studies—many of which are under current debate and have a high potential as geoeducational resources—are presented for addressing ethical, social and cultural settings as well as dilemmas affecting geoheritage. We find that there are particular cases (mostly concerning the trade of fossils, and in particular the growing concern about activities that rely on amber from Myanmar) for which a clear dichotomy of views makes them much more problematic and complex. These cases deserve more suitable legal frameworks that help implement more balanced ethical standards and practice guidelines for geoconservation, guarantee human rights and needs in relation to that heritage and contribute to the advancement of geosciences. Particular attention is given to pal‑ aeontological heritage, as fossils are among the most threatened elements of the Earth’s diversity and are in need of more effective and statutory protection measures. In the context of geoethics applied to palaeontological heritage, and given the need of a clear understanding of what ethics in palaeontology means, a new concept—palaeontoethics—is proposed and formally defined. Keywords Geoheritage · Geoconservation · Geosites · Fossils · Myanmar · Geoethics · Palaeontoethics Introduction Geoethics is a young, multidisciplinary field that studies and reflects upon the values that underpin appropriate human practices, whenever anthropogenic activities interact with * Daniel DeMiguel the Earth System (see Di Capua and Peppoloni 2019 for demiguel@unizar.es a comprehensive definition of geoethics). It emerges from 1 ARAID Foundation, Universidad de Zaragoza, the idea that human actions (positive and negative) have 50009 Zaragoza, Spain an impact on the natural processes and on the environment 2 Institut Català de Paleontologia Miquel Crusafont, and that ethical criteria are needed to guide such interac‑ Autonomous University of Barcelona, Campus de la tions, especially if considering that global population has UAB, 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain increased rapidly particularly over the past few decades and 3 Departamento de Ciencias de La Tierra, and Instituto global warming (Ripple et al. 2020; Tortell 2020; Wiedmann Universitario de Investigación en Ciencias Ambientales de et al. 2020). Aragón (IUCA), Universidad de Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, The foundation of geoethics is primarily traced back to Spain the following three main elements: (i) the importance of 4 Institute of Earth Sciences, Pole of the University of Minho, geological culture as an essential part of the geoscientist’s Campus de Gualtar, 4710‑057 Braga, Portugal background; (ii) the concept of responsibility (both individ‑ 5 Dipartimento Di Scienze Della Terra, Sapienza Università Di ual and social); and (iii) the definition of an ethical criterion Roma, 00185 Rome, Italy 13 Vol.:(0123456789) 69 Page 2 of 16 Geoheritage (2021) 13:69 on which to guide behaviour and practices in geosciences scientific value. The definition of geoheritage refers to the (Peppoloni et al. 2019). set of natural geological resources (including minerals, Despite the fact that more and more geoscientists have rocks, fossils, soils, landforms, geological formations and (to some extent) integrated and considered ethical and social tectonic structures and other geological manifestations) issues in their professional research and practice during the with scientific, educational, cultural and/or aesthetic value. past decades (Matteucci et al. 2014; Mayer 2015; Peppoloni In many domains of geosciences, some of the scientific and Di Capua 2015, 2016; Bobrowsky et al. 2017; Foss data are obtained directly in the field, whereas in others 2019; Peppoloni et al. 2019; Antić et al. 2020), geoethics is samples are collected for further analysis in the labora‑ still an emerging, relatively complex, and little known field tory. In both cases, however, these geological sites that of geosciences (Bobrowsky et al. 2017). In the case of geo‑ are object of study must be preserved as evidence of the logical heritage, it is still a major challenge to demonstrate history of the planet, thus allowing the advance of geo‑ geoethical values involved in the adequate management of sciences. These places are known as geosites and the set in situ occurrences (geosites) and ex situ elements (fossils, of geosites in a given territory constitutes its geological minerals, rocks) in order to ensure their sustainability in the heritage (in situ) (Brilha 2021). long term (Peppoloni and Di Capua 2020; Manni 2012). The geological samples that are organised in scientific The goal of this paper is to examine and discuss differ‑ collections and available for scientific research are also part ent aspects of geoconservation through different examples of the geological heritage (ex situ). These valuable in situ and case studies, many of which are under current debate and ex situ geological features must be preserved in the best and constitute serious ethical issues. A particular attention possible conservation status, and they must hold some char‑ is given to palaeontological heritage, as fossils are among acteristics that differentiate them from other similar geo‑ the most threatened elements of the Earth’s diversity and are logical features. The scientific relevance of a geosite is also in need of more effective protection measures and statutory attested by national and international publications directly support. related to its geological value. In addition to their use for sci‑ entific purposes, geological sites may offer other opportuni‑ ties of sustainable use, e.g. in education. The value of some Geodiversity, geoheritage geodiversity elements can indeed be easily understood by and geoconservation students, and this is particularly applicable to sites with good accessibility and safety conditions for both students and Background and main concepts teachers. In other cases, geodiversity elements are natural attractions that can be used for leisure purposes and tourist Before identifying dilemmas and problems related to the activities. For a recreational and tourist use, the aesthetic and cultural, economical and social value of geoheritage, it is cultural values of these elements are particularly relevant. important to briefly consider some relevant concepts. Geodi‑ The majority of geodiversity elements that lack signifi‑ versity or geological diversity, defined as the ‘natural range cant scientific value but hold another type of use (educa‑ (diversity) of geological (rocks, minerals, fossils), geomor‑ tional, tourist, leisure, etc.) are designated as geodiversity phological (landforms, topography, physical processes), sites, and they must also be protected following specific geo‑ soil and hydrological features. It includes their assem‑ conservation strategies (Prosser et al. 2013; Brilha 2018; blages, structures, systems and contributions to landscapes’ Gordon 2019). (Gray 2013), is crucial for understanding the variability of the natural substrates, which is indeed fundamental for the development of life and its diversity, as well as for support‑ The need for geoconservation and its feature ing cultural and social diversity (Peppoloni and Di Capua as an applied geoscience 2016). Although this term was introduced at the beginning of the 1990s, three decades later it is still generally unknown Geoconservation aims at the protection and management of by the majority of the society. Brilha et al. (2018) reviewed geosites and geodiversity sites, including the management the concept of geodiversity and showed how it connects of the geological collections. Inventorying and quantitative with other natural systems, highlighting its essential role to assessment, statutory protection, conservation, promotion ensure human sustainability based on the use of renewable and interpretation and monitoring of sites are some specific and non-renewable natural resources. methods used to promote geoconservation (Page 2004; Page A responsible use of geodiversity elements by soci‑ and Wimbledon 2008; Brilha 2018; Meléndez 2018). ety demands a solid understanding of how Earth systems All these measures are needed because many geological work. To gain scientific knowledge, it is essential to guar‑ sites today are under a real threat (and run the risk of disap‑ antee access to natural elements that hold a particular pearing) due to several types of anthropic degradation: 13 Geoheritage (2021) 13:69 Page 3 of 16 69 • Cultural and scientific illiteracy — Decision-makers Palaeontological heritage and the society in general have a very low awareness of geology and the importance of geodiversity com‑ Among the different components of Earth’s geodiversity, ponents for the natural capital, ecosystems services fossils are particularly affected by many of the threats and human well-being. Consequently, public decisions mentioned above (Page et al. 1999). Due to its fragile about geoconservation tend to be slow or completely nature and because it is the only source of information overlooked. about past biodiversity, palaeontological heritage demands • Unsustainable mining — Although mining and energy strategic and more effective protection measures. resources are absolutely pivotal for the human devel‑ opment, their irresponsible use may put many relevant geological sites at risk. Fossils and palaeontological heritage • Urban development — The rapid expansion of cities towards rural areas (due to population growth and Fossils are any evidence (remains, impressions, moulds, the migration from the countryside to urban areas) casts, traces, biochemical molecules, etc.) of once-living is responsible for the destruction of many geological organisms from the geological past that are preserved in sites worldwide. the materials of the Earth’s lithosphere (i.e. they are typi‑ • Deficient statutory protection — Without a solid statu‑ cally found in rocks of sedimentary nature). They repre‑ tory protection at the international, national, regional sent a relevant component of geodiversity with the unusual or local levels, the preservation of the geological sites capacity to connect people with our natural environment is fragile and frequently useless. and, importantly, with our origins and past. Fossils inform • Inefficient administration — Public administrations about the environment where past organisms lived, and without sufficiently trained staff, solid geoconser‑ along with their accompanying contextual data (usually, vation strategies and proper funding can lead to an the environment of accumulation of the sediments corre‑ increase of the vulnerability of geoheritage. sponding to the rock in which fossils are found), they are • Smuggling and illegal collecting — Fossils, minerals a unique resource for palaeontologists to understand the and rocks are vulnerable to be stolen from many coun‑ history of life. tries, hereby feeding international smuggling networks Given the exceptional nature of the process of fossilisa‑ and being of huge benefit to speculators. tion, a fossil is, by definition, ‘a unique or rare and non- • (Some) scientific research — There are geosites renewable natural object and, as such, a highly valuable strongly affected by deficient scientific sampling pro‑ asset’ (Henriques and Pena dos Reis 2015). Fossils are cedures that do undervalue the different types of infor‑ therefore the result of three types of convergent histories mation that the outcrops can provide. (Fig. 1) which make them very useful as scientific and • Unsustainable tourism and leisure activities — Mass educational resources: tourism in areas with fragile geological features (e.g. caves, soft and unconsolidated substrates, rare fossils) • History of life — Since a fossil is the evidence of a can negatively affect many geological sites. once-living organism, it is the result of an evolutionary history, and, as such, it informs about past life on Earth It is necessary to acquire knowledge about all these and the relationships with biodiversity. factors in order to contribute towards more effective pres‑ • History of humanity — Considering that the humankind ervation measures of the geological sites and their differ‑ forms part of this evolutionary history, fossils inform ent types of components. Fortunately, a growing number about our own history as living beings (hence, evolu‑ of scientific activities have significantly sharpened our tionary anthropology or the study of humankind from a knowledge for this purpose over the last two decades. palaeontological perspective is particularly important), Some of these initiatives include research schools and and consequently about our changing role in nature and teaching activities that have produced master and doctoral our relationships with Earth. theses on this subject, scientific discussions in interna‑ • History of Earth — As a fossil is the result of a fos‑ tional forums and publication of peer-reviewed papers in silisation process, it informs about its own geological dedicated indexed scientific journals. All these lines of history, which in some cases may be different from the reasoning claim that geoconservation may be also con‑ history of the rock that contains the fossil. For instance, sidered as an applied geoscience (Henriques et al. 2011). there are particular processes (such as pyritization or carbonisation) that may affect the fossil but not the out‑ cropping rock. Fossils are also informative about the 13 69 Page 4 of 16 Geoheritage (2021) 13:69 Fig. 1  Schematic diagram illustrating different types of informa‑ served, fossils inform about the original organisms that directly or tion provided by fossils. Although fossils are preserved in the strata, indirectly produced them, e.g. as in footprints. Consequently, fossils they also have their own natural history (in yellow) that results from also offer a way to learn about the history of life (in green) on Earth. a taphonomical cycle. They incorporate information and material Since humans are part of this history, fossils also contribute to know from the biosphere to the lithosphere, contributing to reconstruct the history of humanity (in blue). As nature is used and modified by the history of the Earth (in red). Even in those (many) cases when humans, we fossils also contribute to the history of the Earth no direct life remains (fossilised skeletons, shells, etc.) are pre‑ history of a changing Earth in space and time, so they palaeontological heritage is understood by some authors are a valuable archive that has been used to reconstruct (Meléndez and Soria-Llop 2000a) as a particular type of past environments and palaeogeography. geoheritage. In view of such particularity, and despite the fact that fossils are geodiversity elements, it has been argued Palaeontology, or the study of fossils, is then placed at that palaeontological heritage can be considered as a sepa‑ the intersection among geological, biological and archaeo‑ rate entity from geoheritage, hereby acquiring its own status. logical/anthropological disciplines. Hence, palaeontological The scientific value of fossils is related to the fossil itself heritage shares common characteristics with both our natural and to the rock in which it is contained; therefore, the term and social/cultural/historical heritage (despite being natural palaeontological heritage refers to both a set of rocks con‑ objects) and cannot be interpreted or studied without this taining fossils, the palaeontological site itself, and all the synergetic perspective. In common with the natural heritage, fossils extracted from the site. In this sense, fossils are com‑ fossils are formed in and by nature, while the obvious link parable to other geoheritage elements such as the mineral‑ with the social/cultural/historical component is the popular ogical ones and also the archaeological heritage. fascination of fossils that lead to collection of these elements as a hobby (Alcalá and Morales 1994) or to the popular Palaeontological heritage management passion for ancient life (including our own clade). It is also important to stress that fossils present compelling evidence Fossils are valuable objects offering different types of benefit of evolution and are real evidence of past life and extinc‑ or interest to society (Meléndez and Soria-Llop 2000b; Page tions, thus have traditionally caused conflict with religion 2004, 2018; Henriques and Pena dos Reis 2019). There is a and beliefs (i.e. science vs. religion). plethora of reasons for which fossils attract the attention of Because fossils are the unique geodiversity elements people, which is particularly evident for certain groups (such which allow for the reconstruction of the history of life, as dinosaurs and anthropoid primates). On the one hand, this 13 Geoheritage (2021) 13:69 Page 5 of 16 69 positively contributes to promote learning for students and • Scientific criteria — Nature of fossils (fossils of excep‑ the general public, while, on the other hand, it may result tional importance); geological age of the rocks; type in a direct, serious impact and a hazard for the integrity of localities (i.e. those from which species have been first the fossil record. There is a long and complex process from recognised and formally defined); degree of preserva‑ the discovery of a fossil in the field (which requires active tion; association with archaeological remains; diversity searching for rocks that are more likely to contain fossils of fossils (for instance, association of plant and animal and careful excavation of valuable fossils) to its scientific remains); taphonomic (i.e. the process leading up to pres‑ study and incorporation into a collection or exhibition and ervation or fossilisation) information; bio/chronostrati‑ dissemination. graphical relevance (sites which date important geologi‑ Most museums and exhibits show macrofossils as they cal formations at international level); wider geological can be observed by visitors with a naked eye and also interest; and level of knowledge (i.e. sites that have pro‑ because of their aesthetic appeal. Microfossils are equally vided new knowledge about a particular topic). relevant to science but are commonly underrepresented • Socio-cultural criteria — Geographic location; vulner‑ in museums and exhibits because magnifying lenses and ability to damage; historic value; educational interest (a microscopes are required for their observation. Fortunately, criterion of special relevance to this chapter as it informs this idea is gradually changing in modern exhibitions, which about the potential of a site for use in education); touris‑ display enlarged pictures of microscopic fossils as well as tic interest (similar to the previous); and additional value microfossil bearing rocks, usually associated with a relevant (i.e. sites in places already protected for other reasons). story (importance of microfossils in oil exploration, high- • Socioeconomic criteria — Urban value (sites in urban resolution studies to reconstruct past events, etc.). areas potentially available for development); mineral A palaeontological site is a ‘particular location (or group value (sites associated with mineral exploitation); agri‑ of nearby occurrences) in which fossils (of any type and culture value of arable lands on soft fossiliferous rocks; concentration) are present’ (Alcalá and Morales 1994). It is public works (sites linked with works); and economic evident that not all fossil occurrences can be considered as value. palaeontological heritage, such as not all paintings can be recognised as cultural heritage. This is clear for microfos‑ Since many of these criteria might lead to various ethical sils, as they are a common feature of the geological record conflicts, they directly relate to geoethics. In particular, pub‑ (Fig. 2). Microfossils have been traditionally neglected in lic works (especially for transport, water and power infra‑ geoconservation, but there are many type-localities and stra‑ structures), mining and agriculture activities or engineering totypes which are formally defined and named on the basis projects, among others, can destroy sites of relevant impor‑ of microfossils and must be considered as palaeontological tance to palaeontology, but they have also a decisive role in heritage as well. the discovery of new heritage. Conservation is needed to Consequently, palaeontologists have to decide (1) which protect fossils and sites from loss and destruction through fossils and sites have the sufficient importance to be con‑ illegal sampling and to regulate the selling and exportation sidered as palaeontological heritage and (2) how to manage of fossils. them in the best possible way. Three groups of criteria may In terms of regulations, and because palaeontological her‑ help resolve this task (Alcalá and Morales 1994): itage is considered as a type of heritage in many countries, Fig. 2  Example of foraminiferal assemblages in ornamental limestones. Alveolinids (left) and Nummulites (right) 13 69 Page 6 of 16 Geoheritage (2021) 13:69 there are legal measures for a correct protection and man‑ tres), minerals, fossils and rocks samples are part of per‑ agement of sites and fossils. These laws vary widely among manent and temporary exhibitions. countries, with some governments being less strict than • Conservation — When the integrity of geological materi‑ others (Meléndez 2018; Meléndez and Soria-Llop 2000b; als with high geoheritage value are at risk due to natural Wimbledon and Smith-Meyers 2012; Liston and You 2015). or man-made threats, its removal from the outcrop and A relevant difference among countries concerning fossil col‑ transfer to local facilities (museums, universities, etc.) is lecting is the private or public ownership of the surface and the only possibility to ensure their preservation. the underground. • Private collections — The collecting of objects is a very common hobby in many societies, including fossils, min‑ erals and meteorites. Private collectors can obtain their Ethical issues and challenges associated specimens in the commercial market or may collect them with geoheritage: with a particular emphasis directly in the field. Sometimes, these private collectors on palaeontological heritage have no academic training, but due to their interest in the topic, they gain knowledge about the collected objects. In As previously discussed, geoheritage offers great opportuni‑ some countries, these amateur scientists are responsible ties to promote geoscience education for the benefit of the for very important findings that have been subsequently society. In addition, the research and management of geoher‑ studied and described by certified scientists (Robinson itage raises among geoscientists a reflection on a plethora of 2001). On the other side, there are cases of research aspects (still poorly addressed in the literature) concerning misconduct and even fraud by people without scientific ethical principles. Some of these issues are briefly presented knowledge. in the following paragraphs, with the purpose to trigger reflective learning and considerations on individual roles Regardless the reasons for collection of geological speci‑ and responsibilities when working on geoheritage. mens, this practice can be considered: Collecting of geological specimens (fossils, minerals • Legal — When it follows local and/or national collection and meteorites) regulations • Illegal — When it does not follow local and/or national There is no doubt that the popularity of some geological ele‑ collection regulations ments as collectible and commercial items has significantly • Uncontrolled — When it is done in areas without specific increased in recent years. Among these elements, interest or appropriate collection regulations in collecting fossils (probably the most common geological object to be collected; Gutiérrez-Marco 2020) is booming. The existence of regulations contributes to a sustainable At least in part, this is likely attributable to the prominence use of these geological objects, but it does not suffice. The of dinosaurs in movies and cartoons, and as a result some collectors of geological specimens must know the regula‑ big-spending collectors have amassed private fossil collec‑ tions and follow them. Authorities and the administration tions over the past decades. must have resources to guarantee that these regulations are The collecting of geological specimens is done for five really implemented and accepted by collectors. Illegal col‑ primary reasons: lecting is certainly reprehensible and should be subject to sanctions through legal action. Unfortunately, the most com‑ • Scientific research — The sampling of fossils, minerals mon situation for most countries is the uncontrolled col‑ and rocks in geosites and its study in laboratories is an lecting. Without statutory regulations, only geoethical and essential step of the research process in geosciences. collecting codes may contribute to promote a responsible • Commercial reasons — Geological specimens are col‑ action of collectors. lected to supply the international and national markets. In In 2016, the International Union for Conservation of a recent auction, the cost of a 67 million year-old Tyran- Nature approved the “Resolution 083 Conservation of move‑ nosaurus rex skeleton reached 31.8 million USD (https://​ able geological heritage” with three main aims (https://p​ orta​ editio​ n.c​ nn.c​ om/s​ tyle/a​ rticl​ e/s​ tan-t-​rex-​skelet​ on-​auctio​ n-​ ls.i​ ucn.o​ rg/l​ ibrar​ y/s​ ites/l​ ibrar​ y/fi ​ les/r​ esrec​ files/W ​ CC_2​ 016_​ scli-​intl-​scn/​index.​html). RES_​083_​EN.​pdf): • Education — The description and study of geological specimens in laboratory classes is an important strategy • To promote and support national and international initia‑ for school and university students. In informal educa‑ tives oriented towards the conservation and sustainable tional contexts (such as museums and interpretive cen‑ use of moveable geoheritage 13 Geoheritage (2021) 13:69 Page 7 of 16 69 • To prepare guidelines on the protection, conservation and thousands of new findings (especially marine invertebrates management of moveable geoheritage such as trilobites and cephalopods), which allow for a better • To promote and support the discussion on the conserva‑ understanding of taxonomic, taphonomical and palaeoeco‑ tion and management of moveable geoheritage, in com‑ logical aspects of past organisms, if professional palaeon‑ pliance with national and international regulations of its tologists can have access to these fossils. commerce Fossil replicas for sale: fakery or handcraft? In spite of the efforts made by many countries to develop procedures and laws against unregulated economy of geo‑ Specimens of some fossil groups are scarce, and museum logical specimens, the increasing interest in fossils has collections all over the world cannot display real fossils of raised the competition (and opportunity) for commercial these groups. In this case, the production of replicas is an and pseudo-scientific collectors. Collecting for commercial excellent solution. In several natural history museums, fos‑ purposes raises many ethical issues (Triebold 2007; Jones sil exhibitions are almost entirely based on replicas. Hollow 2020) and has a detrimental effect on education and sci‑ plastic casts are particularly useful when displaying large ence, as geological specimens are irreplaceable objects. For dinosaurs or mammals, whose skeletons are often incom‑ instance, the increase of the economic value of fossils has plete or too heavy. The production of precise casts can be limited the possibility of public museums and educational seen under three different perspectives: centres with small budgets to acquire fossils for their collec‑ tions. The sampling of fossils without following a scientific • As an educational and scientific resource — When the protocol contributes to a permanent loss of information of availability of real fossils is limited and expensive or in the depositional environment and geological context, which order to prevent the original specimens from damage holds precious scientific information for palaeontologists, • As a handcraft — When artistic fossil recreations are occasionally even more valuable than the fossil itself. produced and sold as any other economic activity (Fig. 3) Public administrations that manage geoheritage should • To simulate true fossils with a clear purpose to deceive be assisted by geoscientists, particularly when they lack (particularly non-expert) buyers. staff with specific training (Alcalá and Morales 1994). Some regional administrations in Spain are examples of good man‑ Countries where fossil fakery is common include the agement as they have recently included professional palae‑ USA, Colombia, Peru, Russia, Germany, France, and espe‑ ontologists in their permanent staff and promote the deposit cially Morocco (with marine trilobites) and China (with of collected materials in an appropriate institution (Melén‑ Archaeoraptor—a chimera of bird and dinosaur features— dez and Soria 1994). and the cheetah Acinonyx kurteni being two of the most con‑ spicuous fossil fakes, Zhou et al. 2002; Mazák 2012; Wang Smuggling of geological specimens versus economic 2013). The impact of this practice on science and society revenue of deprived communities is negative, as many fake fossils are difficult to identify as such (sometimes even by experts) and are sold at higher The potential economic value of geological specimens in prices to museums and educational institutions, which ulti‑ many local communities constitutes another serious issue mately include them in their exhibits as real fossils (Budik concerning illegal collecting. This issue may be source of and Turek 2003). controversy (of particular importance when specimens come The production of fossil replicas with a licit aim may from conflict zones; see Barret and Johanson 2020; Haug decrease the pressure on limited outcrops and can constitute et al. 2020; Rayfield et al. 2020), as the collection of fos‑ an economic alternative for local communities. sils, minerals and meteorites becomes a source of income for poor families in rural areas of some countries. Without Mineral and fossil shows: an educational occasion other alternatives, this activity is the only resource available or an incentive for smuggling of geological for non-educated people, and it guarantees a regular income. specimens? In many places, like in the Tafilalet region (Morocco, North Africa), there is a real risk that search for fossils for Mineral and fossil fairs/festivals/shows are organised all commercial purposes and associated massive digs may lead over the world. Some of them have already a worldwide to the rapid destruction of sites and loss of key specimens of recognition, such as the Bourse Internationale aux Miné‑ scientific importance (Gutiérrez-Marco and García-Bellido raux et Fossiles de Millau (France) or the Tucson Gem 2018; Gutiérrez-Marco 2020). However, the same uncon‑ and Mineral Show of Arizona (USA), this latter gathering trolled trade of fossils can also bring a benefit for science, around 4000 trade companies each year. Smaller events are as the massive exploitation of fossiliferous layers leads to frequently organised by universities and museums, with the 13 69 Page 8 of 16 Geoheritage (2021) 13:69 Fig. 3  Traditional selling of minerals and fossils. The “giant ammonite” can be considered as an example of traditional local handcraft in Morocco (North Africa) participation of for-profit professional sellers who display in remote areas and commonly from poor countries properly and sell beautifully preserved specimens (Fig. 4). paid for their work? Are there fossil and mineral sites with While these events may have an educational character, high scientific relevance being lost due to over-collecting raising awareness of the public for a usually less known to feed the international market? Are the administrations natural world and eventually stimulating young people to aware of the fact that that their natural heritage is going out follow a geoscientific career, everyone watching these speci‑ of the country? Do these countries collect taxes as they do mens should ask themselves about their provenance (see, for for any other commercial activities? Geoscientific and aca‑ example, https://​previ​ew.​sprin​ger.​com/​us/​edito​rial-​polic​ies/​ demic organisations that sometimes co-sponsor these events resea​rch-​invol​ving-​palae​ontol​ogical-​and-​geolo​gical-​mater​ should be engaged in promoting the exhibition and selling of ial, for Springer policies involving provenance information geological specimens with a geoethical certificate. of palaeontological and geological specimens). In other Commercial collecting and the market in fossils (and words, the fact that there are commercial mineral and fossil other geological specimens) is one of the most complex fairs does not mean that we should not raise the questions aspects affecting geological heritage (Page 2018) and raise about legal and ethical implications of this activity. Under many interesting observations. Indeed, there is a dichotomy the geoethical perspective, these events may raise some of views in the professional or academic community on pertinent questions that should be seriously considered by this matter which should not be ignored. On the one hand, their organisers: Were the specimens collected following the a benefit of the increasing global market for fossils is that national legislation in each country? Were local collectors many critically important specimens, especially vertebrates Fig. 4  Example of international fair displaying a variety of mineral and fossil specimens to sell. Bourse aux Minéraux et Fossiles de Millau (France) 2016. Photo by F. A. Ferratges 13 Geoheritage (2021) 13:69 Page 9 of 16 69 but also relevant invertebrates (as in the case of Palaeozoic and hence allowed to export—so it is unclear which law has material from Morocco; see Gutiérrez-Marco and García- priority. Second, the actual situation in Myanmar in terms of Bellido 2018), are purchased by major museums from col‑ human welfare is complex, since rival political factions have lectors and traders—so this market ultimately constitutes engaged in armed conflict for the control of some mines, the main source of income of many local people (including resulting in civilian casualties and human right abuses (since miners and diggers, artisans that prepare and restore fossils). amber sometimes is mined in hazardous conditions). This is In parallel, the development of this fossil industry contrib‑ a serious ethical issue because commercial trading of amber utes to a massive exploration (involving many commer‑ in some zones may fuel and finance armed conflict. The cial collectors and dealers, some of them with astonishing troubling situation surrounding Burmese amber is complex, skills in discovering fossils) and exploitation of outcrops, and a wave of reactions with pros and cons of dealing with which constantly brings to light hundreds of new discover‑ these fossils have circulated recently (see the US Society of ies that otherwise would not have been found, especially Vertebrate Paleontology SVP article by Rayfield et al. 2020 if considering the shortage of professional palaeontologists and the rebuttal by Haug et al. 2020). Although there have (Gutiérrez-Marco and García-Bellido 2018). Many com‑ not been any substantial developments on this issue yet, and mercial collectors and dealers have an amazing ability to confronted opinions exist, the Burmese amber is a genuinely prepare specimens out of the rock, whereas most museums outstanding case from which some sort of ethical standards have significantly cut down their lab staff—which has the should be implemented. These should include recommenda‑ added benefit of making palaeontological research quicker tions to deal with this type of fossils and promote fruitful and easier. On the other hand, as in other cases of com‑ discussion towards an understanding of the reality on the mercial activity, such practises raise serious ethical ques‑ ground in Myanmar, involving the broader palaeontological tions when considered in the context of geoconservation community as well as local stakeholders. and legislation/regulation. As an example, governmental regulations of some countries (e.g. Brazil) prohibit selling Mining industry and development works: a threat fossils, and consequently museums should not be allowed to or an opportunity? buy specimens from these countries. The sale of Brazilian fossils in fairs, shops and museum shops is clearly illegal, Mining and urban development can have a significant impact though it does take place. Another negative impact is that, on geosites. In many cases, these in situ occurrences must while moving the natural heritage from its original country be subject to geoconservation strategies or, at least, to rea‑ to another country (e.g. to be part of a permanent collection soned discussion (from the geoethical viewpoint) between of a museum) can be legal, it may be unfair and unethical geoscience professionals, government agencies and local as it leads to the situation that museums from first world administrations. countries have access to the best specimens while museums In Spain, the planning of a new dam in the Santaliestra- from less wealthy countries only keep the low-value speci‑ Campo area (province of Huesca) put at risk many natural mens. Finally, while intensive exploitation contributes to the features, including physical (water and soil), biotic (fauna advance of palaeontological science through new discover‑ and flora) and palaeontological (fossils) values. The planned ies, this activity is carried out without excavation permits, reservoir would have flooded 250 hectares of the Ésera River and it inevitably leads to the massive loss of fossil-bearing valley, thereby affecting the parastratotypes of two geo‑ sites and rocks, which in many cases contain more valuable logical stages (the Ilerdian [Schaub 1969] and the Cuisian information than the fossil itself. [Schaub 1992]) of extreme importance for the Eocene epoch The trade of Burmese (South East Asia) amber deserves (Fig. 6). In spite of intense pressure from politicians, stake‑ special attention, since fossils preserved in amber are not holders and the construction industry to build the dam, the only scientifically priceless but also an extremely conten‑ perception of the negative impacts by geoscientists, the local tious issue. As an overview, fossils preserved in amber have administration and residents of the village of Santaliestra provided palaeontologists with an extraordinary glimpse into led to question the building of the reservoir and to take legal the Cretaceous period. These consist of exquisitely well- action. Eventually, the social and geoscientific opposition preserved fossils (e.g. insects and plants, vertebrates such as promoted the suspension of all development works. Con‑ birds, lizards, snakes and frogs, or even the feathered tail of a sidering various technical, geological and palaeontological dinosaur) (Fig. 5) that have resulted in hundreds of scientific reports (Gayubar et al. 2001), the Spanish National Court publications. The Burmese fossil-rich collection involves, declared the construction project of the Santaliestra reservoir however, legal problems and ethical issues. First, the Myan‑ as illegal and the project was stopped. mar national legislation regarding fossil protection is poten‑ However, mining activities and development works may tially misleading since exporting fossils without permission also give access to rocky massifs where new geological is technically illegal, but amber is considered as a gemstone occurrences with geoheritage relevance are identified (Brilha 13 69 Page 10 of 16 Geoheritage (2021) 13:69 Fig. 5  Example of Mid-Cretaceous Burmese amber and fossils. g, feathered dinosaurs) from Myanmar amber mines (h, i). Pictures Extraordinarily preserved angiosperm flowers (a), lacewings, wasps courtesy of the Myanmar Amber Museum and ants (b–d), snails (e), and vertebrate remains (f, lizard/gecko; and 2015). Mining of fossiliferous formations often leads to the of Late Cretaceous (ca. 70–80 Ma) dinosaur fossils thanks discovery of new species. The same applies to mineralogical to the works carried out for the construction of new high- heritage, as many mineral samples with scientific value are speed railway (Ortega et al 2008; Barroso-Barcenilla only available because mining exploitation brought those et al. 2009). There were no signs of any fossils in the sur‑ samples to the surface. Without mining, many of these rel‑ roundings, but a new palaeontological heritage site came evant specimens would have remained undiscovered and to light. Fortunately, the railway works stopped to facili‑ completely unknown to science. tate the identification, documentation and protection of The palaeontological site of Lo Hueco (in Central-East fossils. After this research, it was possible to introduce a Spain) is a good example of potential conflict between change in the railway planning in order to protect the site. infrastructure development and preservation of palaeonto‑ This was an exceptional example of cooperation between logical heritage, with an eventual mutual benefit. In 2007, the company ADIF (Administrador de Infraestructuras this site yielded an enormous and unusual concentration 13 Geoheritage (2021) 13:69 Page 11 of 16 69 Fig. 6  Example of mining industry and development works. Panoramic view of two Eocene (Ilerdian and Cuisian) paratratotypes (outcrops in the middle of the picture) near the Ésera River valley (North East Spain) that were planned to be flooded and affected by devel‑ opment works and the building of a dam Ferroviarias) and palaeontologists, with mutual benefit and vandalise fossils and minerals, contributing to the loss of for the government, the society and the conservation of the site value and consequently to a decrease of the number heritage. of visitors. A similar case is the late Miocene (ca. 9 Ma) locality In geological sites, there is always a risk that tourists will of Cerro de los Batallones (in Central Spain), which was collect fossils, rocks, minerals, etc. What if this activity is discovered accidentally in 1991 thanks to mining works allowed in informal sites or ‘fossil parks’ where visitors in a sepiolite quarry (Morales and Baquedano 2017), and appreciate the opportunity to work as a palaeontologist? the late Miocene–early Pliocene site of Langebaanweg ‘E’ Despite that fossil parks may have an educational character, Quarry (South Africa), found in a phosphate quarry (Hendey one should question the ambiguous message they send con‑ 1989). Both sites are considered today as some of the most cerning geoconservation. renowned localities for their significant fossil remains. Another example of potential geoethics issues focused on tourism refers to Global Boundary Stratotype Sections and Should all geological sites be available Points (GSSPs), which are reference points on stratigraphic to geotourism? sections of rocks that define the lower boundaries of stages on the geologic time scale. The International Commission on There is increasing interest on geotourism, both by promot‑ Stratigraphy (ICS) is the scientific body that maintains the ers and visitors (Dowling 2011; Štrba et al. 2018). The 161 international GSSP register. Its primary objective is to define UNESCO Global Geoparks are strongly supported on geo‑ global units (systems, series and stages), which are the basis tourism, as it promotes the visit to geological features, not for the units (periods, epochs and age) of the International only focused on geological interpretation but also on the Geological Time Scale. The definition of these global geo‑ links that can be established between these features and the standards is key to express the history of the Earth, and biological and cultural character of communities. Geological there are a number of ethical considerations on the GSSPs sites with high aesthetic value, good accessibility and safe (see Page 2004, Page and Wimbledon 2008, and Page and visiting conditions can be converted into touristic attractions Meléndez 1995 for particular cases of Jurassic GSSPs with with high potential to generate an economic activity. palaeontological and stratigraphical importance). However, the scenario here presented arises some ques‑ A first obvious problem is the increasing cumulative tions and opens many interesting problems: What about if a impacts of researchers and visitors on stratigraphic sections geological site with high geotourism potential is vulnerable and the surrounding geological environment (e.g. in the form due to an intrinsic fragility of the geological element, or due of touching and climbing on landforms, congestion, access to possible physical degradation caused, intentionally or not, to restricted areas and the creation of informal trails, adding by visitors? Should a manager open a certain geological site graffiti on rocks), a fact that is indeed promoted by the easy to visitors when it is not possible to guarantee its conserva‑ access and general connectivity to these areas of extraordi‑ tion? Fossil and mineral sites are a good example of this nary scientific value. The Spanish Zumaia flysch section, in dilemma. Many sites have the potential to attract visitors but, the Basque Coast UNESCO Global Geopark ‘Geoparkea’, without proper conservation measures, visitors may collect is one of the best examples of well-managed GSSPs (Finney 13 69 Page 12 of 16 Geoheritage (2021) 13:69 Fig. 7  The Zumaia section in the Basque Coast UNESCO Global Geopark (North Spain). Example of cumulative impact of researchers and visitors on a reference section for the Creta‑ ceous and the Paleogene. Photo by A. Hilario and Hilario 2017) (Fig. 7). In addition to two formal GSSPs Decisions on the formal definition on GSSPs follow well- (for the bases of the Selandian and the Thanetian stages of established voting procedures within ICS, whose voting the Paleogene; Schmitz et al. 2011) and an almost continu‑ members, officers, subcommissions and task groups are ous record from the Cretaceous to the Eocene that allows to maintain the integrity of the voting process when votes unique, long-term palaeontological and palaeoclimate stud‑ are taken. After a discussion period, any formal proposals ies (Alegret and Ortiz 2010), two globally important bound‑ for stratigraphic standards like GSSPs, formal stratigraphic aries are also exposed along this section: (1) the Cretaceous- stage names and units of other ranks are voted within a given Paleogene boundary (ca. 66 Ma), linked to a major mass ICS subcommission, ratified by ICS, and then by IUGS. In extinction, has been extensively studied at Zumaia (Arz et al. this regard, ICS has a role to play, carefully scrutinising pro‑ 1999; Arenillas et al. 2004) and was designed as an auxiliary posals, checking that the principles and processes embedded section of the GSSP for the base of the Danian (Molina et al. in the commission are followed and finally making robust 2009), and (2) the Paleocene-Eocene boundary (ca. 56 Ma), and testable decisions. linked to the largest warming event of the Caenozoic, has also been largely studied at Zumaia (Molina et al. 1999; Replications of (show) caves: a way to promote Alegret et al. 2009; Dunkley Jones et al. 2018), and it was tourist attraction or a loss of value? proposed as a candidate to host the GSSP for the base of the Ypressian (Canudo and Molina 1992). The Zumaia section Cave tourism (i.e. speleotourism) in karst sites is one of the is a clear example of international recognition of geological most popular nature attractions worldwide, like the Postojna heritage, integral management and sustainable use. After an Cave in Slovenia and the Mammoth Cave in the USA (Tičar agreement signed by ICS and the local government, the local et al. 2018) or the Cacahuamilpa Cave in Mexico (Palacio- authorities are in charge of surveillance and maintenance Prieto and Gómez-Aguado de Alba 2014). The underground of the outcrop (affected by continuous coastal erosion), of environment raises a great curiosity among children and the marker plaques and golden spikes that mark the GSSPs, adults due to uncommon landforms such as stalactites and and of its accessibility. The geopark provides specific sam‑ stalagmites and rock paintings. Because speleotourism pling permits for the > 100 scientists that work in the outcrop brings significant economic profit, during the twentieth every year to ensure that highly valued geological features century, many caves were heavily adjusted to receive a high are not damaged, and the locals are so aware of the relevance (and growing) number of tourists. These development works of this section that they warn the authorities when scientists often introduced a great and sometimes irreversible degrada‑ approach the outcrops. The local population is well aware tion of the geological features and of the natural environment of the scientific and economic importance of the section, of the underground systems, particularly through changes as the geopark welcomes almost 20.000 visitors per year in the accessibility and visiting conditions, like paved trails, and offers geological tours, activities related to the local tra‑ artificial lightning, music and even artificial structures such ditions, architecture and gastronomy; visits to the Algorri as stairs and benches (Fig. 8). interpretation centre, the Nautilus museum and Arrietakua Nowadays, this type of development can be considered mansion (historical heritage); etc. unacceptable due to the level of fragility existing inside Other ethical issues involving the selection of strati‑ caves and the great ease to induce changes in their local graphic reference sections include the falsification or omis‑ biodiversity. From here, it emerges a major issue for the sion of data by researchers, as well as sampling without per‑ conservation of caves and the development of speleotour‑ mission of the landowner or the corresponding authorities. ism: Should a cave be prepared to receive as much public 13 Geoheritage (2021) 13:69 Page 13 of 16 69 Fig. 8  Example of replication of cave. Cacahuamilpa Cave, the most visited cave in Guer‑ rero (Mexico), discovered in 1883 and with about 350.000 visitors per year (Palacio-Prieto and Gómez-Aguado de Alba 2014), is part of the Grutas de Cacahuamilpa National Park, one of the largest cave systems in the world (and types of public, e.g. students, children, adults, disa‑ In response to this situation, we introduce and formally bled people) as possible, allowing all the society to have define for the first time the concept of ‘palaeontoethics’ (or an underground experience of high rarity? Or should it be paleontoethics). Palaeontoethics is the ‘branch of geoethics kept instead in the most natural state possible, limiting its that consists of research and reflection on the values that accessibility and use to a smaller group of visitors? While underpin a correct behaviour and practice while collecting, the former requires an artificialisation of the cave for its handling, researching, and exhibiting fossils. Palaeontoeth‑ utilisation and development, the latter implies a more real‑ ics promotes the analysis of ethical problems and dilemmas istic experience to visitors and causes much less impact in that arise in different geological, economical, social, and geo- and biodiversity. As with most other classes of geo‑ cultural contexts which affect the management, conserva‑ logical heritage, prior to the decision, it is necessary to put tion, and popularization of fossils’. It is the union of the into practice geoethics values in order to achieve a balance prefix palaios ‘old, ancient’, and the words on (gen. ontos) between tourism development and protection of the caves. ‘being, creature’ and ēthike ‘moral principles’, thus mean‑ ing the reflection of what is morally right concerning fos‑ sils. This first proposal of the term palaeontoethics provides An introduction and a formal definition the framework needed to understand ethical standards to be of the new concept of palaeontoethics applied in palaeontology. As outlined above, there is increasing number of concerns about ethics in palaeontology that are particularly urgent to Conclusion debate. For instance, what is legal and/or ethical to do, espe‑ cially in terms of acquisition and curation of fossil speci‑ During the last decade, the growing impact of humans on mens and subsequent publications. geoheritage has been specially recognised and documented, The concept of ethics applied to palaeontology has leading to a clear emergence of geoconservation and geo‑ recently gained much ground in scientific conferences and ethics within the geosciences. Nevertheless, our community debates and is acquiring a wholly new significance, opening needs further discussion about which are the main geoethical up new areas of research and discussion. Yet, surprisingly, dilemmas related with the conservation and management of our literature search indicates that a generally accepted and in situ occurrences (geosites) and ex situ elements (fossils, precise definition of ethics in palaeontology as a concept is minerals and rocks). missing. In recent months, the term ‘palaeoethics’ as alter‑ Common issues concerning the commercial exploita‑ native to palaeontology ethics has been invoked informally tion of geological specimens, irresponsible/illegal col‑ in online forums and workshops. However, this concept is lecting or the impact of mining and urban development, inappropriate from an etymological viewpoint because the among others, are often subject of scant attention, while prefix palaeo- simply refers to something old or ancient, these contexts lead to conflict and promote damage to the so ultimately palaeoethics would mean ‘old/ancient ethics’ most sensitive elements of the geological record. The cases and would encompass issues from various fields or disci‑ here examined from diverse perspectives highlight that an plines not necessarily associated with palaeontology. This ethical conscience and more adequate practices—including is why it is important to propose a clear, precise and unam‑ more statutory protection and management measures—in biguous definition of what ethics in palaeontology means, research and professional/amateur activities are necessary in line and consistent with the definition of geoethics, which to ensure the conservation and transmission of geological will ultimately benefit research, practice and education in heritage for future generations. We identify the trade of palaeontology. geological specimens as a particularly problematic case 13 69 Page 14 of 16 Geoheritage (2021) 13:69 in the context of geoconservation and human rights and Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri‑ needs, given the clear dichotomy of views. However, there bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta‑ tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long are ways of objectively and scientifically evaluating the as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, effects of such activity. provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes The preservation of fossils and palaeontological sites were made. The images or other third party material in this article are emerges as one of the most problematic and complex aspects included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in of geoconservation. Fossils are among the most threatened the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not elements of geodiversity, as they can be very attractive as permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will collectable and commercial objects, which cause inevitable need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a conservation consequences. In recent years, the proliferation copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/. of concerns about ethics in palaeontology has changed our view about the protection and management of palaeonto‑ logical heritage. This requires a formal definition and clear References understanding of what ethics in palaeontology means, which Alcalá L, Morales J (1994) Towards a definition of Spanish palaeonto‑ ultimately can provide benefits for research, practice and logical heritage. In: O’Halloran D, Green C, Harley M, Stanley M, education. With this aim in mind, we propose a new term: Knill J (eds) Geological and Landscape Conservation. Geological ‘palaeontoethics’. The core concept is that human activity Society, London, pp 57–61 can lead to particular ethical dilemmas that affect fossils Alegret L, Ortiz S (2010) El corte de Zumaya (España): registro de los foraminíferos bentónicos del Paleógeno inferior. Rev Mex Cienc and, by extension, palaeontological heritage. Through the Geol 27:477–489 definition of palaeontoethics, we propose a word to be used Alegret L, Ortiz S, Orue-Etxebarria X, Bernaola G, Baceta JI, Monechi and easily understood with the ultimate purpose of avoiding S, Apellaniz E, Pujalte V (2009) The paleocene-eocene thermal a confusing melee of uses and raising awareness of geoethics maximum: new data from the microfossil turnover at the Zumaia section, Spain. Palaios 24:318–328 applied to palaeontological heritage. Antić A, Peppoloni S, Di Capua G (2020) Applying the values of geo‑ ethics for sustainable speleotourism development. Geoheritage Acknowledgements Authors hugely thank G. Meléndez, who has 12:73 recently retired, for his valuable contribution to the study and conser‑ Arenillas I, Arz JA, Molina E (2004) A new high-resolution plank‑ vation of the geological and palaeontological heritage and for starting tic foraminiferal zonation and subzonation for the lower Danian. fruitful work in the framework of geoethics. We are indebted to Editor- Lethaia 37:79–95 in-Chief K. N. Page and two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions Arz JA, Arenillas I, Molina E (1999) Extinción de foraminíferos and constructive comments on a previous version of this paper. Authors planctónicos en el tránsito Cretácico-Terciario de Zumaya also thank R. Long (curator) and the Myanmar Amber Museum, F. (Guipúzcoa): ¿supervivencia o reelaboración? Rev Esp Micropal A. Ferratges and A. Hilario for giving permission to reproduce their 31(3):297–304 images. Finally, we would like to thank S. Peppoloni and G. Di Capua Barret P, Johanson Z (2020) Myanmar amber fossils: a legal as well as for helpful suggestions and fruitful discussion regarding the concept ethical quagmire. Nature 586(7831):674–674 of palaeontoethics. Barroso-Barcenilla F, Cambra-Moo O, Escaso F, Ortega F, Pascual A, Pérez-García A, Rodríguez-Lázaro J, Sanz JL, Segura M, Torices Funding This work was supported by the Government of Aragon A (2009) New and exceptional discovery in the Upper Cretaceous (Reference Group E33_17R, co-financed with FEDER 2014–2020 of the Iberian Peninsula: the palaeontological site of “Lo Hueco”, ‘Building Europe from Aragon’, and Reference Group E33_20R), Cuenca, Spain. Cretac Res 30(5):1268–1278 and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and Brilha J (2015) Mining and geoconservation. In: Tiess G, Majumder FEDER funds (PGC2018-093890-B-I00 and PID2019-105537RB- T, Cameron P (eds) Encyclopedia of mineral and energy policy. I00). The study has been performed within the framework of the Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978- GOAL (Geoethics Outcomes and Awareness Learning) project (ref. 3-​642-​40871-7_​9-1 2p 2017–1-PTO1-KA203-035790). Brilha J (2018) Geoheritage: inventories and evaluation. In: Reynard E, Brilha J (eds) Geoheritage: assessment, protection and manage‑ Availability of data and materials Not applicable. ment. Elsevier, Chennai, pp 69–85 Brilha J (2021) Geoheritage. In: Elias S, Alderton D (eds) Encyclope‑ dia of geology, 2nd edn. Elsevier, pp 569–578. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ Code availability Not applicable. 1016/​B978-0-​12-​409548-​9.​12106-2 Brilha J, Gray M, Pereira DI, Pereira P (2018) Geodiversity: an integra‑ Declarations tive review as a contribution to the sustainable management of the whole of nature. Environ Sci Policy 86:19–28 Ethics approval Not applicable. Bobrowsky P, Cronin V, Di Capua G, Kieffer S, Peppoloni S (2017) The emerging field of geoethics. In: Gundersen LC (ed) Scientific Consent to participate N/A integrity and ethics: with applications to the geosciences (Special Publication 73). American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, Consent for publication Not applicable. pp 175–212 Budik P, Turek V (2003) Trilobitenland Tschechien. Officiel Kata‑ log der 40. Mineralientage München GEOFA Deutsche Geo- Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests. Fachmesse. Fachhändlertag 31:94–99 13 Geoheritage (2021) 13:69 Page 15 of 16 69 Canudo JI, Molina E (1992) Planktic foraminiferal faunal turnover of some special sites affected by human activity in Aragón (East‑ and bio-chronostratigraphy of the Paleocene-Eocene boundary ern Spain). In: O’Halloran D, Green C, Harley M, Stanley M, at Zumaya, northern Spain. Rev Soc Geol Esp 5(1–2):145–157 Knill J (eds) Geological and landscape conservation. The geologi‑ Di Capua G, Peppoloni S (2019) Defining geoethics. Website of the cal society, London, pp 329–334 IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics. http://​ Meléndez G, Soria-Llop C (2000a) El debate del patrimonio paleon‑ www.​geoet​hics.​org/​defin​ition tológico en España: el papel de la sociedad, las administraciones Dowling R (2011) Geotourism’s Global Growth. Geoheritage 3:1–13 públicas y los paleontólogos. Geotemas 1(2):317–320 Dunkley Jones T, Manners H, Hoggett M, Kirkland Turner S, West‑ Meléndez G, Soria-Llop C (2000b) Protecting the palaeontological erhold T, Leng MJ, Pancost RD, Ridgwell A, Alegret L, Duller heritage in Spain: public awareness and legislation, and the role R, Grimes ST (2018) Dynamics of sediment flux to a bathyal of the Spanish palaeontological society. In: Barettino D, Wimble‑ continental margin section through the paleocene–eocene thermal don WAP, Gallego E (eds) Geological heritage: its conservation maximum. Clim past 14:1035–1049 and management. Instituto Tecnológico Geominero de España, Finney SC, Hilario A (2017) GSSPs as international geostandards and Madrid, pp 185–201 as global geoheritage. In: Reynard E, Brilha J (eds) Geoheritage: Molina E, Arenillas I, Pardo E (1999) High resolution plank‑ assessment, protection, and management. Elsevier, Chennai, pp tic foraminiferal biostratigraphy and correlation across the 179–189 Paleocene/Eocene boundary in the Tethys. Bull Soc Géol Fr Foss SE (2019) Geoethics in the Field: Leading by Example. Earth 174(4):521–530 8:8–10 Molina E, Alegret L, Arenillas I, Arz JA, Gallala N, Grajales- Gayubar A, Arenillas I, Molina E (2001) Santaliestra: Un paraíso Nishimura M, Murillo-Muñetón G, Zaghbib-Turki D (2009) The geológico y paleontológico amenazado. Nat Arag 7:29–35 global boundary stratotype section and point for the base of Gordon JE (2019) Geoconservation principles and protected area man‑ the Danian stage (paleocene, paleogene, “tertiary”, cenozoic): agement. Int J Geoheritage Parks 7:199–210 auxiliary sections and correlation. Episodes 32(2):84–95 Gray M (2013) Geodiversity: valuing and conserving abiotic nature, Morales J, Baquedano E (2017) La colina de los Tigres Dientes de 2nd edn. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester, p xi + 495 Sable: Los yacimientos miocenos del Cerro de los Batallones Gutiérrez-Marco JC (2020) Recherche géologique, géoconservation et (Torrejón de Velasco, Comunidad de Madrid). Obra Social La exploitation commerciale des sites fossilifères. Actes de la Session Caixa. CSIC, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Museo Plénière Solennelle, Académie Hassan II des Sciences et Tech‑ Arqueológico Regional. Comunidad de Madrid. 600 pp niques, Rabat, 25–27 février 2020, 107–140 Ortega F, Sanz, JL, Barroso-Barcenilla F, Cambra-Moo O, Escaso F, Gutiérrez-Marco JC, García-Bellido DC (2018) The international fossil García-Oliva M, Marcos-Fernández F (2008) El yacimiento de trade from the Paleozoic of the Anti-Atlas, Morocco. In: Hunter macrovertebrados fósiles del Cretácico Superior de "Lo Hueco" AW, Álvaro JJ, Lefebvre B, Van Roy P, Zamora S (eds) The great (Fuentes, Cuenca). In: Steve J, Meléndez, G (eds) Paleontológica ordovician biodiversification event: insights from the Tafilalt Nova (IV EJIP), Universidad de Zaragoza, Publicaciones del Biota, Morocco, Geological Society, London, Special Publica‑ Seminario de Paleontología de Zaragoza, SEPAZ, 8, pp 119–131 tions, pp 1–28 Page KN (2004) The protection of Jurassic sites and fossils: challenges Haug JT, Azar D, Ross A et al (2020) Comment on the letter of the for global Jurassic science (including a proposed statement on the society of vertebrate paleontology (SVP) dated April 21, 2020 conservation of palaeontological heritage and stratotypes). Riv regarding “fossils from conflict zones and reproducibility of Ital Paleontol Stratigr 110(1):373–379 fossil-based scientific data”: Myanmar amber. PalZ 94:431–437 Page KN (2018) Fossils, heritage and conservation: managing demands Hendey QB (1989) Langebaanweg: a record of past life. South African on a precious resource. In: Reynard E, Brilha J (eds) Geoheritage: Museum, Cape Town, 71 pp assessment, protection, and management. Elsevier, Chennai, pp Henriques MH, Pena dos Reis R, Brilha J, Mota TS (2011) Geoconser‑ 107–128 vation as an emerging geoscience. Geoheritage 3:117–128 Page KN, Wimbledon W (2008) The conservation of Jurassic heritage Henriques MH, Pena dos Reis R (2015) Framing the palaeontologi‑ in the UK - a critical review of the role of governmental organisa‑ cal heritage within the geological heritage: an integrative vision. tions and their effectiveness. Volumina Jurassica 6:163–173 Geoheritage 7:249–259 Page KN, Meléndez G (1995) Protecting the Jurassic: global boundary Henriques MH, Pena dos Reis R (2019) Improving geoconservation of stratotypes and conservation. Geol Today 11(6):226–228 the palaeontological heritage through a semiotic vision. Spanish Page KN, Meléndez G, Gonera M (1999) Protected sites or protected J Palaeontol 34(1):95–102 heritage? – Systems and opinions for palaeontological conserva‑ Jones ED (2020) Assumptions of authority: the story of Sue the T-rex tion from a trans-European perspective. In: Barettino D, Vallejo and controversy over access to fossils. Hist Philos Life Sci 42:2 M, Gallego E (eds) Towards the balanced management and con‑ Liston JJ, You H-L (2015) Chinese fossil protection law and the illegal servation of the geological heritage in the new millenium. Socie‑ export of vertebrate fossils from China. J Vertebr Paleontol 35:1–7 dad Geológica de España, Madrid, pp 45–51 Manni R (2012) Paleontological Museums and Geoethics. Ann Geo‑ Palacio-Prieto JL, Gómez-Aguado de Alba GC (2014) Caverns and phys 55(3):469–472 geotourism in Mexico: the case of the Cacahuamilpa Cavern. Int Mayer T (2015) Research integrity: the bedrock of the geosciences. In: J Geoheritage 2(1):56–64 Wyss M, Peppoloni S (eds) Geoethics: ethical challenges and case Peppoloni S, Di Capua G (2015) Geoethics, the role and responsibility studies in earth sciences. Elsevier, Waltham, pp 71–81 of geoscientists. Geological Society of London, Special Publica‑ Matteucci R, Gosso G, Peppoloni S, Piacente S, Wasowski J (2014) tions, 419. 187 pp The geoethical promise: a proposal. Episodes 37(3):190–191 Peppoloni S, Di Capua G (2016) Geoethics: ethical, social, and cultural Mazák JH (2012) Retraction for Christiansen and Mazák, a primitive values in geosciences research, practice, and education. In: Wessel late pliocene cheetah, and evolution of the cheetah lineage. Proc G, Greenberg J (eds) Geoscience for the public good and global Natl Acad Sci USA 109(37):15072 development: toward a sustainable future, Geological Society of Meléndez G (2018) Palaeontological heritage in Spain: from conserva‑ America, special paper 520, 17–21 tion to education. Geoheritage 10(3):341–342 Peppoloni S, Di Capua G (2020) Geoethics as global ethics to face Meléndez G, Soria M (1994) The legal framework and scientific proce‑ grand challenges for humanity. In: Di Capua G, Brobowsky dure for the protection of palaeontological sites in Spain: recovery PT, Kieffer SW, Palinkas C (eds) Geoethics: status and future 13 69 Page 16 of 16 Geoheritage (2021) 13:69 perspectives. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, W, Bernaola G, Caballero F, Clemmensen A, Dinarès-Turell J, 508, 1–17 Dupuis Ch, Heilmann-Clausen C, Hilario A, Knox R, Martín- Peppoloni S, Bilham N, Di Capua G (2019) Contemporary geoethics Rubio M, Ortiz S, Payros A, Petrizzio MR, von Salis K, Speijer within the geosciences. In: Bohle M (ed) Exploring geoethics: R, Sprong R, Steurbaut E, Thomsen E (2011) The global boundary ethical implications, societal contexts, and professional obliga‑ stratotype sections and points for the bases of the Selandian (mid‑ tions of the geosciences. Palgrave Pivot, pp 25–7 dle paleocene) and Thanetian (upper paleocene) stages at Zumaia, Prosser CD, Brown EJ, Larwood JG, Bridgland DR (2013) Geocon‑ Spain. Episodes 34(4):220–243 servation for science and society – an agenda for the future. Proc Štrba L, Krsak B, Sidor C (2018) Some comments to geosite assess‑ Geol Assoc 124:561–567 ment, visitors, and geotourism sustainability. Sustainability Rayfield EJ, Theodor JM, Polly PD (2020) Fossils from conflict zones 10:2589. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su100​82589 and reproducibility of fossil-based scientific data. Society of Ver‑ Tičar J, Tomić N, Valjavec MB, Zorn M, Marković SB, Gavrilov MB tebrate Paleontology (SVP), letter, 21/04/2020 (2018) Speleotourism in Slovenia: balancing between mass tour‑ Ripple JW, Wolf C, Newsome TM, Barnard P, Moomaw WR (2020) ism and geoheritage protection. Open Geosci 10(1):344–357 World scientists’ warning of a climate emergency. Bioscience Tortell PD (2020) Earth 2020: Science, society, and sustainability in 70(1):8–12 the anthropocene. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 117:8683–8691 Robinson E (2001) In defence of the amateur collector. In: Bassett Triebold M (2007) Fossils: new journal will oppose illegal trade. MG, King AH, Larwood JG, Parkinson NA, Deisler VK (eds) A Nature 446:136 future for fossils, national museum of wales geological series No. Wang X (2013) Mortgaging the future of Chinese paleontology. Proc 19, Cardiff: 76–79 Natl Acad Sci USA 110(9):3201 Schaub H (1969) L’Illerdien, état actuel du problème. Mémoire Du Wiedmann T, Lenzen M, Keyßer LT, Steinberger JK (2020) Scientists’ BRGM 69:256–266 Warning on Affluence. Nat Commun 11:3107 Schaub H (1992) The campo section (NE Spain), a tethyan parastratro‑ Wimbledon WAP, Smith-Meyers S (2012) Geoheritage in Europe and type of the Cuisian. Neues Jahrb Geol Palaontol Abh 186:63–70 its conservation. ProGEO, Oslo Schmitz B, Pujalte V, Molina E, Monechi S, Orue-Etxebarria X, Ale‑ Zhou Z-H, Clarke JA, Zhang F (2002) Archaeoraptor’s better half. gret L, Apellaniz E, Arenillas I, Aubry MP, Baceta JI, Berggren Nature 420:285–285 13