Earth heritage: World heritage - Geoconservation at a local, national and global scale: making the links

Abstract

Sustainable management of fossil collecting is based on the sensitivity of the site, the available palaeontological resource and its tolerance to collecting pressure. This paper aims to assist site managers to identify a broad management approach to the sites under their control and find consensus amongst the different parties with an interest in these sites on the basic principles of palaeontological site management.

Since 1990 (revised 2005) UK sites have been classified under the Earth Science Conservation Classification (ESCC). This identifies three categories according to their character: Exposure sites, such as an eroding coastline, are sites that have a geological resource that is extensive and frequently renewed. Integrity sites tend to be geomorphological in nature. Finite sites are those where the geological resource is irreplaceable such as a cave sediment or a derelict mine dump.

The management issues within this wide range of sites are varied. Exposure sites can sustain higher collecting pressures, especially where specimen rescue through collecting may be an important part of site management and conservation. Finite sites are more sensitive and require a different approach and more restrictive management.

Collecting pressures are created by user groups including casual collectors, the serious amateurs, the professional/commercial collectors, educational groups and researchers. Each can produce different pressures on a site but these pressures must be considered in the context of the sensitivity of the site in order to achieve sustainable management. Furthermore, the relationship between scientists and collectors is important in terms of promoting an understanding of the scientific interest and conservation value. Finally, there are the interests and responsibilities of landowners, complicated by the many and varied ownership laws between countries.

A model has been developed for palaeontological site management, which challenges scientists and site managers to consider the level of collecting that is sustainable or necessary at different sites. Management must be both practical and achievable in order to be effective and this depends on a consideration of the requirements of science, conservation and the sensitivities of the site. A number of key management questions are identified and the answers point towards appropriate management. Indicators are also considered as a measure of management success. These indicators must address both the conservation of the site and the availability and destination of material of key scientific importance coming from it.

This model is illustrated using British examples and is also applied globally to palaeontological World Heritage Sites. As a follow-up from the Earth Heritage World Heritage conference (Dorset, September 2004) a discussion paper on this model will be developed on the Earth heritage: World heritage website. Please return to this page for details and links.

Your reactions to the ideas and views set out in this paper would be most useful. We have therefore prepared a questionnaire and would be grateful if you could take the time to complete it after reading the paper.

To complete the questionnaire online, or to download an editable version in a Word format, please click on the links below.

Fossil sites can be classified according to their sensitivity and this is a reflection on the size of the site or resource and the erosional processes acting on it. The same type of site may lie in a broad range within the model, depending on its sensitivity. For instance, a river cliff in a small stream section will lie toward the finite end of the scale compared with the bank of a very large river or estuary where the erosion rates will be higher.


		Sustainable site-based management of collecting pressure on palaeontological sites Richard Edmonds BSc, Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage Site, Dr Jonathan Larwood, English Nature and Dr Tony Weighell*, Joint Nature Conservation Committee c/o Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ, UK English Nature, Northminster House, Peterborough, PE1 1UA, UK * Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Monkstone House, City Road, Peterborough, PE1 1JY, UK

		Abstract Sustainable management of fossil collecting is based on the sensitivity of the site, the available palaeontological resource and its tolerance to collecting pressure. This paper aims to assist site managers to identify a broad management approach to the sites under their control and find consensus amongst the different parties with an interest in these sites on the basic principles of palaeontological site management. Since 1990 (revised 2005) UK sites have been classified under the Earth Science Conservation Classification (ESCC). This identifies three categories according to their character: Exposure sites, such as an eroding coastline, are sites that have a geological resource that is extensive and frequently renewed. Integrity sites tend to be geomorphological in nature. Finite sites are those where the geological resource is irreplaceable such as a cave sediment or a derelict mine dump. The management issues within this wide range of sites are varied. Exposure sites can sustain higher collecting pressures, especially where specimen rescue through collecting may be an important part of site management and conservation. Finite sites are more sensitive and require a different approach and more restrictive management. Collecting pressures are created by user groups including casual collectors, the serious amateurs, the professional/commercial collectors, educational groups and researchers. Each can produce different pressures on a site but these pressures must be considered in the context of the sensitivity of the site in order to achieve sustainable management. Furthermore, the relationship between scientists and collectors is important in terms of promoting an understanding of the scientific interest and conservation value. Finally, there are the interests and responsibilities of landowners, complicated by the many and varied ownership laws between countries. A model has been developed for palaeontological site management, which challenges scientists and site managers to consider the level of collecting that is sustainable or necessary at different sites. Management must be both practical and achievable in order to be effective and this depends on a consideration of the requirements of science, conservation and the sensitivities of the site. A number of key management questions are identified and the answers point towards appropriate management. Indicators are also considered as a measure of management success. These indicators must address both the conservation of the site and the availability and destination of material of key scientific importance coming from it. This model is illustrated using British examples and is also applied globally to palaeontological World Heritage Sites. As a follow-up from the Earth Heritage World Heritage conference (Dorset, September 2004) a discussion paper on this model will be developed on the Earth heritage: World heritage website. Please return to this page for details and links. To download the full paper in pdf format (file size 189 kb), click here: (http://www.geoconservation.com/EHWH/docs/fossil.pdf) Your reactions to the ideas and views set out in this paper would be most useful. We have therefore prepared a questionnaire and would be grateful if you could take the time to complete it after reading the paper. To complete the questionnaire online, or to download an editable version in a Word format, please click on the links below. Online: http://www.geoconservation.com/EHWH/Docs/fossilqus.htm Word format: http://www.geoconservation.com/EHWH/Docs/fossilqus.doc (please return completed questionnaires to GeoConference@jncc.gov.uk)

		Back to GCC home \| EHWH home \| Management of palaeontological sites

		Fossil sites can be classified according to their sensitivity and this is a reflection on the size of the site or resource and the erosional processes acting on it. The same type of site may lie in a broad range within the model, depending on its sensitivity. For instance, a river cliff in a small stream section will lie toward the finite end of the scale compared with the bank of a very large river or estuary where the erosion rates will be higher.

			Some examples *Finite sites*

			Naracoorte Caves World Heritage Site, Australia Cave deposits are typically the most sensitive sites. The amount of material is very limited, and once removed, can never be replaced. However, due to the small size of these sites and the restricted access, they can be controlled.

			Writhlington: A disused mine tip A disused coal mine tip rich in fossils. Although a finite site, the material is relatively inaccessible until machinery is deployed to turn it over. Access can be controlled and the process of exposure is predictable, allowing events for the pubic (pictured) under the supervision of scientists.

			Horn Park: A disused quarry Quarrying has ended and from a practical point of view, the remaining fossil bed is a limited resource. This, coupled with the internationally important nature of the fossils, means that this site should be regarded as entering the ‘finite' category and treated accordingly. This is a sensitive site. Access can be controlled and should be as excessive or irresponsible fossil collecting will degrade and eventually destroy the interest.

			Exposure sites

			No specific example: A river cliffs River cliffs can vary hugely in sensitivity depending on the rate of erosion. Typically they are sensitive sites and should be managed accordingly.

			Kimmeridge coast: A Foreshore exposure Like rivers, foreshores can vary in their size, scale and sensitivity. However, they are exposure sites and fossils may require recovery to avoid destruction from the sea.

			Loders Bypass, Dorset A temporary exposure created by a road cutting in 1988. The key to these sites is to identify the likely interest in the planning stage in order to ensure specimen rescue and recording. Where such sites have the potential to expose a large amount of material, collecting effort will be required. The process of exposure is predictable and the site can be controlled so conditions can be applied to access. Health and safety are important considerations.

			Conesby Pit: A working quarry Worked up until the late 1980's, this is a man-made exposure site with very low sensitivity. The site can be policed and the process of exposure is predictable. However, the window of opportunity is long term (years) and very many fossils would be crushed without daily collecting effort. Collectors can have a role to play in these sites but conditions can be allied because the site can be policed.


			*Inland exposures*

			Ischigualasto Natural Park, Argentina Inland exposures vary hugely in their sensitivity from small, limited rock outcrops to vast desert or arctic tundra with sparse vegetation.

			The West Dorset Coast: an open coast Rapid erosion and a rich supply of fossils makes this a highly productive and robust site. The process of exposure is unpredictable, the window of opportunity is long term and access cannot be controlled. A high collecting effort is required in order to rescue the specimens from destruction but because the site cannot be policed, this can only be undertaken through a co-ooperative approach with collectors, recognising the time and effort that they invest.


		To download the full paper in pdf format (file size 189 kb), click here: (http://www.geoconservation.com/EHWH/docs/fossil.pdf)
			back to top