Abstract
What are the reasons to protect the geologic resources? Are there any ethical arguments to prevent extraction and support the “in situ” preservation of ordinary geological goods that are not covered by other legal protection regimes? And what about the geological goods which do not even have a market value because they are not economically interesting or because they are not in the market? Are not there any ethical arguments for “in situ” protection of these geological goods against development plans, programs, or projects? The legal rationale for the protection of geological goods—both with and without economic relevance—will be based on their relational value. The relational value is key to understand the fundamental reasons why people want to protect geological goods despite their non-biotic nature and regardless of their direct utility, economic value. The big question here is: how is it possible to know if and how much people care about certain geological objects or sites? The answer lays in cultural geo-ecosystem services. Recognizing the relational value of geological goods by using the ecosystem services language can help prevent conflicts and promote socially and environmentally sustainable development.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For human life, see article 3 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 2 of the 1953 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and article 2 of the 2000 Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. For non-human life see the §2 of the Preamble of the United Nations Convention on biological diversity “Conscious also of the importance of biological diversity for evolution and for maintaining life sustaining systems of the biosphere” and article I 1 (a) of the Earth Charter “recognize that all beings are interdependent and every form of life has value regardless of its worth to human beings”.
- 2.
The quantitative study carried out by van Ree et al. (2017).
- 3.
For instance, it is the case of the protection of wetlands as habitats for migratory birds, as in the 1971 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat.
- 4.
First paragraph of the Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060).
- 5.
Paragraph (1) of the Directive 2006/118 of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration (amended in 2014).
- 6.
There is no specific European directive for the protection of geological objects and sites beyond the protection granted by the Habitats directive (Council Directive 92/43 of 21 May 1992). In 2006, there was a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the protection of soil (Brussels, 22.9.2006 com (2006) 232 final 2006/0086 (cod), but it was never adopted. Nevertheless, the European Union is showing a growing interest on the subject, namely on soil protection, and even created a European Soil Data Centre (ESDAC) a thematic centre for soil-related data in Europe (https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/).
- 7.
On the non-renewable character of the soil see the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a thematic strategy for soil protection (Brussels, 22.9.2006 COM (2006)231 final).
- 8.
On the concept of fossil aquifers and their protection see Foster and Louck (2006) (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060).
- 9.
In the North American legal context, the discussion on whether natural objects should have legal standing and be allowed to go to court to defend their “subjective rights” became a classic in the history of environmental law. The trigger for this discussion was the seminal text by Stone (1972).
- 10.
This excludes geological structures having the highest historic heritage value such as Stonehenge and other megalithic monuments, but which are in fact cultural and not natural heritage.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
Article 2 of the 1972 Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage.
- 14.
The Judgment of the European Court of Justice on 11 April 2013 (case C-258/11) on the criteria to be applied when assessing the likelihood that a plan or a project will adversely affect the integrity of a site is quite illustrative in this regard: The site Lough Corrib, a karstic limestone pavement, was being threatened by the authorization of the construction of a road. The Court declared that “the implementation of the N6 Galway City Outer Bypass road scheme would result in the permanent and irreparable loss of part of the Lough Corrib SCI’s limestone pavement, which is a priority natural habitat type specially protected by the Habitats Directive”.
- 15.
Stålhammar and Thorén (2019).
- 16.
Ferry (1995).
- 17.
The 2006 Directive on groundwater stresses that protecting groundwater “is particularly important for groundwater-dependent ecosystems and for the use of groundwater in water supply for human consumption” (Paragraph (1) in fine of the Directive 2006/118 of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration (amended in 2014).
- 18.
Adam Smith’s paradox of value is illustrated by two geological resources: diamants (having high market value and low utility) and water (having low market value, highest utility) (Smith 1776).
- 19.
- 20.
- 21.
- 22.
- 23.
Regulation 1143/2014 of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species.
- 24.
Directive 2009/28/EC of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources.
- 25.
Directive 2014/89/EU of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning.
- 26.
Directive 2004/35/CE of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage.
- 27.
Regulation 1293/2013 of 11 December 2013 on the establishment of a Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE).
- 28.
The v.5.1., released on the 1st January 2018, available at https://cices.eu/.
- 29.
van Ree and van Beukering (2016).
- 30.
Judgment of the European Court of Justice on 11 April 2013 (case C-258/11).
- 31.
Article 1 of the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the protection of soil (Brussels, 22.9.2006 com(2006) 232 final 2006/0086 (cod)) already described seven functions performed by the soil without precisely associating these functions to the ecosystem services: “this Directive establishes a framework for the protection of soil and the preservation of the capacity of soil to perform any of the following environmental, economic, social and cultural functions: (a) biomass production, including in agriculture and forestry; (b) storing, filtering and transforming nutrients, substances and water; (c) biodiversity pool, such as habitats, species and genes; (d) physical and cultural environment for humans and human activities; (e) source of raw materials; (f) acting as carbon pool; (g) archive of geological and archaeological heritage”.
- 32.
This is also the opinion of van der Meulen et al. (2016).
- 33.
On the role of legal indicators for the development and effectivity of Law see Prieur (2018).
- 34.
Diaz et al. (2015).
- 35.
A picture, a movie, a painting, a sound recording, a small symbolic object, etc.
- 36.
For instance, for the identity value or “sense of place”, see Ryfield et al. (2019).
- 37.
Aragão (2019).
- 38.
On ensuring sustainable use of soil see Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a thematic strategy for soil protection (Brussels, 22.9.2006 COM (2006)231 final).
References
Aragão A (2019) When feelings become scientific facts: valuing cultural ecosystem services and taking them into account in public decision making. In: Managing facts and feelings in environmental governance. Edward Elgar, pp 53–80
Diaz S, Demissew S, Joly CA, Lonsdale WM, Larigauderie A (2015) A rosetta stone for nature’s benefits to people. PLoS Biol 13(1):e1002040
Ferry L (1995) The new ecological order. The University of Chicago Press.
Foster S, Daniel PL (eds) (2006) Non-renewable groundwater resources: a guidebook on socially sustainable management for water-policy makers. UNESCO, Paris
Prieur M (2018) Les indicateurs juridiques outils d’évaluation de l’effectivité du droit de l’environnement. Institut de la Francophonie pour le Développement Durable, Québec
Ryfield F, Cabana D, Branniganb J, Crowe T (2019) Conceptualizing ‘sense of place’ in cultural ecosystem services: a framework for interdisciplinary research. Ecosyst Serv 36:100907
Smith A (1776) Book I, Chapter V of the real and nominal price of commodities, or of their price in labour, and their price in money. In: An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, London
Stålhammar S, Thorén H (2019) Three perspectives on relational values of nature. Sustain Sci 14:1201–1212
Stone CD (1972) Should trees have standing. Toward legal rights for natural objects. South California Law Rev 45:450–501
van der Meulen ES, Braat LC, Brils JM (2016) Abiotic flows should be inherent part of ecosystem services classification. Ecosyst Serv 19:1–5
van Ree CCDF, van Beukering PJH (2016) Geosystem services: a concept in support of sustainable development of the subsurface. Ecosyst Serv 20:30–36
van Ree CCDF, van Beukering PJH, Boekestijn J (2017) Geosystem services: a hidden link in ecosystem management ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 26:58–69
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Aragão, A. (2021). Relational Value as an Argument to Protect Geological and Hydrogeologic Goods. In: Abrunhosa, M., Chambel, A., Peppoloni, S., Chaminé, H.I. (eds) Advances in Geoethics and Groundwater Management : Theory and Practice for a Sustainable Development. Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59320-9_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59320-9_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-59319-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-59320-9
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)