Introduction
The Geoheritage Structure Within the World's Geoparks: Tension in a Multiplicity of Cultural, Economic and Scientific Contexts

The international consideration of geological heritage conservation has been relatively late in relation to the many decisions taken for nature protection/conservation. For example, the first international symposium on the protection of geological heritage held in Digne-les-Bains (France) in 1991 was co-organized by the European Working Group on Earth Science Conservation (EWGESC) founded in the Netherlands in 1988. The International Declaration of the Rights of the Memories of the Earth (1991), signed on this occasion, refers to "the memory of the Earth" to stimulate public interest in respect and in fine, the conservation of this heritage has, according to Jones, formed the philosophical basis for the future Geopark program (Jones 2008, p. 274). In 1993, in Mitwitz-Cologne (Germany), the EWGESC became The European Association for the Conservation of the Geological Heritage, better known by its acronym (ProGEO) and it will continue to be involved in the conservation of the geological heritage. However, several authors point out that the idea of creating geoparks emerged at the 30th International Geological Congress in Beijing in 1996 (Zhao and Zhao 2003, p. 391; Zouros 2004, p. 165; McKeever and Zouros 2005, p. 274; Du and Girault 2018, p. 6). The Geoparks Program, presented in 1999 within UNESCO to draw attention to geological conservation as a separate entity to complement the World Heritage Convention and the Man and the Biosphere Program proposed the following definition:

"As recommended by the expert meetings, a geopark will be a dedicated area enclosing features of special geological significance, rarity or beauty. These features need to be representative of the geological history of a particular area and the events and processes that formed it" (UNESCO, 156 EX/11 Rev. 1999, p. 2).

Subsequently, the focus of the new geopark concept on the joint consideration of geosite heritage and local development, particularly through geotourism, was confirmed in the charter of the European Geopark Network (EGN) signed in 2000. The EGN was then largely inspired by the LEADER II program (Links between actions for the development of the rural economy)1, whose approach involved a rural development methodology based on a number of key factors including partnership, pyramidal territorial development, innovation and cooperation2.

Du and Girault analyzed the many negotiations that have taken place, in particular with the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), the International Geoscience Program (IGCP) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), in an attempt to integrate the Geopark Program into a UNESCO program (World Heritage, MAB Program) (Du and Girault 2018). We will not detail here the elements of this analysis that provide a better understanding of the reasons for the failure of these various proposals for integration into an existing UNESCO program, but we will propose a summary outline (Figure I.1).

However, this figure already highlights one important piece of information, namely the parallel evolution of geoparks in two regions of the world, Europe and China. These first global geoparks merged in 2004 with the creation of the Global Geopark Network (remarked later in this GGN book), which led to the creation of many geoparks during the 2000s. Nevertheless, since they did not benefit from UNESCO's budgetary support, geoparks were forced to be established on the basis of the political will of local authorities with long-term financial support (GGN, Operational Guidelines, 2006, 2008). Following this period of rapid growth, it became clear that Global Geoparks were, at that time and still today, almost all located in the two founding regions of the GGN, namely Europe and China (Figure I.2).

Figure I.1. First step in the emergence of the UNESCO Global Geopark label (source: Du and Girault 2018, p. 9)

Figure I.2. Distribution map of global geoparks in April 20183. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/girault/geoparks.zip

It was in 2012, following the consultation of a map of the two-pole distribution of global geoparks, and without knowing the conditions for their creation, that I first asked myself the first questions about geoparks. Did the financial and/or administrative and scientific constraints related to the design and drafting of the application file significantly hinder its creation in countries with fewer resources? Was it possible to foresee a convergence with what Icomos had already pointed out for the strong imbalance in the distribution of the list of World Heritage sites (between 1987 and 1993)4?

This international association then highlighted causes of structural (i.e. related to the inscription procedures, as well as the management and protection of cultural property) and qualitative (i.e. related to the way in which properties are identified and evaluated) origins. Were there also geopolitical parameters, particularly given the absence of geoparks in North America, that could explain this distribution?

Working within the Local Heritage and Governance research team, I was particularly interested in this observation, which undeniably highlighted global geoheritage governance problems and which could illustrate, on a large scale, one of the themes of this team's annual seminar: Heritage Ambivalences in the South, Staging and Actors' Stakes?5. This observation and these first questions led me, in 2012, to organize the first seminar session on this subject6. To better understand the challenges of creating geoparks, we first wanted to analyze the evolution of ethical issues in public environmental policies (Sauvé and Girault 2014), focusing also, and more specifically, on the analysis of the ethical issues of two pioneering organizations in the history of international relations in the second half of 20th Century, namely UNESCO and the Council of Europe (Brianso and Girault 2014). This first work and the growing interest in this research topic led us to respond collectively, in 2013, to a call for tenders for a H2020 program, which has been accepted. Some of the main works of this are the subject of this collective work.

I.1. The Geopark H2020 program

The progressive recognition of global geoparks by UNESCO has therefore prompted various countries to implement development strategies in line with the good practice management recommendations of international organizations, as previously implemented with the MAB and WH labels. As of October 2013, there were 100 global geoparks and some of these areas included both natural and cultural World Heritage sites (McKeever et al. 2013). In 2013, only the Asian continent obtained Geopark listings (Vietnam, Malaysia, Korea and Indonesia) with a very high concentration in China (29). Latin America only had one geopark (in Brazil) and the African continent had no sites at the time despite several attempts. Indeed, in 2009 the African Association of Women in Geosciences (AAWG) created the African Geoparks Network (AGN), one of whose objectives was to promote and raise awareness among local communities of the need to protect and enhance African geological heritage through the creation of geoparks for sustainable local development. These UNESCO policy initiatives, designed to study, protect, conserve and manage cultural and natural heritage, have been based on a new vision of integrated heritage management that includes nature, culture and civil society as forms of global sustainable development for future generations. In view of this observation7, the initial objective of the Horizon 2020 program, entitled "Geopark", was to study two geographical areas (Morocco/Spain) facing heritage management based on European models (Charter of European Geoparks) such as the Central Geopark of Catalonia (Spain) included in the GGN membership list in 2013 and the Zat Valley in Morocco8, a country that at the time did not have a GGN and that wished to obtain this label in order to strengthen socioeconomic development and local vitality9. The GGN, which focused the objectives of the geoparks on spectacular geological heritage, territorial development (particularly through geotourism), biodiversity, the environment, ecology and education, required the drafting of a scientifically well-founded application file. Paradoxically, the international experts who analyze the dossiers of the aspiring geoparks were increasingly aware of the involvement of local actors (population, civil society, etc.) both in their investment in the preparation of the application file and in the implementation of an adapted management plan following a sustainable global development (geo-biodiversity, the environment, culture, geotourism and society). Undoubtedly, some countries that did not seem well-prepared to cope with this cumbersome methodology to obtain the GGN label have called on heritage brokers (often GGN expert geologists) or, more often than not, have given up preparing a long and expensive application file.

With a wide range of skills in the human, life and earth sciences, the partners in the Geopark H2020 program, which are part of various research institutions, the National Museum of Natural History of Paris (France), the Autonomous University of Barcelona (Spain) and Cadi Ayyad University...