L'usage courant réserve la notion de patrimoine à un héritage culturel et historique dont les fleurons sont constitués par les oeuvres d'art, les monuments, les sites chargés d'histoire ou encore la littérature et la musique. Plus les objets ou les écrits sont anciens, plus ils nous paraissent précieux. Ils sont des rescapés du temps, des miraculés de l'oubli. 

Les fossiles, tout comme les minéraux et les roches, constituent les archives de la Terre et de la Vie. Ils sont l'héritage des grands événements qui ont émaillé l'histoire du globe. Les gisements paléontologiques correspondent à des lieux de mémoire au même titre que les sites archéologiques. 

A l'instar des oeuvres d'art, des objets et des sites archéologiques, les gisements de fossiles et de minéraux sont matière à convoitise. Une commercialisation abusive est à l'origine d'un pillage des gisements. Non seulement, elle prive les scientifiques d'exemplaires exceptionnels, mais elle conduit à la destruction irrémédiable d'échantillons jugés moins beaux donc non commercialisables, mais qui se révèlent d'un grand intérêt pour la connaissance de l'histoire de la Vie et de l'histoire de la Terre. Par ailleurs, en paléontologie et en minéralogie, un échantillon isolé, sorti de son contexte c'est-à-dire sans référence à son mode de gisement et aux échantillons associés, perd l'essentiel du message qu'il est censé délivrer.  

Au cours des dernières décennies, un engouement croissant pour les fossiles et les minéraux a conduit à la multiplication des "bourses" aux fossiles et aux minéraux et, plus dramatiquement, aux ventes "sauvages". Les prix grimpent. Un squelette de dinosaure se négocie à 5 millions de dollars. Le commerce lucratif des fossiles et des minéraux a un double corollaire. D'une part, il encourage une prospection intensive des gisements donc leur épuisement et leur destruction. D'autre part, il est à l'origine d'un accroissement des vols constatés dans les musées et les collections publiques. Ces pratiques se développent d'autant plus rapidement que beaucoup d'institutions scientifiques d'Europe connaissent de plus en plus de difficultés pour protéger le patrimoine paléontologique et minéralogique abrité dans leurs locaux. 

Face à une situation de pillage et de trafic illicite, bon nombre de pays d'Europe ont pris des mesures ponctuelles pour enrayer la dilapidation de leur patrimoine paléontologique et minéralogique. 

Dans un volume de sa revue EUROPAL (4, 1993, p.25-47), l'European Palaeontological Association a présenté un panorama succinct des mesures de protection de l'héritage géologique prises dans différents pays d'Europe. Il en émane l'impression d'une grande disparité des réglementations et d'une inadéquation fréquente de l'outil législatif. En vue d'harmoniser les mesures prises, l'European Palaeontological Association qui bénéficie auprès du Conseil de l'Europe depuis 1995 du statut consultatif d'une organisation non gouvernementale (ONG), a entrepris des démarches pour qu'aux différents pays d'Europe soit soumise une recommandation permettant d'intégrer les fossiles, les minéraux et les sites géologiques remarquables dans l'héritage de l'Europe, au même titre et avec les mêmes égards, que le patrimoine artistique, architectural ou littéraire. C'est, en effet, à travers un patrimoine partagé que s'affirme une conscience européenne. 
 
 

(*) The present text was presented by the authors as an invited lecture at the III International Meeting ProGEO, on Conservation of the Geological Heritage, Madrid, November 1999.

In Spain cultural heritage, within which the palaeontological heritage is included, is briefly mentioned in the most fundamental law of the Nation, the Spanish Constitution (1978; see Andrés-Moreno and Royo-Guillén, 1998). Palaeontological heritage in turn is explicitely mentioned in the more recent national Law of Historical Heritage (1985) and the national Law on Protection of Natural Areas (1989). In the recent years, regional development of heritage laws has led to the slow appearance of more specifical palaeontological legal features (Meléndez & Soria, 1999). Decision on the particular sites likely to be protected corresponds ultimately to the regional political authorities. Palaeontologists, by means of the Heritage Commission of the Spanish Palaeontological Society, may play an important advisory role before the political authorities in selecting the relevant sites and providing the most adequate measures to protect them. In this process, the collaboration of local population and cultural associations must be taken into account as an essential social partner.  
 

GENERAL FEATURES OF PALAEONTOLOGICAL HERITAGE IN SPAIN 

1. Singular character of the palaeontological heritage 

Paleontological heritage displays some singular features making it a separate matter from geological heritage besides being, to some extent, a part of it (Fig. 1). Both by the items being subject of protection (palaeontological sites and specimens) and by legal definition, many aspects of palaeontological heritage fall beyond the rules of geoconservation: A palaeontological site may hold a special value and interest for being the type-locality of new taxa, a biostratigraphic unit (Meléndez, 1989), or having been proposed as reference section for a certain stratigraphic interval (Cariou, et al., 1988) Yet, the point itself may present little geological value or spectacularity, to be nominated a special geological site. On the other hand, a large part of the palaeontological heritage, i.e. the mobile heritage, including exhibitions, museum and research fossil collections, type specimens and so on, are permanent candidates for being awarded special protection and preservation measures, despite their little "geological" value. Finally, the spanish heritage laws clearly regard separately the geological and palaeontological heritage, being mentioned in different laws and being protected by different heritage protective features. All these reasons support the singularity of the palaeontological heritage. This is not, however, contradictory with the fact that a geological site may be mentioned and declared a protected point on the basis of its palaeontological interest.  
 

2. The legal framework and the current protective legal features 

Palaeontological heritage in Spain is specifically mentioned in two main national laws: The Law of Historical Heritage, 1985, and the Law of Protected Natural Areas, 1989 (Fig. 2). In both laws, the palaeontological heritage is recognized as a part of (a) the historical heritage and (b) the natural heritage. This particular, dual legal consideration makes it also possible a dual approach in the intend to declare a palaeontological site as a protected area.  

Under the Law of Historical Heritage (1985) a palaeontological site can be declared a protected point by the legal feature known as "Good of Cultural Interest" (Bien de interés Cultural; B.I.C.) Yet, for the time being since the appearance of the law little progress has been achieved in this sense: the number of palaeontological sites so far declared BIC being negligible (less than five) in the whole of the spanish territory. This is mostly due to the inadequacy of the legal features: The declaration of a palaeontological site as B.I.C. can only be done by defining the site as one of the existing names: Historical Site or else: Archaeological Zone, this meaning a subordination de facto of palaeontology to historical and/or archaeological remains (Alcalá, 1992; Alcalá & Paricio, 1984; 1988).  

Recent development of the Heritage Law in the different spanish Autonomous Communities by means of local, regional laws, has led to the creation of specifically palaeontological features in some of the spanish communities, such as Palaeontological Zone, thus allowing better definition and protection (Meléndez & Soria, 1997; 1999). Yet the very different development of heritage laws in the regions (Autonomous Communities) of the country has led to a non-uniform, uneven situation on what concerns the palaeontological heritage protection. The diagram shown in Fig. 3 summarizes the regional development of both national and regional laws, and the local, palaeontological legal features erected in the different spanish communities. This process, still in an initial phase, will undoubtedly need the advice and coordination of palaeontologists. The Heritage Commission of the Spanish Palaeontological Society must play a relevant role in this process (Meléndez et al., 1999).  
 

3. Palaeontological sites designated as protected areas 

Similarly, the still incipient development of regional laws results in still very few palaeontological sites having been defined as protected points under a specific palaeontological feature. A long road is still ahead until fossil sites are recognized by law as important landmarks of the cultural heritage, in the same way as historical or archaeological sites. Two aspects appear as basic in this point:  

(1) Establishing the main, palaeontological, criteria to propose a site as suitable to protection and/or designation as a protected legal feature (Alcalá & Morales, 1994; Morales, 1996). It appears obvious that a wide range of categories can be established concerning the interest and importance of a palaeontological site. However, it is also clear that all these categories must involve palaeontological criteria, and that palaeontologists must play an essential role in this process. At this point the Spanish Palaeontological Society, by means of the palaeontological heritage commission, may develop an important work, in unifying opinions and criteria to establishing categories, and also serving as a valid counterpart for the Administration (Soria & Meléndez, 1998).  

(2) Elaborating the list of most important and threatened palaeontological sites. This is to say, a list of the main candidates to be proposed as protected sites. This "site database" appears as a long and difficult task and it is also clear that it should be also taken, at least partially, by palaeontologists. Some local Governments and Administrations have already begun the elaboration of a regional Palaeontological Chart, listing all known palaeontological sites, studied or reported by researchers. However, there is a long distance between a complete database of known and published sites and a list of selected points to be nominated protected sites.  

In establishing a list of selected, important palaeontological sites, a proposal was rised within the Spanish Palaeontological Society to create a non-formal, internal feature; the so-called: Point of Special Palaeontological Interest, i.e. Punto de Especial Interés Paleontológico (PEIP: Meléndez & Soria, 1994; Soria & Meléndez, 1993; 1998). This special feature was meant to form a basic list of most relevant palaeontological sites in order to serve as a reference for local Administrations to their proposal and eventual nomination as protected sites by a legal feature. The task of elaboration of a PEIP list in Spain, taken by the Heritage Commission of the Spanish Palaeontological Society, is still on a slow process of discussion and progress. Yet, palaeontological meetings in the recent years, including intense sessions on palaeontological heritage, have provided a great deal of information and the basis for the elaboration of the list of most important palaeontological sites, as well as an evaluation of the risks, greater threats, and measures of protection. 

Palaeontological sites are quite often subject of aggressions of many different kinds. Besides natural erosion, which can affect in different ways a certain site, human action in normally the main agent responsible for site destruction (Page et al., 1999). This can take the shape of illegal, or non-authorised fossil collecting; dumping or covering with rubble; quarrying or any other public works, such as road construction, railroad setting, most particularly in Spain in recent times the setting of the high-speed train line (Aurell et al., 1999). Also building construction constitutes a normal threat for palaeontological sites in both urban and touristic areas. Farming and agricultural works can also affect or harm fossil sites in some way.  

In facing the need for taking the historical heritage protection, once these responsibilities have been transferred from the national, central Government to the Autonomous Communities, regional governments have established a set of regulations on cultural and historical, including palaeontological, heritage. In some cases this has led to the development of a true, regional historical heritage law, supplementary to the national, historical heritage law (1985). However, more often, these are small decretes and regulations on palaeontological excavations, fossil collecting, impact reports including the authorisation of a "rescue dig" in case of imminent threat on a site; active watch on especially protected sites, and funding palaeontological research projects and heritage reports (Fig. 4).  

Fig. 4: Active initiatives on protection of palaeontological sites taken by regional governments in Spain. Besides elaborating the list (inventary) of palaeontological points of interest, regional governments may define them as a protective legal feature, take an active watch on sites, Require previous impact reports on programmed public works and take active measures of excavation and research, including rescue digs on seriously threatened sites, by means of funding research projects. 

4.1 Prospection and digging permission 

Following a regulatory decrete on archaeological and palaeontological excavations appeared in 1990 - 1993 (in most of Spanish Autonomous Communities), a special permission is required to researchers or to anyone wanting to perform a palaeontological prospection or excavation. Permissions can be obtained from the regional Government. Applications should be addressed yearly to the Department of Culture; General Direction of Heritage.  

This protective measure affects most of the Spain territory and fossil sites. Although in some way effective preventing illegal, non-authorised amateur collecting, it has raised some angry reactions and resent among researchers, due to the net increase in bureaucracy and problems generated in programming field work. It has also created in some way the feeling that uncontrolled, illegal collectors are freely digging and destroying the outcrops, whilst a detail control is taken on legal researchers (López-Martínez, 1995). The conclusion would be that this measure might be ineffective unless supplemented by an active watching on the most important outcrops and fossil sites. On the other hand, an effort in simplifying the process of application and obtention of permit appears necessary. Once again, the Spanish Palaeontological Society, by means of the Heritage Commission, may play an important role as a bridge between palaeontologists and local Administration. 

In establishing an adequate legal frame and public management on the palaeontological heritage, i.e. palaeontological sites and collections, the future of the situation must necessarily evolve towards a good agreement and collaboration between the three main social partners involved: the political authorities, the community of palaeontologists, and the population.  

5.1 The role of political institutions  

As the main responsible for the protection and preservation of historical heritage, political institutions may play an essential role in developing the legal framework and politically effective protective measures. This involves, on one side, the creation of specifical, palaeontological legal acts and features which may result appropriate and effective to protect both a palaeontological site and a larger area enclosing relevant outcrops and sections. This must be complemented by the production of a first, but periodically enlarged, list of protected sites. On the other side, the development of adequate protection measures on threatened outcrops and sites. This means from the setting of protecting or covering structures on relevant sites affected by imminent destruction (by weathering or human action) to the active watching on fossiliferous sites and protected areas in order to prevent illegal collecting and destruction.  

5.2 The role of the Spanish Palaeontological Society 

The palaeontologist's community, as the assembly of specialists must develop the primary functions of studying the palaeontological heritage (and publishing the results) and evaluating the importance of fossil sites, sections and collections. In this sense, a fundamental advisory role is assigned in both establishing the scientific criteria to declare a site as protected area (Morales, 1996), and in producing the list of most important, threatened, and affected sites, as regards their eventual declaration as protected points. Such professional commitment must be fulfilled within a frame of good agreement with the political institutions favouring the reaching of mutual benefit (which, unfortunately, is not always the case) and should be organised and developed within the joint, coordinated action of the Spanish Palaeontological Society, represented at this point by its Palaeontological Heritage Commission. This commission, recently constituted in 1997 after a long process of acting as an informal working group, has among its main aims:  

- The compilation and spread of information concerning legislation and events on palaeontological heritage.  

- The active work towards establishing a categorisation of sites, as stated above (Meléndez et al., 1999).  

In this sense the Heritage Commission could play a true coordinative function among the members of the Palaeontological Society, and serve as an intermediate link between it and the political institutions on one side and the society on the other (Soria & Meléndez, 1998). This would involve acting before the Administration to facilitate the professional work of palaeontologists on what concerns the obtention of digging and prospection permissions, the study and final destination of the investigated material and the selection of most important sites to be proposed as protected legal features. This should start by their previous selection and nomination as Points of Special Palaeontological Interest (PEIP) within the Palaeontological Society, as stated above (see chapter 3.2) so that proposals for protecting the palaeontological sites would arise from the palaeontological Society as the professional association of palaeontologists rather than from personal, individual options (Fig.5).  

Fig. 5: Different ways a palaeontological site may be proposed as candidate for protected feature under the Law of Historical Heritage (1985): (a) directly (right), by any qualified person, as a particular or institutional initiative (a department of palaeontology, or an administrative institution, etc), and (b) indirectly, as proposed here (left), by means of the Spanish Palaeontological Society, after selection and nomination of most important points as PEIP (Point of Special Palaeontological Interest) by the Heritage Commission of the Society.  
 
 

5.3 Social awareness and care  

All in all, this cooperative work between palaeontologists and the Administration would be of little value should a similarly close relationship not be established with the local population and cultural associations. It is of primary importance for the palaeontologists' community rising a social concern for the palaeontological heritage as a valuable, scarce and often endangered good of enormous scientific and cultural interest. As stated recently by one of the authors (Page et al., 1999):  

"(...) to make landowners and people from these localities feel a part of this scientific heritage. It is a work of prompting social awareness on the scientific value of fossils and sites beyond their social/ornamental value as beautiful or mysterious objects".  

This process must, however, be accompanied by the symmetrical effort for the development of a respectful attitude in scientists and politicians towards the inhabitants of the localities holding important sites, favouring the creation of small exhibition halls and allowing private collections to surface and be incorporated to local palaeontological heritage. Little success could be achieved if the palaeontological heritage is not felt as a part of their own cultural and historical values by the local population. This implies a twofold important task from palaeontologists and politicians, namely:  

(1) the social management and didactical development of the palaeontological heritage, in order to raise a social concern and interest for palaeontology and fossils. This may be favoured by the activities organized frequently by local cultural and amateur associations which may be a precious instrument to raise a scientific interest towards Earth Sciences and palaeontology, and a protective feeling towards the palaeontological heritage.  

(2) The "actual" linking of the palaeontological heritage with the region of origin. This point sets many difficulties since the scientific study and an adequate preservation of the fossil material can only be achieved in research institutions and university departments, and in properly arranged museums. However, political institutions and palaeontologists can no longer transmit the feeling of exclusive ownership on the fossil wealth of a site in a small locality yielding an important piece, taking it for study and then delivering to a palaeontological museum, and asking the local population to collaborate in the protection of their heritage.  

A change in attitude is therefore needed from the institutions in order to promote the creation of small local museums and exhibition halls to hold local pieces (or replicae) of special social interest, involving the participation of both local authorities and population and of palaeontologists. This would surely mean a long-term financial and cultural programme including considerable local investments. Yet it would be a profitable investment in culture and heritage protection. In this sense, activities leaded by local authorities and cultural associations may be highly valuable in both taking a true protection of sites and spreading a cultural interest for the palaeontological heritage (Fig. 6).  

 Fig. 6: Different kinds of possible measures at a local level, beyond government initiatives, to enhance the social awareness and care on palaeontological sites. Both local village authorities and private, cultural associations may play an important role in both protecting and increasing social interest on palaeontology and palaeontological sites. 

Even though the current legal framework on palaeontological heritage in Spain has made a remarkable progress in the las fifteen years, since the appearance of the National Heritage Law (1985) a long way is still ahead to define adequate legal features for protecting palaeontological sites and collections. In protecting the palaeontological heritage from damage, anthropic actions, public works or uncontrolled collecting, political institutions have a major role to play by the instruments of the law and active watching on threatened sites. Palaeontologists, the Spanish Palaeontological Society, by means of the Heritage Commission must play an essential advisory role in the commitment of defining legal aspects, as well as in establishing the list of selected, most important sites. At this respect, the existence of a non-formal, internal heritage feature within the Society, such as the Point of Special Palaeontological Interest (PEIP) appears as a convenient instrument for palaeontologists, to help produce a previous, independent list from that of the Administration, which might serve as a database for subsequent legal definitions.  

The work of scientists and political authorities must follow a pattern of cooperation and mutual support rather than confrontation, as it might be often the case, since both palaeontologists and Administration are essential links for the preservation and management of the palaeontological heritage. Yet little will be done and achieved if a serious effort is not made towards creating social concern for the palaeontological heritage among the local population. It is therefore necessary to support social and cultural activities which may arise social concern and interest on Palaeontology and palaeontological heritage. In the same way, efforts should be addressed to link the fossils with the original territory and localities, by supporting the creation of local museums and exhibition halls which make the people feel concerned with, and take care of, their own cultural and palaeontological heritage.  
 

Acknowledgements  

This work is a part of the research project PB96/0838 from the DGESCYT-CSIC. Warm thanks are due to Drs. Kevin Page (English Nature, Exeter) and Margaret Gonera (Polska Akademia Nauk, Cracow) and to Monse Soria and José Antonio Andrés-Moreno for fruitful comments and advice. The authors are indebted to Isabel Pérez-Urresti (Univ. Zaragoza) for helping drawing the graphics. The work benefitted from the financial support of the Instituto de Estudios Turolenses (Teruel) and the Fundación Conjunto Paleontológico de Teruel (Aragón Government).  
 

References 

Alcalá, L. 1992.- Mesa redonda: Protección de yacimientos paleontológicos en España. Noticias Paleontológicas, 20: 31-32.  

Alcalá, L. & Morales, J. 1994.- Towards a definition of the Spanish Palaeontological Heritage. In: O'Halloran et al. (eds): Geological and Landscape conservation. Geological Society, London: 57-61.  

Alcalá, L. & Paricio, C. 1984.- Protección y conservación de yacimientos paleontológicos españoles. I Congreso Español de Geología, I: 377-381.  

Alcalá, L. & Paricio, C. 1988.- Protección y conservación de yacimientos paleontológicos españoles. II Congreso Español de Geología, I: 253-256.  

Andrés-Moreno, J.A. & Royo-Guillén, J.I. 1998.- Desarrollo legal del Patrimonio Paleontológico en la Comunidad Autónoma de Aragón. Naturaleza Aragonesa (Revista de la Sociedad de Amigos del Museo paleontológico de la Universidad de Zaragoza) 23: 22-29.  

Aurell, M., Meléndez, G., Pérez-Urresti, I. & Ramajo, J. 1999.- Fossil-site conservation and public works in Aragón (Spain): protecting palaeontological heritage with educational and social benefits. In: Barettino et al., (Eds): Towards the balanced management and conservation of the geological heritae in the new millenium: 452-459, Madrid, Spain, 1999.  

Cariou, E., Meléndez, G., Sequeiros, L. & Thierry, J. 1988.- Biochronologie du Callovien de la Province d'ammonites subméditerranéennes: Reconnaissance dans les chaînes Ibériques de sosdivisions fines distinguées dans le centre-Ouest de la France. Proc. II Int. Symposium on Jurassic Stratigraphy, Lisboa, 1987. v. 1: 395-406.  

López-Martínez, N. 1995.- Cartas al Editor. Noticias Paleontológicas, (Boletín, Soc. Española de Paleontología), 26: 66-68. 

Meléndez, G. 1989.- El Oxfordiense en el sector central de la Cordillera Ibérica (provsincias de Zaragoza y Teruel). Tesis Doctoral: Institución Fernando el Católico, Instituto de Estudios Turolenses. 418 pp., 62 láms.  

Meléndez, G. & Soria, M. 1994.- The legal framework and scientific procedure for the protection of palaeontological sites in Spain: Recovery of some special sites affected by human activity in Aragón (Eastern Spain). In O'Halloran et al. (eds): Geological and Landscape conservation. Geological Society, London.: 329-334.  

Meléndez, G. & Soria, M. 1997.- Problemática actual de la legislación sobre patrimonio paleontológico en España. Medidas y soluciones. II Reunión Nacional de la Comisión de Patrimonio Geológico, Logroño (1996): 105-110. Zubia, 15. Instituto de Estudios Riojanos: 113-120.  

Meléndez, G., Soria, M. & Martínez-Delclòs, X. 1999.- La Comisión de Patrimonio de la Sociedad Española de Paleontología (sep): Antecedentes, Constitución y Objetivos. Sesión de Patrimonio, XIII Jornadas de Paleontología, La Coruña, 1997: Coloquios de Paleontología, 50: 23-36. 

Morales, J. 1996.- El Patrimonio Paleontológico. Bases para su definición, estado actual y perspectivas futuras. MOPTMA (Madrid): Serie Monografías: El Patrimonio Geológico. Bases para su valoración, protección y utilización: 39-51. 

Soria, M. 1993.- El Patrimonio Paleontológico de Teruel: Estudio sobre la protección y conservación de yacimientos de especial interés. Instituto de Estudios Turolenses (C.S.I.C.), Teruel. (inéd.) 

Soria M. & Meléndez, G. 1993.- La protección de yacimientos paleontológicos en Aragón (España). Modelo de actuación sobre protección de yacimientos en las localidades de Ricla y Aguilón (Provincia de Zaragoza, Aragón). Comunicaciones IX Jornadas de Paleontología (González Donoso ed.): 79-84.  

Soria, M. & Meléndez, G., 1998.- La protección del Patrimonio Paleontológico en España: Actuación de la Comisión de Patrimonio de la Sociedad Española de Paleontología (SEP). Comunicación, I Sesión Científica: Evaluación y Gestión del Patrimonio Geológico y Minero. Sociedad Española para la Defensa del Patrimonio Geológico y Minero: Sedpgym-Camarasa, 3: 25-33. 
 

More information from: 

Argentina: Meganeura no. 3 
United Kingdom: Meganeura no. 2