Geoheritage and Geoconservation in Australia: Introduction

This issue on Geoheritage and Geoconservation derives from presentations at the Australian Earth Science Convention held at the Adelaide Convention Centre, Adelaide South Australia (June 2016), the Linnaean Society of New South Wales Belubula Conference in Bathurst, New South Wales (September 2015), and an invited keynote contribution that brings together a diversity of papers capturing the breadth and scope of Geoheritage and Geoconservation in Australia.

The papers in the thematic issue span the arena of Geoheritage and Geoconservation from an account of Geoheritage/Geoconservation history, the ‘state of the art’ of Geoheritage/Geoconservation, legislation, the status of these endeavours and sites in Australia (Cresswell, 2019; Lewis, 2019; Osborne, 2019), Statewide inventories and analyses (Hiern, 2019; Semeniuk, 2019), principles underpinning Geoheritage, Geoconservation leading to Geotourism (Brocx & Semeniuk, 2019) and protocols for geoconservation of type sections (Brocx, Brown, & Semeniuk, 2019). Case studies in specific areas and significant sites of geoheritage from large scale (Swan Coastal Plain wetlands, the Coorong, the Pleistocene Yalgorup Plain and the Naracoorte Caves; C. A. Semeniuk & Semeniuk, 2019; Cann, 2019; Lewis, 2019; T. A. Semeniuk & Semeniuk, 2019) to small scale (the Woolshed Creek Silurian fossil site, rare fossilised ichnofossils, and small, rare and environmentally diagnostic bubble sand structures; Finlayson & Brown, 2019; Semeniuk & Brocx, 2019; Unno & Semeniuk, 2019) and papers on Ordovician limestones (Brocx, Semeniuk, & Percival, 2019; Percival, Webby & Burkiyy, 2019; Semeniuk, Percival & Brocx, 2019). The final papers deal with outreach (educational) matters (Cann, 2019) and the linkage of Geoheritage to building stones (Cooper, 2019) and archaeology (where archaeological features are intercalated with and contribute to Holocene stratigraphy; Clifford & Semeniuk, 2019).

While the papers on general principles, legislation, and history have Australia-wide applicability (Cresswell, 2019), focused on national aspects of Geoheritage/Geoconservation (Brocx & Semeniuk, 2019), on the 8Gs, and Brocx, Brown, et al. (2019) on type stratigraphic sections, the detailed case studies, although drawn only from Canberra, New South Wales, South Australia, and Western Australia, in their principles, have nationwide to international applicability. The breadth and scope of geoheritage principles covered are large, although limited in their geographic exposé and type of geology, and many features of igneous rock, metamorphic rock, structural geology, paleontological sites, mineral sites, and landscapes, and sites have not been covered, thus highlighting the need for more geoheritage inventories, assessment and geoconservation. What is also apparent is that the endeavour of geoheritage can be expanded to include building stone, and archaeology, and also the geodiversity of wetlands for their geomorphological and stratigraphic variability and climate history record.

Cresswell (2019) summarises the history and status of Geoheritage and Geoconservation throughout Australia, provides a background, reviews the policies and legislation that underpin listing of sites of geoheritage significance in all Australian jurisdictions, and shows the inconsistencies and inadequacies in the current set of processes to identify and protect geoheritage sites in Australia. This is a very relevant review of the state of the art of geoheritage/geoconservation in Australia and sets a framework in what has been achieved and what needs to be achieved for Australia to join the ranks of geoheritage practitioners worldwide. Hiern (2019), on the other hand, provides a statewide comprehensive outline of geoheritage endeavours specifically in South Australia, where now over 450 geologically significant areas have been identified, including those important for teaching and research, and Lewis (2019), also in South Australia, outlined the history and status quo of geoheritage, geoconservation, Heritage listings, and functions of the Naracoorte Caves. T. A. Semeniuk (2019), in a review of the Register of the National Estate of New South Wales (wherein many sites of geoheritage significance are listed), concludes there is still much work to do in the field of Geoheritage, in terms of inventories and adding to the national geoheritage database, assessments and consolidation of sites into geoconservation reserves along with a more in-depth analysis of listed sites that could be consolidated and further substantiation of their significance. Brocx and Semeniuk (2019) provide a policy-style guidance (the 8Gs) that logically and progressively links Geology, Geoheritage and Geoconservation through a series of steps to Geo-education and Geotourism, and Brocx, Brown, et al. (2019) provide a protocol for conserving stratigraphic types sections that can also be applied to type sections, type localities and reference sites for igneous, metamorphic rocks, paleontological and other geological sites.

Interestingly, many of the features of geoheritage significance described herein used the semi-quantitative evaluation system of Brocx and Semeniuk (2007) to be assessed as being of global heritage significance. For instance, in addition to the globally significant limestones of Cliefden Caves and Bowan Park (Brocx, Semeniuk, et al., 2019; Percival et al., 2019; Semeniuk et al., 2019), and the wetlands of the Swan Coastal Plain, Western Australia (C. A. Semeniuk & Semeniuk, 2019), in terms of their geodiversity, appear to be unrepresented globally, and therefore, in terms of geoheritage, are internationally significant. The soldier crab ichnofossils (Unno & Semeniuk, 2019) embedded in beachrock along an arid coast are globally unique in terms of biogeography and climate aridity, and hence globally unique, and bubble sand structures (Semeniuk & Brocx, 2019), depending on the age of the sequence and how common they are in a region, may be nationally significant or globally significant.

Sites of geoheritage significance need preservation, but competing land uses and varying perceptions as to what scale and content are significant have led to sites of geoheritage significance not being afforded the attention and protection they deserve. Osborne (2019) discusses the successes and failures of geoconservation in the cave-world realm through listings, disputes, submissions and court cases, and highlights these problems, recommending saving and conserving caves in Australia through changes to planning legislation, establishment of a cave conservation organisation, introduction of specific cave protection legislation and establishment of a Research Centre for Caves, Karst and Geoheritage. In principle, although the issues and principle apply Australia-wide, with changes in wording, the same approach can be applied to many sites of geoheritage significance throughout Australia.

Finally, sites of geoheritage significance require Geomanagement, both for protection of geological features and for protection of visitors. The paper on the 8Gs (Brocx & Semeniuk, 2019) highlights these issues and highlights that without geomanagement, there can be damage and destruction to internationally important sites (e.g. the damage to the globally important zircon sites at Jack Hills by overseas researchers).