Content uploaded by Fernando Henríquez
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Fernando Henríquez on Mar 02, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
1 23
Geoheritage
ISSN 1867-2477
Volume 3
Number 4
Geoheritage (2011) 3:299-315
DOI 10.1007/s12371-011-0045-x
Geological, Geographical and Legal
Considerations for the Conservation of
Unique Iron Oxide and Sulphur Flows at
El Laco and Lastarria Volcanic Complexes,
Central Andes, Northern Chile
Rodrigo Guijón, Fernando Henríquez &
José Antonio Naranjo
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer-
Verlag. This e-offprint is for personal use only
and shall not be self-archived in electronic
repositories. If you wish to self-archive your
work, please use the accepted author’s
version for posting to your own website or
your institution’s repository. You may further
deposit the accepted author’s version on a
funder’s repository at a funder’s request,
provided it is not made publicly available until
12 months after publication.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Geological, Geographical and Legal Considerations
for the Conservation of Unique Iron Oxide and Sulphur
Flows at El Laco and Lastarria Volcanic Complexes,
Central Andes, Northern Chile
Rodrigo Guijón & Fernando Henríquez &
José Antonio Naranjo
Received: 24 May 2010 /Accepted: 14 June 2011 /Published online: 12 July 2011
#
Springer-Verlag 2011
Abstract Considering the exceptional geological character-
istics of iron oxide and sulphur lavas structures cropping
out at El Laco and Lastarria volcanic complexes in
Northern Chile, their geographical context, and the Chilean
legal framework for conservation, the authors make a
general assessment of the geological heritage value of both
volcanoes, while analysing the possibilities and challenges
that aris e in order to protect them. Relevant issues in this
matter are the lack of appropriate laws and of applied
geoconservation experience in the country, and the difficul-
ty of attracting financial resources but also a big potential
for conciliating conservation with mining, different alter-
natives of tourism—including geotourism—,orother
sustainable initiatives, in a naturally and culturally diverse
and rich region, already known as a world class tourist
destination. Thus results the need to identify the relevant
geosites present in each volcano, to emphasize their study
and knowledge, as well as a proactive role of public
authorities in order to effectively protect these extremely
rare and vulnerable geological features. Analysing the
specific cases of both volcanic complexes as possible
geological heritage locations, the authors aim to highlight
the main problems that need to be solved in order to
introduce proper geoconservation in the area.
Keywords Chile
.
Geoconservation
.
Geosites
.
Geotourism
.
Geological heritage
.
Geodiversity
.
Mining
Introduction
The volcanic complexes El Laco (ELVC; 23°48′ S/67°30′
W) and Lastarria (LVC, 25°10′ S/68°30′ W; Fig. 1) are both
located in the Central Andes, N orthern Chile. ELV C
presents iron oxide lava flows that are unique worldwide
in their structural and textural features, age and preservation
but also represent an important iron ore mining resource
(Nyström and Henríquez 1994). At LVC, fragile and
worldwide class-preserved sulph ur flows crop out as highly
vulnerable to destruction by any form of human interven-
tion (Naranjo 1985; Gray 2004).
This singularity and vulnerability put both volcanoes as
highly valuable geological sites, both from a scientific point
of view and as part of Chilean (and worldwide) geological
heritage. This consideration, combined with their locations
in the Altiplano (high plateau) east of the Atacama Desert,
and in proximity to other relevant sites, are outstandi ng
reasons to search for alte rnatives of legal protection and
sustainable develo pment, mainly through geotourism or
geoconservation initiatives. Presently, none of th em is
protected under any kind of legal statute. Therefore, it is
urgent to promote knowledge of their scientific and
geotouristical relevance, and to identify the key locations
R. Guijón
Ministerio del Medio Ambiente,
Teatinos No 258, 4º piso,
Santiago, Chile
F. Henríquez
Facultad de Ingeniería, Departamento de Ingeniería en Minas,
Universidad de Santiago de Chile,
Avenida Alameda Libertador Bernardo O’Higgins No 3363,
Estación Central,
Santiago, Chile
J. A. Naranjo (*)
Servicio Nacional de Geología y Minería (SERNAGEOMIN),
Av. Santa María No 0104, Providencia,
Santiago, Chile
e-mail: jnaranjo@sernageomin.cl
Geoheritage (2011) 3:299–315
DOI 10.1007/s12371-011-0045-x
Author's personal copy
of attractive volcanic deposits as geosites, as a way to
introduce an effective proposition for their adequate
conservation. Mining at ELVC has sporadically occurred
at small scale. Increasing mining work should not restrict
conservation of some unique relevant outcrops. In this
context, regulated mining activities are considered here as a
viable complementary alternative to provide economic resour-
ces and thus reinforce the sites’ conservation. The LVC case is
somewhat different, as its fragile sulphur flow structures
should be kept free from sulphur mining intervention.
The mai n purpose of this article is to highlight the
scientific (geological features), heritage, and economic
perspectives in a local and worldwide context, relating
them to each volcan o. In addition, several alternatives of
legal protection according to Chilean law are analysed and
discussed, taking into account Chilean mining tradition.
To achieve these purposes, the scientific literature of
both sites was revised together with available criteria for
assessment of geosites, mainly based on different experi-
ences and legal statutes in Europe, China and United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO). It was also interesting to consider the general
status of development of natur al attractions in Chile, in
order to determine whether geological heritage is aptly
considered in such development and the viability of
geoconservation or geotourism alternatives in the area. For
this last purpose, official data available from the National
Tourism Agency (Servicio Nacional de Turismo, SERNA-
TUR 2006) were analysed.
Iron Oxide Lavas at ELVC
The ELVC (Fig. 2) is a Pliocene cluster of andesitic to
dacitic volcanic structures comprising seven or more minor
stratovolcanoes and domes at altitudes of 4,600–5,200 ma.
s.l. Some of these volcan ic sources, distributed within an
area of 30 km
2
, have emitted iron oxide as lavas and
pyroclasts (e.g. Henríquez et al. 2004). The iron oxide
bodies occur interfingered with the andesitic volcanic
products. K–Ar dating of andesite lavas and sub-volcanic
rocks from different structures in ELVC gave ages between
5.3 and 1.6 Ma (Naranjo et al. 2010). Fission track dating
of apatite from the ore yielded an age of 2.1±0.1 Ma
(Maksaev et al. 1988).
Morphologically and structurally, the largest orebodies
are lava flows with associated pyroclastic material and
feeder dikes (Laco Norte, Laco Sur and San Vicente Alto;
pyroclastic ore has also been found at Rodados Negros) and
a lava dome (San Vicente Bajo). The small orebodies are
Fig. 1 Location of ELVC and LVC at the Altiplano of the Antofagasta Region, in context of geological and biological diversity features of the
Central Andean high plateau environment
300 Geoheritage (2011) 3:299–315
Author's personal copy
dikes (Rodados Negros and Laquito) and a dike-vein
system with prominent ore breccias and aggregates of
magnetite, pyroxene and apati te rich in open spaces
(Cristales Grandes). Ore breccias, which are characteristic
of the Kiruna type of ore, also form an envelope around San
Vicente Bajo and the dikes. Scapolite-pyroxene contact
metasomatic aureoles occur at the contacts of intrusive
orebodies (Naranjo et al. 2010), and the ore lavas are cut by
sharp veins of dendritic pyroxene prisms intergrown with
columnar magnetite. The orebodies and their aureoles are
overprinted by hydrothermal and geothermal events formed
at successively lower temperatures in open spaces and
fissures.
The orebodies resembling lava flows have rubbly top
surfaces like aa lava, but locally there are contorted lava
structures, and even stalactite and gas escape features
(Fig. 3a, b). Vesicle cavities suggesting crystallization from
volatile-bearing frothy melt are common in the iron lavas
(Fig. 3c ), which show razor-sharp, seemingly chilled
contacts towards andesite (Fig. 3d). Apatite is an accessory
mineral found as interstitial grains and as needles in cavities
and pores. Scoriaceous texture is intercalated between fresh
andesite flows in exploration pits at Laco Norte. Open pit
mining at Laco Sur reveals that large parts of the orebody
consist of fragmental ore, d escribed as pyr oclastic by
Nyström and Henríquez (1994) and Naslund et al. (2002).
This ore is a friable, porous aggregate of fine-grained
magnetite octahedra. A homogeneous appearance without
visible structure is common though at places the pyroclastic
deposit shows stratification, and even crossbedding,
brought out by layers rich in apatite needles. Interbedded
fragments of magnetite with sizes of ash, lapilli and bombs
(Fig. 3e) are expo sed in road cuts situated in the lateral
continuation of the Laco Sur open pit.
The remaining three deposits (Rodados Negros, Laquito
and Cristales Grandes; Fig. 2) are small compared with
Fig. 2 Mai n iron oxide o re
deposits at ELVC (modified
from Naranjo et al. 2010)
Geoheritage (2011) 3:299–315 301
Author's personal copy
Laco Norte and Laco Sur. Rodados Negros and Laquito
have dikelike form. The ore is massive and indistinguish-
able in texture from the ore in small magnetite dikes/veins
that crosscut major deposits. Fine-grained, seemingly
chilled margins are observed locally in the dikes, and some
dikes are partly comb layered, suggesting crystallization
from high-temperature fluids as well as melts. Cristales
Grandes is a dike-vein system with prominent ore breccias
and aggregates of magnetite, pyroxene and apatite rich in
quartz-lined open spaces.
Sulphur Flows at LVC
The 10.1 km
3
LVC (5,697 ma.s.l.) is a compound conical
shape volcano, with north-westward-shifting crater vents,
forming a series of five nested craters. An exogenous dome
occurs at the northern end, being the youngest Holocene
volcanic structure which is overlapped with the northern-
most crater rim (Fig. 4). LVC has been active through long
Fig. 3 Relevant geosites featur-
ing iron oxide volcanic products
present at ELVC: a Magnetite
lava cave with stalactites. Laco
Norte; b gas escape tubes at
Laco Sur; c vesicle-like cavities
at Laco Sur; d Andesite breccia
xenolith contact in magnetite
ore. Laco Sur; e Pyroclastic
density current deposits at Laco
Sur
Fig. 4 LVC, as seen from the north. Up to 40 m thick blocky lava
flows appear at the foreground, mantled by pyroclastic density current
deposits. A dark prominent younger steep-sided lava dome is visible
on the middle ground. Several active fumaroles around the summi t
crater rim and the northwestern flank. Exceptional sulphur flows
related to the mid-slope fumaroles were emplaced on the western flank
302 Geoheritage (2011) 3:299–315
Author's personal copy
lasting e ffusive pulses s ince the upper Pleistocene
(~300 ka), although Holocene activity has been predomi-
nantly explosive (Naranjo 2010).
Four sites of currently active fumaroles occur around the
Lastarria’s summit area. However, the main six fumes are
located on the northwestern flank between 4,950 and
5,140 ma.s.l. Depending on the substrate, two types of
fumaroles are observed (Naranjo 1988). In one case, gases
are emitted through soft pyroclastic deposits that cover an
area of ~2,500 m
2
, with exhalation centre s th at f orm
chimneys and hornitos from centimetres up to 1.5 m high
(Fig. 5a). In another type, the fumaroles are emitted through
cracks in lava blocks, which have been profusely covered
by sublimated sulphur (Fig. 4).
A ~90-m long sulphur flow descended from 5,500 down
to 5,460 ma.s.l. over the inner flank at the eastern edge of a
summit crater. However, longer flows were sourced from
sulphur deposits precipitated within an andesite blocky lava
front. The ~450 m wide and 35 m thick andesite lava lobe,
with an Ar/Ar age of 51±13 ka (Naranjo 2010), is covered
by Holocene pyroclastic deposits. Another vent for the
sulphur flows occurs along a 250 m, ENE oriented fracture,
located 120 m to the southeast and 50 m above the former
source. A number of active gas-rich sulphur fumaroles crop
out through the pyroclastic deposits and a real “sulphur
flood” of coalescent 10–50 m long flows was shed from the
northeast end of this fracture. Sulphur flows vary from 10
to ~265 m long (five of them between 100 and 265 m and a
dozen between 20 and 50 m) and 1 and 10 m wide,
showing geometrical features as levées and central channels
(Fig. 5b), as well as superficial structures similar to those of
“pahoehoe” silicate lavas (Fig. 5c ). In addition to sulphur,
these flows also include accidental clasts and vesicles
(Naranjo 1985).
These flows were produced by remobilization of melted
sublimated sulphur deposits. The longest flows were
emplaced under low temperature-viscosity conditions
(113–160°C and ~10
−1
P). Around the hottest fumes, tiny
centimetric flows are currently taki ng place in conditions of
greater temperature-viscosity (>250°C and 10
2
–10
3
P;
Fig. 5d) (Naranjo 1985, 1988).
After Naranjo (2010), the formation and emplacement of
the more extensive sulphur flows required a great increase,
mainly of the exhalating gases pressure and volume,
throughout this area, rather than local fume temperature
rising. However, the age and number of events for this
process remain unknow n.
Geographical Context
From a climatic point of v iew, ELVC and LVC are both
located on the limit between the hyperarid conditions of the
Atacama Desert and the outer boundary of the South
American summer continental precipita tions system char-
acteristic of the Altiplano (Alpers and Brimhall 1988;
Weischet 1975; Romero et al. 1997). However, due to the
height of the Andean Cordillera at ELVC and LVC, both
areas are subject to mountain c limate conditions (H,
according to Köppen classi fication). Thus, bioclimatic
conditions are mainly characterized by the presence of
low bush vegetation (Luebert and Pliscoff 2006).
From the human geography perspective, the main
population near ELVC is mainly c oncentrated at Calama
Fig. 5 Well-developed features
of sulphur chimney hornitos and
flows at LVC: a a 1-m high
hornito-like fumarole at the
northwest flank of Lastarria
volcano, its shape resembling a
ship air vent, formed by accu-
mulation of sulphur under
recurrent winds; profuse fumar-
oles in the background; b long
sulphur flow showing well-
developed levées and central
channels resembling common
silicate lava flows; c Pahoehoe-
like structures on 1.5 m wide
sulphur flow; d viscous brown-
reddish coloured, tiny sulphur
flows, currently pour out around
>250°C fumes at LVC
Geoheritage (2011) 3:299–315 303
Author's personal copy
and San Pedro de Atacama towns. But smaller settlements
existing since Prehispanic times can be found in oases to
the northwes t within distances of 85 km (Toconao), 67 km
(Talabre), 59 km (Peine) and 46 km (Socaire) from the
volcanic complex (Fig. 1). Furthermore, ELVC is located
near the international route that connects Salta in Argentina
and Calama in Chile. Meanwhile, Lastarria is placed on the
Argentina–Chile border, and the closest inhabited location
on the Chilean side is the former Catalina railroad station,
120 km west. An unpaved road connects this locality with
the volcano and the summit can be reached on foot.
The Antofagasta administrative Region, where both
volcanoes are located, is Chile’s main mining producing
area by far. On ELVC itself, small mining activities have
already taken place, exploiting the iron ore that character-
izes the volcano. On the other hand, on Lastarria there have
been some exploration activities. Unfortunately, this has
already meant intervention and partial destruction of some
of the more spectacular sulphur flows. Such acti vities have
been allowed according to mining rights granted under
Chilean mining regulations.
But the area to the west of ELVC, around Atacama Salar,
is also well known as one of the important worldwide
tourist destinations in Chile, maybe comparable to Torres
del Paine National Park, Easter Island or the harbour city of
Valparaíso. Tourism in the area is centred at San Pedro de
Atacama town, where several geological features are
promo ted as attractive sites, such as El Tatio Geyser
Complex, Valle de la Luna (Moon Valley), and Valle de la
Muerte (Death Valley), both the latter located in the wider
area of the Cordillera de la Sal (Salt Cordillera). Other
tourist destinations near ELVC are minor salt lakes such as
Tara, Jama, Lejía, Aguas Calientes, Miscanti and Miñiques.
Also located nearby are the thermal baths of Puritama,
Monturaqui meteorite crater, the Tara cliff and “moais”,in
addition to other volcanoes such as Licancabur, Láscar,
Socompa and Llullaillaco. Some of these localities are parts
of national parks or national reserves, administered by
CONAF, the Chilean forestry and protected areas manage-
ment agency. However, the main reason for establishing
such protected areas has been their biological significance,
unique to the Andean Altiplano, rather than their relevant
geological or geomorphological features.
In addition, the Altiplano of San Pedro de Atacama has a
strong cultural trademark from the different indigenous
(mainly Aymara) groups that have dwelled in the area since
prehistoric times (Mostny 2006), passing through either
domination or cultural and commercial exchange with
civilizations such as Tiwanaku from Bolivia, Inca from
Peru, and the Spaniards. Several ruins and still inhabited
towns, fo rtre sses, ancie nt colonial churc hes and other
archaeological sites (not always well prepared for receiving
either friendly or less friendly visitors) are concentrated
within a perimeter of some 150 km from San Pedro, mostly
in oases associ ated with permanent or stationary rivers or
natural wells.
Due to its aridity and relatively scarce population,
allowing clear and dark nocturnal skies for most of the
year, the area has also become one of the best sites for the
installation of astronomical facilities. Observatories and
arrays from international institutions can be found today, or
will be functioning around San Pedro within the next years.
The recently founded Museo del Desierto de Atacama
(Atacama Desert Museum), in the city of Antofagasta,
includes all these elements as symbols of the region’s
identity.
Evaluation Criteria Suggested for ELVC and LVC
The evaluation criteria that could be applied to potential
geosites at ELVC and LVC are shown in Table 1. These
criteria have been acknowledged taking in consideration
the arguments given by Elízaga a nd Palacio ( 1996),
Grandgirard (1999), Gray (2004), Stürm (2005), Consejería
de Medio Ambiente de la Junta de Andalucía (2006),
Reynard et al. (2007 ), El Wartiti et al. (2008), Lou et al.
(2007), Van Loon (2008), Fernández (2007), Gray (2008)
and UNESCO (2008). These are useful tools to recognize a
geosite’s true value for scientific, educational, socio-
cultural, and even economic purposes, and thus justify its
eventual protection. However, more systematic approaches
to methods of evaluating geoheritage and its sites are
provided by Pena dos Reis and Henriques (2009) and by
the Spanish Geologic and Mining Institute (Instituto Geo-
lógico y Minero de España 2009). The Geological Society
of America has also mentioned the importance of knowl-
edge about geological features when authorities m ake
decisions regarding energy and mineral resources (GSA
2008). On the other side, the general relevance of the
Atacama area and some of its sites has already been
mentioned in previous works (Dowling and Newsome
2006; Schilling 2007).
The situation of geosites (3rd category in Table 1)is
directly related with geodiversity, as disappearance of
geosites diminishes their diversity. This, in turn, may be
regarded as the main justification for geoconservation (Gray
2008). Some methods have been created or adapted for
assessing geodiversity itself, and thus justifying protection
areas on its base (Serrano and Ruiz 2007; Fernández 2007;
Ibáñez 2004, David Roche GeoConsulting 2005). Accord-
ing to this, the cases of ELVC and LVC can easily be
assigned to one or more criteria for each of the categories in
Table 1.
Due to its excellent preservation and young age, ELVC
shows unique iron oxide eruptive features. These have
304 Geoheritage (2011) 3:299–315
Author's personal copy
scientific relevance for the study of geological processes,
touristic significance (beautiful crystal grow th text ures,
spectacular eruptive structures), in addition to mining
importance. Some scientific aspects have been highlighted
by Maksaev et al. (2007) and Naranjo et al. (2007; 2008;
2010). Similarly, LVC and its fumaroles are well known and
described for the singularity of its delicate sulphur flows
(Naranjo 1985; Stern et al. 2007) and have eventually been
considered as economically viable, as there already exists a
mining grant over the volcano main area, and there have
been some interventions on the fumaroles and sulphur
deposits. In Table 2, speci fic potential geosites have been
identified at ELVC and LVC, also highlighting their main
value as geological heritage.
These considerations are only some of the evaluation
criteria that may be applicable to geosi tes to be identified
and chosen at ELVC and LVC. They do not intend to
comply as a full assessment in itself. For such an
assessment, application of complete evaluation proce-
dures such as those by Pena dos Reis and Henriques
(2009) and the Spanish Geologic and Mining Institute
(InstitutoGeológicoyMinerodeEspaña2009), should be
borne in mind.
The Situation of Geoconservation in Chile
Nature conservation i s not organized in Chile under
systematic and coordinated legislation but under several
statutes with different effects regarding public or private
responsibilities and the entities in charge of their adminis-
tration. Some of these statutes consider geological features
as part of their protection objects, and thus may apply to
geoconservation specifically, even if they were not estab-
lished for this purpose at first. They offer different
alternatives for restricting access and other interventions
on geosites, while eventually allowing different compatible
activities as well.
Table 1 General criteria for assessing potential specific geosites at
ELVC and LVC (modified after Elízaga and Palacio 1996)
Categories Criteria
1 Branch of interest/
type of geosite
Solid Earth sciences
Economic geology and mining
Engineering
Geomorphology
Glaciology
Physical geography
Hydrology
Hydrogeology
Mineralogy
Palaeontology
Petrology
Sedimentology
Soil sciences
Speleology
Stratigraphy
Structural geology/tectonics
Volcanology
History of the geological
science
2 Main value
of the site
Intrinsic (free of human
valuation)
Ecological
Aesthetic
Educational
Historical (History of the
Earth/Human)
Cultural, spiritual, social
International significance
Scientific
Recreational/touristic
Economic
Accessibility
3 Situation for
which the site
is valuable
Abundance
Rarity (relating to the area
of reference–local, national,
international, global–and
particular characteristics
regarding the type of
geosite)
Integrity (preservation of original
characteristics)
Representativeness for
interpretation of geological
processes
Improvement of knowledge or
research on a specific
issue/site
Possible activities related
to the site
Table 1 (continued)
Categories Criteria
Fragility
Current or potential threat
When evaluating a specific geosite, a specialist should determine and
justify which of the different criteria within each category of the left
column are applicable. Therefore, all three categories must be
considered (they do not exclude each other) and several criteria
within each may be considered. The Instituto Geológico y Minero de
España (2009) proposes a different, more systematic approach to the
evaluation method and cr iteria, aimed at the identification, and
evaluation of Spanish geosites according to that country’s 2007
legislation on geological heritage; but its contents generally coincides
with that proposed by Elízaga and Palacio (1996).
Geoheritage (2011) 3:299–315 305
Author's personal copy
Some of these legal protection forms could be adequate
for preservation of the exceptional geological sites at ELVC
and LVC, if merit exists.
Table 3 contains a more or less complete list of
protection area categories according to Chilean law, and
the public institutions in charge of their management.
Those considered appropriate for geological heritage have
been highlighted, as long as according to law their
protection objects expressively or inherently include
geological characteristics.
But some additional considerations must be taken into
account when analysing if any of these categories are
effective and adequate for the protection of geological
heritage. Starting with the location of ELVC and LVC, far
from urban areas, their natural characteristics and their
possible value as geological herit age sites, only a few of
these categories seem viable for them:
National P arks and Reserves depende nt from the
Forestry Administr ation (CONAF),
1
and Nature Sanctua ries
(Santuarios de la Naturaleza) dependent from the Nat ional
Heritage Administration (Consejo de Monumentos Nacio-
nales (CMN)) of the Education Ministry, all of them lately
submitted to supervision by the Environment Ministry, are
the most recurrent categories for nature protection of land.
But of these, only Nature Sanctuaries consider expressively
geological–or palaeontological–features as a possible object
for protection. This category can be applied to public and
private lands, and restricts intervention in them when not
specially allowed. However, the authority in charge has no
direct intervention in management of areas declared as
Nature Sanctuaries, only supervising fulfilment of land use
restrictions in them. In addition, according to the National
Heritage Act, notwithstanding special significance for
science or education of a Natural Sanctuary, all kinds of
intervention may be authorized.
Another relevant category is that of Natural Monument ,
recognized as a prote cted area category under the Wash-
ington Convention for the Protection of the Flora, the Fauna
and the Natural Scenic Beauties of Ameri ca (1940), ratified
by Chile in 1967. A legal statute issued in 1984 specified
that the Natural Monument is characterized, among other
possibilities, by geological sites relevant scenically, cultur-
ally, educationally or scientifically. Yet, this statute has
never entered into force. Beside this elderly regulation of
Natural Monuments, the International Union for Conservation
of Nature, IUCN (Dudley 2008; Dudley and Stolton 2008
defines them in a similar, more modern way, as generally
small protected areas that often have high visitor value. They
can consist of, or contain, a landform, sea mount, submarine
cavern, geological features such as a cave, or even a living
feature such as an ancient grove. They may conserve
traditional spiritual and cultural values of the site as well.
Table 2 Important geosites identified at ELVC and LVC
Volcanic
complex
Geosite Coordinates Description Geological value
El Laco Lava stalactites at
Laco Norte
23°50′ S/67°28′ W Big bubbles, up to 1.5 m across),
forming caves with stalactites on
walls (Fig. 3a)
These structures are very similar to
wall-attached stalactites in basaltic
lava tunnels but made of pure iron
oxide material; extremely rare
El Laco Gas escape tubes at
Laco Sur
23°50′ S/67°29′ W Up to 1.5 m high by 5–20 cm wide
tubes, interpreted as gas escapes. On
the tube walls, iron oxide octahedral
crystals, up to 3 cm across occur
(Fig. 3b)
Unique occurrence in iron oxide
material. Silicate lava tubes do not
develop crystals
El Laco Pasos Blancos
geothermal field
23°49.5′ S/67°29.5′ W Geothermal field showing sulphur,
sulphates, and low temperature
silicates, deposited as exhalation
pipes
As a whole, this area represents a
well-preserved geothermal field that
represents a specific volcanic envi-
ronment within the complex
El Laco Moraine field 23°49.8′ S/67°29.8′ W An area containing at least four lateral
moraine ridges, up to 400 m long,
probably originating at the Lower
Pleistocene, associated with silicate
lavas that show evidence of
subglacial interaction origin
Evidence for dating glacial activity of
Lower Pleistocene age is very scarce
in the Southern Hemisphere
Lastarria Lower sulphur
field on the
northwest flank
25°9.25′ S/68°31.5′ W Chimneys of precipitated sulphur
exhalations and long, short and
currently developing hot, higher
viscosity sulphur flows (Fig. 5 )
Although other volcanoes with similar
sulphur features exist (Naranjo
1985), the quality and variety of the
structures at LVC are exceptional
1
Strangely, the legal status of CONAF is a private non-profit
corporation, whose members are, however, other public agriculture
and economic development agencies.
306 Geoheritage (2011) 3:299–315
Author's personal copy
The IUCN definitions are not mandatory as rules but have
served throughout the world as a standardized and useful
categorization and management tool for conservation. In Chile,
only older versions of the IUCN categories were implemented
at some point under the Washington Convention and the
abovementioned legal statute of 1984 that was never enforced.
Nonetheless, the IUCN definition of natural monument seems
to be especially relevant for geological conservation, as it refers
to—among other natural features—individual geologic or
geomorphic sites of extraordinary value. This does not exclude
the possibility of protecting geological heritage of a bigger
extent by means of other categories mentioned here.
Underwater there may also be some geological conser-
vation by means of Marine Parks, as long as geological
Table 3 Categories of protected areas in Chile, identifying those considered appropriate for geological heritage
*
Category of protected area Managing authority
National Parks
*
Forestry Administration (Corporación Nacional Forestal, CONAF)/supervision
of some categories by the Environment MinistryNational Reserves
*
Forestry Reserves
Natural Monuments
*
Virgin Region Reserves
a
Touristic National Parks
b,*
Districts for conservation of soil, forests or water
Marine Parks
*
Fisheries Administration (Servicio Nacional de Pesca, SERNAPESCA)/
supervision of some categories by the Environment MinistryMarine Reserves
Genetic Reserves
Management Areas for Benthic Resources
Historic Monuments National Monuments Council (Consejo de Monumentos Nacionales, CMN)/
supervision of Nature Sanctuaries by the Environment MinistryPublic Monuments
Typical or Picturesque Areas
Archaeological Monuments (including palaeontological sites)
*
Nature Sanctuaries
*
Ecology Preservation Areas (in urban land use plans) Communal authority (Municipalidad)
Tourism Interest Areas or Centres Tourism Administration (Servicio Nacional de Turismo, SERNATUR)
Internationally Relevant Wetlands (Ramsar sites) National Committee on Wetlands (integrated administration among different
national authorities)
Subterranean watersheds relevant for pastures and highland
wetlands of the Northern administrative regions
Water authority (Dirección General de Aguas, DGA)
Public land destined specifically for conservation Public Lands Ministry
Marine and Coastal Protected Areas (AMCP) Regional non-profit corporations, supervised by the Environmental Authority
(Comisión Nacional del Medio Ambiente, CONAMA, in coordination with a
GEF Programme)/supervision by the Environment Ministry
Sites of Scientific Interest for mining purposes
*
Mining Ministry
Places rich in guano, resting sites for guano-producing birds,
and guano deposits
Hunting Exclusion Areas Agriculture Ministry
Aboriginal Development Areas Aborigins authority (Corporación Nacional de Desarrollo Indígena, CONADI)
World Heritage Sites (natural heritage)
*
Different national authorities, under acknowledgement and supervision
of UNESCOBiosphere Reserves
*
Geoparks acknowledged as part of the Global Geoparks
Network
*
“Protected area” has been used in a broad sense in Chile, for the purposes of environmental assessment. The categories presented here include not
only protected areas in the stricter sense of nature conservation areas, but also natural resource management areas that have contributed to
conservation via sustainable or non-intensive development. As of October 2010, the newly functioning Environment Ministry has the authority for
creating and supervising those protected areas for nature conservation in a strict sense: National Parks, National Reserves, Natural Monuments,
Marine Parks and Reserves, Nature Sanctuaries and Marine and Coastal Protected Areas
a
Virgin Region Reserves exist under the Washington Convention of 1940, but no such protected area has been declared in Chile
b
National Touristic Parks were established under the Forestry Act of 1931, resembling the model of the first North American national parks.
Meanwhile, later statutes created National Parks without erasing the earlier category. Therefore, both categories still exist, without clear distinction
between them
Geoheritage (2011) 3:299–315 307
Author's personal copy
features serve as habitat for marine species. This is
especially relevant in the maritime territory, where many
seamounts, islands and islets—most of them o f volcanic
origin—exist.
Lastly, the Chilean Mining Code considers a special
category, the Sites of Scientific Interest for Mining
Purposes, only for restricting–though not forbi dding –
mining activities on them, by requiring allowance via
Presidential decision. Yet, if a site of scientific interest has
not been officially acknowledged and specifically declared
“for mining purposes”, the restriction is not considered
legal (Cortés 2000).
The rest of the categories mentioned in Table 3 may
include geosites and even regard geoconservation as one of
their objectives. However, they are intended mostly for
other purposes, such as sustainable maritime activities in
AMCPs, protection or recovery of water and soils as part of
terrestrial habitats in Di stricts for conservation of soil,
forests or water, tourism promotion in Tourism Interest
Zones, among others.
All of these official protection instruments are useful and
sometimes crucial tools for conservation and sustainable
management of natural resources. However, neither of them
fully excludes the intervention at valuable sites by mining,
whose legal status is very strong, or by other industrial or
extractive processes, if the special allowances required by
law are obtained.
It becomes evident that Chilean institutions and legal
tools for nature conservation are not coherent and rather
weak. Regarding geological heritage, no statutes or public
policies have ever been established or propos ed to protect
the country’s geodiversity and geologic domains, or some
of their special characteristics. In addition, their relevance
as scientific, educational or touristic resources, and their
need for protection, have never been politically acknowl-
edged in any way. As an exception, some geologically
relevant areas have been included under the general forms
of nature protection mentioned before.
The cases mentioned in Table 4 are examples of
geologically relevant areas included in such “general”
protection form s. Note, however, that no geosites have
been specifically indentified and selected, nor have they
been officially assessed for their geological value.
Among international means for geoheritage protection,
as Chile is an active member of UNESCO it can also be
regarded as a party to the Man and the Biosphere
Programme and the Global Geoparks Network, coordinated
by that international organization. In fact, several Chilean
locations have been declared as Biosphere Reserves under
the first programme (such as Torres del Paine, Juan
Fernández Archipelago, Laguna San Rafael, Lauca, and
Cabo de Hor nos), but no Global Geopark within the
country has yet been declared or proposed to UNE SCO.
Table 4 Some cases of general nature protection categories including
relevant geological areas in Chile
National park
Lauca
Volcán Isluga
Llullaillaco
Nevado Tres Cruces
Archipiélago Juan Fernández
Radal Siete Tazas
Laguna del Laja
Conguillío
Villarrica
Laguna San Rafael
Torres del Paine
Pali Aike
National reserve
Río Los Cipreses
Altos de Lircay
Alto Biobío
Malalcahuello
Mocho Choshuenco
Natural monument
Salar de Surire
La Portada
Pichasca
El Morado
Cueva del Milodón
Nature sanctuary
Valle de la Luna
Granito Orbicular Caldera
Roca Oceánica
Dunas de Concón
Acantilados Federico Santa María
Isla Sala y Gómez
Rocas de Constitución
Bosque fósil Punta Pelluco
Capilla de Mármol
Sites of scientific interest for mining purposes
a, b
Parque Nacional Lauca
Predios en comuna San José de Maipo
a
The sites of scientific interest for mining purposes mentioned here
were established on grounds of the general interest for thei r
biodiversity and natural resources, though no specific reasons based
on their geological value are given
b
This category is complementary to the others—but can also be used
separately—therefore meaning that one basic protection category that
already implies some restriction to mining, requires a second, special
declaration in order to have a stricter status for mining purposes.
However, even under this special protection status mining activities
are possible if a Presidential allowance is granted. Lauca National
Park is an example where both categories coexist
308 Geoheritage (2011) 3:299–315
Author's personal copy
These two international categories may both apply to
geoconservation, as they extend to geological aspects—
even though sites recognized under them may not be
considered as protected areas by themselves (Heitzmann et
al. 2006; Pforr and Megerle 2006) and Biosphe re Reserves
are mainly established with regard to their ecological, more
than their geological, relevance.
Also, recognition of a site under the World Heritage
Convention may befall on geologically valuable sites. The
Convention, signed during the General Conference of
UNESCO in Paris, in 1972, recognizes sites of worldwide
importance either as cultural or natural heritage—or as both
at a time. There are several examples of natural World
Heritage recognized for their geological significance around
the world, including the r enowned Hawaii Volcanoes
National Park (USA), the Swiss Tectonic Arena Sardona,
the Volcanoes of Kamchatka (Russia), Giant’s Causeway
(Northern Ireland), and Argentina’s Ischigualasto/Talam-
paya Natural—paleontological—Parks. Chile has no natural
World Heritage site yet, only five cultural heritage sites
acknowledged, even though the Rapa Nui culture on Easter
Island—one of them—, is closely linked to the volcanic
origin of the island, that arose from the Pacific seafloor as a
hot spot in a similar way to Hawaii. Of course, the moai
statues are, therefore, made out of Easter Island basal ts.
Besides official policies, some projects directly involved
with geological heritage also exist. First, the C hilean
Geological Society has started a project with the purpose
of creating a voluntary national list of geosites, by accept-
ing pr oposals of geosites from priv ate geologists and
validating them via an academic procedure. Later on, the
sites included should be proposed by the Society to the
authorities in order to protect them under some of the
categories previously analysed. LVC as a whole is already
accepted as such a geosi te, without specification of precise
spots that deserve protection. More information about this
initiative is available at http://www.sociedadgeologica.cl/
geositios.html. Second, the National Service for Geology
and Mining is sponsoring a project with the goal of
studying a possible first national Geopark surrounding
Llaima volcano and Conguillío National Park.
Experiences Combining Geoconservation
with Other Activities
As mentioned before, at both ELVC and LVC there are
legally approved mining grants that could cause conflicts
with eventual geoconservation initiatives on them. Howev-
er, it is the probing and extractive activities that may also
provide useful scientific knowledge about the volcano
genesis and mineralogy, or means for developing studies
about them (Van Loon 2008). Alternatives of geoconserva-
tion restraining intervention of sites declared as highly
valuable, while still allowing mining activities, therefore
seem a good solution, as it should not be necessary to set
apart the entire volcanic edifices from mineral extraction.
Some mining companies such as state owned Corpo-
ración del Cobre in nearby Chuquicamata and other places,
as well as other private companies, offer visits to their
industrial premises and ore deposits. But this kind of
educational/ recreational programmes does not focus on
promoting the value of geosites and geological knowledge.
More development has existed in a different kind of
mining-related tourism. It is linked to traditional or historic
mining areas and methods—currently abandoned or only
residually developed—that have marked cultural processes
and are therefore considered as part of the historic or
cultural heritage. In Chile, that would be the case of ancient
silver mining since Precol umbine times, and the nitrate
industry and coal mines that flourished during the second
half of the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries.
Protected sites on this basis can be found, but they usually
highlight constructions and other lifestyle aspects as
cultural heritage, more than the geological attributes
present.
In other countries, some examples can be found of a part
of their mining and quarrying culture being considered of
relevance to their geological heritage. This occurs in either
historic or active mining areas. In southwest Germany, the
authorities and companies have been considered as relevant
players in the development of geotourism initiatives (Pforr
and Megerle 2006, referring to the “Network History of the
Earth”). In the USA, old mines have been converted into
mine museums or tourism sites (Gates 2006). Giant geodes
discovered in old mines have led to reopening them as a
tourist attraction in Spain, and other geotouristic activities
in southwest Spain have also been driven by the mining
heritage, but requiring the conversion from mining to
tourism or the rescue of old mines (Calaforra and
Fernández-Cortés 2006). In Wales, Austria and Spain too,
mining heritage has motivated ideas of establishing geo-
parks and other ways of regional sustainable development
(Evans 2005; Hasenauer et al. 2007; Garrido and Romero
2004; Consejería de Medio Ambiente de la Junta de
Andalucía 2006; Voth 2008). But in order to fit out former
mining places as geosites for tourism and/or conserva tion,
several environmental and other interests have to be taken
into account (Mager 2005). Summing up, the author s have
not succeeded in their search for cases of geoconservation
as a complementary alternative along with acti ve mining or
quarrying, or as a possible part of these industries, neither
in Chile nor in the rest of the world.
On the other hand, geoconservation initiatives are
accepted as compatible with other forms of econom ic
development generally seen as more sustainable than
Geoheritage (2011) 3:299–315 309
Author's personal copy
mining, such as tourism, including geotourism particularly.
However, geotourism itself does not warrant the preserva-
tion of fragile geosites if precautions to safeguard the sites
even from benevolent but “geologically unconscious”
visitors are not taken.
In Chile, until now there have been a few initial efforts
to identify and highlight valuable geosites and potential
locations for s uccessful geotouristic entrepreneurship
(Dowling and Newsome 2006; Schilling 2007; Fernández
2007) but still without practical application. For their part,
some agencies and hotels offer visits to specific geosites
within ecotourism programmes, though generally without
input on their geological value. Thus, one can say that at
present Chile totally lacks experience in geotourism as an
economic activity.
Discussion
As mentioned above, several conditions of both volcanic
complexes are relevant in order to evaluate whether they
are worth of geoconservation efforts. According to their
geographical context and their inherent geologic character-
istics, there is enough merit for their protection, providing
the relevant geosites within them are appropriately identi-
fied and selected. Based on Table 1, a summarized list of
categories and criteria are shown on Table 5 for geo-
conservation purposes at ELVC and LVC.
Distance from populated areas and the local communi-
ties associated with geosites are important elements to
include in such an assessment. LVC seem s more challeng-
ing in this regard, as access is only possible on 4WD
vehicles and no direct population can be linked to it. On the
other hand, there are no access restrictions and the sulphur
flows are within reach for anyone fit enough to endure the
high altitude, cold temperatures and aridity. Therefore,
when assessing the geosites one should consider the
tradeoff between their geological singularity and fragility
on one side, and these other elements on the other.
Meanwhile, ELVC is more accessible and located closer
to several villages and tourist attractions of the San Pedro
de Atacama area. This may be considered an advantage if
geotourism development arises. But from the geoconserva-
tion perspective, this also means a threat, if no precautions
and a regulated access to its geosites are established. Local
communities might currently not be related to the volcano
itself, but future alternatives may offer them development
opportunities based on mining-related geotourism on the
volcano as well. Likewise, mining activities currently
extracting iron ore from the vo lcano should become
conscious of the site importance and take their preservation
into account.
Conservation itself may be considered in different ways.
If specific sites present some interesting geological features,
but also constitute valuable mineral resources that will not
be easily found elsewhere, maybe preservation of the whole
site is not essential, perhaps only needing a documentary
record of photographs, samp les, written studies, etc. of
them, and exhibiting such documents, after mining has
taken place. The most valuable geosites, however, must be
respected and kept undamaged, without any intervention,
displacing mining activities to other, less significant
locations.
As for legal protection, of the different categories
applicable to geological heritage, mentioned on Table 4,
some need to be selected for the two cases in study. Initially,
the categories that seem better fitted for both ELVC and
LVC are either the Natural Monument under the Wash-
Table 5 Broad qualitative assessment of geological value at ELVC and LVC
Categories Criteria
ELVC LVC
1 Branch of interest Volcanology Volcanology
2 Main value of the sites Scientific Scientific
Educational Economic
Economic Recreational (potential) value related with its
remoteness and volcanological context
Recreational (potential) value related with its
accessibility and their natural and cultural context
3 Situation for which the
site is valuable
Rarity Rarity
Integrity Improvement of knowledge or research on
sulphur flows
Representativeness improvement of knowledge
or research on iron oxide occurrences
Fragility
Possible activities related to the site Current or potential threat
310 Geoheritage (2011) 3:299–315
Author's personal copy
ington Convention, or the Nature Sanctuary under the
National Heritage Act; and at least for the case of LVC, the
complementary status as Site of Scientific Interest for
mining purposes should also be taken into account, as a
way of further restricting interventions in the area. This
does not aim for a total exclusion of mining in a larger area,
but it does on the volcano itself, because of its extraordi-
nary value as a whole. The same reasons may be used to
declare one or more Sites of Scientific Interest for mining
purposes at ELVC specifical ly, but in this case with an acute
eye for allowing mining on the volcanic edifice’s interior in
places where iron ore is only valuable economically, while
putting aside those features that have been uncovered and
privately protected within the productive process, by
acknowledging and raising their intrinsic geologic value.
But, as explained above, these legal tools have legal and
practical limitations. Legal limitations derive from the same
regulations that establish them, as no protection category in
Chile fully prohibits specific activities or forms of
intervention. While this does not mean that one can simply
enter and do as one pleases within protected areas, there
always will be a degree of uncertainty for conservation if at
some point economic interests are put forward. The
problem of this is that heritage—of any sort—is mostly
irreplaceable. In Spanish, both heritage and financial asset
receive the same name: “patrimonio”. It should not be too
difficult to put both in value in an objective equation.
However, in developing countries where pressure for
economic growth is higher, the economic asset tends to
prevail.
On the other side, there are also practical limitations.
Conservation requires resources, and these legal tools
considered above do not provide them, and thus do not
assure a better management and conservation status for
geosites. For example, one of the few sites currently
covered by a protection status is an orbicular granite
outcrop located in a beach north of the town of Caldera,
at the southern end of the Atacama Desert, which was
declared as a Nature Sanctuary under supervision of the
CMN (Schilling 2007). It lies right next to the Panamerican
highway and is announced only by an old sign next to the
road, but lacks any sort of surveillance in situ. As beaches
are public land, anyone can access, but anyone could also
harm the outcrop without it being noticed.
So, for the Chilean case one can assert that the legal
framework is not adjusted or thought for geological heritage
management, similarly to what happened in Spain before
the statutes issued in 2007 (as concluded by Calaforra and
Fernández-Cortés 2006).
Despite these limitations, bad legal protection is prefer-
able to no legal protection. With this in mind, the initiative
by the Chilean Geological Society for protection of
Lastarria—among other geosites—is an important effort,
and the best legal alternatives are already under discussion
in order to reach concrete solutions. Regarding ELVC, there
seems to be a longer way to run regarding legal alternatives,
but the interest of the same company that owns mining
grants and that has protected its sites so far, to preserve
them further on and eventually form a museum in situ about
them, is promising.
Regarding awareness of the value and importance of the
geological heritage, the challenge is to promote them not
only to private owne rs or miners affecting a site, but also to
the community related to it and the authorities, as it is they
who should take action in an issue of public interest.
The cases of ELVC and LVC are complicated in this
matter, since they are not significantly related to a local
community, and their geological value requires high stand-
ards of understanding and knowledge of geological pro-
cesses, which is difficult to promote as a tourist attraction.
Sole scientific value may be sufficient to justify protection,
but in order to make that protection effective one must
account for resources, and these will better flow if a broader
community or more players are involved.
National authorities are the first responsible for the
geological heritage as they are in charge of managing the
country’s natural reso urces and deciding which places
should or should not be protected according to their cultural
and natural value (and assuring effective protection of
them). But there are also constitutional provisions, as well
as international commitments, that o blige the Chilean
government to protect its environment and its heritage.
Such commitments are the World Heritage Convention, and
the Man and the Biosphere Programme, started in the 1970s
and administered by UNESCO. According to both, the sites
recognized by these programmes’ standards only remain
under UNESCO’s recognition while they comply with their
requirements. Such programmes are complementary pro-
tection categories to the local system and only provide
funds, assistance and surveillance regarding management of
sites but do not enforce protection by themselves. However,
by requiring additional measures and standards of manage-
ment, at least they promote efforts for a stronger conserva-
tion strategy.
In this regard, UNESC O’s more recent Global Geoparks
Network is somewhat equivalent to these prior pro-
grammes. Therefore, promoting recognition of specific
locations at ELVC and LVC as national geosites might be
a first step for a larger project, in which the entire area and
its surroundings might be acknowledged as a Geopark of
global relevance in accordance with the Network’s aims
(De Grosbois & Eder 2008). Local identity exists, since the
area can be considered as a geographical and touristic unit.
However, if such a campaign took place, it would take a
major effort, requiring a proactive community, a landscape
marketing strategy as recommended by Megerle & Megerle
Geoheritage (2011) 3:299–315 311
Author's personal copy
(2003), and initiative, commitment and effective participa-
tion of all stakeholders involved (Wang 2007), as UNESCO
itself demands (UNESCO 2008). Again, factors playing
against the idea might be the lack of a conservation and
heritage promotion culture.
Other important activities complementary to geoconser-
vation could be geotourism and promotion initiatives such
as academic and wider educational programmes. Chile is
slowly becoming aware of its natural attractions potent ial,
and the many alternatives of tourism they make possible. Its
high diversity of climates and landscapes, from pristine seas
to mount ains over 6.000 ma.s.l., seldom dangerous wild-
life, and social and economic development that ensure
stability, offer unique possibilities to tourism of different
sorts, from traditional lodges (accommodation), to outdoor
activities, to science tours as well. If cleverly managed,
even remote places like ELVC or LVC can be developed as
valuable destinations.
As said before, the difficult part is to promote a scientifi-
cally interesting site to a broader audience. Scientific “elite
tourism” in this sense—meaning restricted access and explo-
ration of geosites by scientists—should be considered, though
accompanying it with other types of tourism, such as guided
ecotourism, taking advantage of the surrounding landscapes,
or guided visits to active mines and related sites that have been
set apart for protection, even if they are privately managed.
This would give tourists a chance to appreciate extraordinary
landscapes frequently reserved only for miners and geologists,
as long as their due protection allows it, while earning some
resources for their protection as well.
In this way, geoconservation and tourism should not be
regarded a s separate or opposed to mining, but as a
valuable complement that needs to be coordinated with it
in specific cases an d under technical supervision from the
public authority. Under this scope, UNESCO’s Geoparks, as
areas that integrate the differing interests, should not
necessarily exclude active mining.
Orderly planning for a larger geoconservation and
sustainable development project, involving geotourism
and different activities, would at least require a preliminary
phase to build a complete inventory of geosites (including
those sites specifically identified in ELVC and LCV).
Following Elízaga and Palacio (1996), a geoconservation
programme would have to consider the following phases:
1. Inventory and classification of geosites
2. Approval/recognition of the selected locations’“status ”
(situation)
3. Promotion and communication of the programme
4. Protection and acknowledgement of the sites value
5. Execution and monitoring of the programme
In Chile’s case, there have been advances on a voluntary
basis regarding the first step proposed by Elízaga and
Palacio, towards a national geosite inventory. There are also
individual projects and ideas under way, using the available
tools for conservation, even tho ugh not specifically
designed for geoconservation. The challenge here is to
advance in creating a better social and econom ic framework
for geoconservation, by developing, promoting and keeping
the interest of different stakeholders moving, whilst putting
an effective geoconservation programme for ELVCs and
LVCs area in force.
Also, new permits for mining development should be
adjusted to this geoconservation and sustainable develop-
ment project, while trying to conciliate it with those mining
permits already in force, if possible.
Environmental impact of mining is surely a serious
matter, and a mining project must consider not only
environmental measures during its development, but with
the same importance during its terminal and abandonment
phases. If sustainability is to be achieved in an area by
complementing geoconservation, mining and other activi-
ties, the standards at stake will probably be higher, even if
no population is directly affected. Therefore, following
Mager (2005), excessive costs of additional measures
relatedtoaspecialinterestinconservationshouldbe
duly assessed and not necessarily be borne entirely by
the abandoning miner. Additional costs may be decisive
for e xec ut ing or not a mining project. If the authori ty
wishes to promote economic activity without sacrificing
local interests in geoconserv ation, other resources should
be applied. Tax exemptions, tax reductions for donations,
and other inputs of funds, related with all possible forms
of natural and cultural conservation could be an efficient
way of promotin g geoconser vation as well. Currently,
however, Chilean legislation only permits economic
incentives for donations to cultural and social work.
Geoconservation and sustainability depend not only on
the kind of activities undertaken at a geosite, b ut mainly
on the additional measures taken in order to promote
safekeeping of geosites.
If several such efforts should take place and merge,
maybe in the near future Chile’s natural geological heritage
could be valued as much as it has recently demonstrated its
mining identity and pride, when a single campaign
involving many national and international, public and
private collaborators, and attended by audiences worldwide,
successfully found and rescued 33 miners from under
700 m of rock.
Conclusions
Identifiable geosites at ELVC and LVC should be protected
legally and materially, as they can be highly valued for their
geological significance and their economic potential for
312 Geoheritage (2011) 3:299–315
Author's personal copy
activities of different types. Geoconservation in these cases
does not necessarily imp ly tota l preser vation of the
complete original volcanoes, nor should it hinder the
extraction and usage of all their o re deposits. Mining can
provide a good source for research, and the prom otion of
scientific and cultural information related to a geological
site, by putting the latter apart from extractive processes. It
may even constitute a means for funding geoconservation
initiatives and their costs regarding those sites. As
feedback, conserving geosites for research, and developing
geological knowledge, may allow improvement in techni-
ques of identifying and extracting minerals in economically
and environmentally efficient ways.
The challenge for conservation of the specific geosites at
ELVC and LVC is to find adequate formulas or combina-
tions between protection, tourism, and mining; mainly
considering their geographical isol ation and the social and
economic circumstances of the relevant stakeholders (min-
ing companies, l ocal communities, authorities , nat ure
conserv ation o rganizations, etc.). The possible answers
should at least take into account the following topics: best
tourism alternatives for each volcano or area; in what
degree mining is acceptable at them; how mining and
geotourism might dialogue; how mining and conservation
might dialogue (to what degree intervention of the sites is
acceptable); and what degree of restrictions is needed in
each case for due conservation. Any combinations of these
variables should take into account the evaluation of the
environmental, social, economic, cultural and geographical
interests involved. In the end, this implies to put into
balance the benefits of exploiting the sites vs. those of
preserving them. If this balance finally favours exploitation
of a geologically relevant site, at least a documentary record
and exhibition would be expected.
Protection of geological features should therefore be
assessed and directed to preservation of selected outstand-
ing geosites, hopefully with an appropriate legal framework
for geoconservation, and considering sustainability between
socioeconomic development and conservation of natural
resources in their quality of cultural and natural heritage.
The lack of current legislation for this purpose in the
Chilean case should be amended, but rather than waiting
too long for new statutes changing protection figures or
creating new ones, which do not even assure conservation
by themselves, commitment and agreements among all
stakeholders (authorities, entrepreneurs and local commu-
nities) should be promoted in order to reconcile interests
and coordinate efforts, as a first step towards effective
conservation.
Developing geoconservation and geotourism may open
chances of an integrated and sustainable development among
mining, tourism, science, culture and conservation, in a
scarcely inhabited but culturally and naturally rich region.
Acknowledgements This article is supported by Fondecyt project
no. 1070428 and is a contribution to the Plutons project, National
Science Foundation no. EAR-0908281. Valuable comments given by
anonymous reviewers have allowed original manuscript improvement.
References
Alpers CN, Brimhall GH (1988) Middle Miocene climatic change in
the Atacama Desert, northern Chile: evidence from supergene
mineralization at La Escondida. Geol Soc Am Bull 100:1640–
1656
Calaforra JM, Fernández-Cortés Á (2006) Geotourism in Spain:
resources and environmental management. In: Dowling RK,
Newsome D (eds) Geotourism. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 199–220
Consejería de Medio Ambiente de la Junta de Andalucía (2006) La
geodiversidad andaluza ante el reto del uso sostenible. In: Medio
Ambiente en Andalucía. Informe 2006. Sevilla, pp 45–63
Cortés A (2000) Lugares de interés científico para efectos mineros.
Dissertation, III Jornadas de Derecho de Minería, Antofagasta,
Noviembre 2000
David Roche GeoConsulting (2005) GeoValue: Valuing Geodiversity
for Conservation. Initial Scoping Study. Development of the
Geodiversity Profile. Exeter: David Roche GeoConsulting.
Available at: http://www.sustainableaggregates.com/docs/theme3/
miro_ma_4_2_016a.pdf.Accessed26July2009
De Grosbois AM, Eder W (2008) Geoparks—a new tool for education,
conservation and recreation. Environ Geol 55:465–466
Dowling R, Newsome D (2006) Geotourism’s issues and challenges.
In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Geotourism. Elsevier,
Oxford, pp 242–254
Dudley N (ed) ( 2008) Guidelines for applying protected area
management categories. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland
Dudley N, Stolton S (eds) (2008) Defining protected areas: an
international conference in Almeria, Spain. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland
El Wartiti M, Malaki A, Zahraoui M, El Ghannouchi A, Di Gregorio F
(2008) Geosites inventory of the northwestern Tabular Middle
Atlas of Morocco. Environ Geol 55:415–422
Elízaga E, Palacio J (1996) Valoración de puntos y/o lugares de interés
geológico. In: Cendrero A (ed) El patrimonio geológico. Bases
para su valoración, protección, conservación y utilización. Serie
Monografías. Ministerio de Obras Públicas, Transportes y Medio
Ambiente, Madrid, pp 61–79
Evans B (2005) Geoparks, coalfields and South Wales—a sustainable
combination? Z Dtsch Geowiss 156(3):373–379
Fernández J (2007) Identificación y evaluación de geositios en el
Parque Nacional Torres del Paine. Memoria de título. Departa-
mento de Geología, Universidad de Chile, Santiago
Garrido R, Romero E (2004) La potencialidad turística del patrimonio
geológico-minero del Parque Natural Sierra de Aracena y Picos
de Aroche (Huelva, España). Pasos. Revista Turismo Patrim
Cultural 2(2):215–232
Gates AE (2006) Geotourism: a perspective from the USA. In:
Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Geotourism. Elsevier, Oxford,
pp 157–179
Grandgirard V (1999) L’évaluation des géotopes. Geol Insubrica 4
(1):59–66
Gray M (2004) Geodiversity: valuing and conserving abiotic nature.
Wiley, Chichester
Gray M (2008) Geoheritage 1. Geodiversity: a new paradigm for
valuing and conserving geoheritage. Geoscience Canada, Geo-
logical Association of Canada (New Series, Report)
Geoheritage (2011) 3:299–315 313
Author's personal copy
GSA (2008) The role of government in energy and mineral resources.
GSA Position Statement. Available at: http://www.geosociety.org/
positions/position11.htm. Accessed 23 January 2009
Hasenauer H, Putzhuber F, Mirtl M, Wenzel W (2007) Multifunctional
land use: the Eisenwurzen region of the Austrian Alps. In:
Mander U, Wiggering H, Helming K (eds) Multifunctional land
use. Meeting future demands for landscape, goods and services.
Springer, Heidelberg, pp 341–354
Heitzmann P, Reynard E, Stürm B (2006) Geotopschutz in der
Schweiz–quo vadis? In: Rosendahl W, Junker B, Megerle A,
Vogt J (eds) Geotope–Bausteine der Regionalentwicklung, 10.
Internationale Jahrestagung der Fachsektion GeoTop in der
Deutschen Gesellschaft für Geowissenschaften, May 23–26
2006, Ulm, Germany. Schriftenreihe Dtsch Ges Geowiss 44:48–
54
Henríquez F, Naslund HR, Nyström JO, Naranjo JA (2004) Igneous
textures in magnetite eruptive products at El Laco, Chile.
Dissertation, IAVCEI General Assembly 2004, Pucón, Chile
Ibáñez JJ (2004) Biodiversidad, Geodiversidad y Constructos Meto-
dológicos para sus Análisis. In: VII Congreso Nacional de Medio
Ambiente. Grupo de Trabajo 5. Nuevas perspectivas para la
conservación de la diversidad del patrimonio natural. November
25, Madrid, Spain. Available at: http://www.conama.org/
documentos/gt5.pdf. Accessed 25 July 2009
Instituto Geológico y Minero de España (2009) Documento metodo-
lógico para la elaboración del inventario español de Lugares de
Interés Geológico (IELIG). Instituto Geológico y Minero de
España. Available at: http://www.igm e.es/internet/patrimonio/
novedades/METODOLOGIA%20IELIG%20V12.pdf. Accessed
13 May 2010
Lou J, Wu F, Jong S (2007) Types of geoheritage and evaluation of
Dengkou Geopark, Inner Mongolia, China. In: Zhao X, Jian J,
Dong S, Li M, Zhao T (eds) Proceedings of the Second
International Symposium on development within geoparks.
Geological Publishing House, Beijing, pp 314–318
Luebert F, Pliscoff P (2006) Sinópsis bioclimática y vegetacional de
Chile. Universitaria, Santiago
Mager D (2005) Ressourcennutzung und Geotope. interpret–online
(Online-Series for Heritage In terpretatio n), 5, Freiburg. Avail-
able at: http://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/1756/pdf/
io-05Mager.pdf.Accessed28July2009
Maksaev V, Gardeweg M, Ramírez CF, Zentilli M (1988) Aplicación
del método trazas de fisión (fission track) a la datación de
cuerpos de magnetita de El Laco e Incahuasi en el altiplano de la
Región de Antofagasta. In: Congreso Geológico Chileno, No. 5,
Actas 1: B1-B23. Santiago
Maksaev V, Townley B, Palacios C, Camus F (2007) Metallic ore
deposits. In: Moreno T, Gibbons W (eds) The geology of Chile.
The Geological Society, London, pp 179–199
Megerle A, Megerle H (2003) Geoparks und Landschaftsmarketing.
Standort Z angew Geographie 3:147–148
Mostny G (2006) Prehistoria de Chile. 16th edn. Editorial Universi-
taria, Santiago
Naranjo JA (1985) Sulphur flows at Lastarria volcano in the North
Chilean Andes. Nat 313(6005):778–780
Naranjo JA (1988) Coladas de azufre de los volcanes Lastarria y Bayo
en el norte de Chile: reología, génesis e importancia en geología
planetaria. Revista Geol Chile 15(1):3–12
Naranjo JA (2010) Geología del Complejo Volcánico Lastarria,
Región de Antofagasta. Servicio Nacional de Geologí a y
Minería, Carta Geológica de Chile, Serie Geología Básica, No.
123, 1 mapa escala 1:25.000. Santiago
Naranjo JA, Henríquez F, Andrade B (2007) Iron and sulphur flows in
Central Andes, northern Chile. In: Anon (ed) Earth: our changing
planet. Proceedings of IUGG XXIV General Assembly, Perugia,
Italy, 2007
Naranjo JA, Henríquez F, And rade B (2008) Ages for the iron
oxide volcanism at E l Laco Volcanic Complex, central Andes.
Dissertation, IAVCEI General As sembly 2008, R eikiavik,
Island
Naranjo JA, Henríquez F, Nyström JO (2010) Subvolcanic contact
metasomatism at El Laco Volcanic Complex, Central Andes.
Andean Geol 37(1):110–120
Naslund HR, Henríquez F, Nyström JO, Vivallo W, Dobbs M (2002)
Magmatic iron ores and associated mineralization: Examples
from the Chilean High Andes and Coastal Cordillera. In: Porter
TM (ed) Hydrothermal iron oxide copper–gold and related
deposits: a global perspective, 2. Porter GeoConsultancy (PGC)
Publishing, Adelaide, pp 207–
226
Nyström JO, Henríquez F (1994) Magmatic features of iron ores of
the Kiruna type in Chile and Sweden: ore textures and magnetite
geochemistry. Econ Geol 89:820–839
Pena dos Reis R, Henriques MH (2009) Approaching an integrated
qualification and evaluation system for geological heritage.
Geoheritage 1:1–10
Pforr C, Megerle A (2006) Geotourism: a perspective from southwest
Germany. In: Dowling RK, Newsome D (eds) Geotourism.
Elsevier, Oxford, pp 119–139
Reynard E, Fontana G, Kozlik L, Scapozza C (2007) A method for
assessing “scientific” and “additional values” of geomorphosites.
Geographica Helvetica 62(3):148–158
Romero H, Rivera A, Fernández P (1997) Climatología de la Puna de
Atacama y su relación con los recursos hídricos. In: Anon (ed)
Actas del II Simposio Internacional de Estudios Altiplánicos, “El
Altiplano. Ciencia y conciencia en los Andes”, October 19–21
1993, Arica, Chile. Departamento de Postgrado y Postítulo,
Vicerrectoría Académica y Estudiantil, Universidad de Chile,
Santiago, pp 87–93
Schilling M (2007) Geoparques y Geositios: posibilidades de
educación, difusión y valoración del patrimonio geológico a
través del Geoturismo en Chile. ECOengen, Universidad Central
7:19–27
SERNATUR (2006) Catastro de Áreas Turísticas. Available at: http://
www.sernatur.cl/institucional/PDF/estadisticas/medio‐amb‐territ/
area‐tur‐i‐iv‐2006.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2009
Serrano S, Ruiz P (2007) Geodiversidad: concepto, evaluación y
aplicación territorial. El caso de Tiermes Caracena (Soria). Bol
Asoc Geógrafos Esp 45:79–98
Stern CR, Moreno H, López-Escobar L, Clavero JE, Lara LE, Naranjo
JA, Parada MA, Skewes MA (2007) Chilean volcanoes. In:
Moreno T, Gibbons W (eds) The geology of Chile. The
Geological Society, London, pp 145–178
Stürm B (2005) Geoconservation in Switzerland. Gen eral Situation
2005. In: Report for the Euro pean Geoconservation Overview
by ProGEO. Berne, Swiss Academy of Sciences, Working
Group for Geotopes. Available at: http://www.geosciences.scnat.ch/
downloads/geotopes/GEOCONS_05_CH.pdf. Accessed 8 August
2009
UNESCO (2008) Guidelines and Criteria for National Geoparks
seeking UNESCO’s assistance to join the Global Geoparks
Network. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/science/earth/doc/
geopark/2008guidelinesJuneendorsed.pdf.Accessed28July
2009
Van Loon AJ (2008) Geological education of the future. Earth Sci Rev
86:247–254
Voth A (2008) Los geoparques y el geo turismo: nuevos conceptos
de valorización de recursos patrimoniales y desarrollo region-
al. In: XI Coloquio Ibérico de Geografía. Tercera ponencia:
314 Geoheritage (2011) 3:299–315
Author's personal copy
Dimensiones sociales y políticas del medio ambiente y la
ordenación del territorio, Alcalá de Henares-Pastrana, Spain,
October 1–4 2008. Available at: http://www.geogra.uah.es/
web_11_cig/cdXICIG/docs/ponencia3.htm. Accessed 28 July
2009
Wang L (2007) Multi-designated geoparks face challenges in China’s
heritage conservation. J Geogr Sci 17(2):187–196
Weischet W (1975) Las condiciones cli máticas del desierto de
Atacama como desierto extremo de la Tierra. Revista Geografía
Norte Gd I I(3–4):363–373
Geoheritage (2011) 3:299–315 315
Author's personal copy
