Considered that due to its zise of effect, the loss of animal species is more noticeable.

the loss of animal species is more noticeable

From a legal standpoint, biodiversity is the core element of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), one of the most significant international law instruments and without a doubt the most important one related to protected areas. This document is important for PAs because it has been ratified by all Member States of the United Nations, except the USA, and because it has established progressive targets for the creation of PAs in each country (creation of PAs for protecting biodiversity, of course). Also, the CDB has led to important modifications in national legislations, e.g. the creation and adaptation of their protected areas legal statutes in order to protect biodiversity. As a consequence, most countries create protected areas for protecting biodiversity.

The CBD was particularly successful, because it treats biodiversity as an economic asset. As such, it provides governments with a great argument for the creation of PAs.

Of course, the protection of geodiversity (especially in the form of beautiful/picturesque landscapes) is a well established objective of many types of PAs in national legislations. In international law UNESCO recognises some of those PAs as part of the World Heritage, but the World Heritage Convention does not set goals for the creation of those PAs, as the CDB does.

I would argue that culturally, geodiversity is not so attached to the idea of nature or wilderness, the elements PAs traditionally seek to protect. What I mean is, for many people geodiversity is something beautiful and culturally relevant, but not necessarily something important to be protected for scientific or economic reasons. This has changed a lot in the last 30 years, but this perception still is present among policy makers.

Hello Dr. Milevski,

Enrique and Andre put up valuable arguments. In my view, biodiversity conservation is lucky to have various selfless advocates. And hence the outcry among people. Not saying that the mandate is achieved but still. Geodiversity conservation needs advocates who also work tirelessly and selflessly. Only then can we see governments and people taking notice.

Just my view!

I think it is impossible to separate both; diversity in geology, climate and hydrography is directly translated into biological diversity. All these abiotic conditions contribute to the ecological niches of target species. Would be surprising if conservation planning does not deal with these aspects. I can remember well that hydrography was explicitely cited as a reason to establish Tariquia national reserve in the Andes area of Bolivia, and I believe it was also important for the Amboro national park in the same country. .

Geodiversity protection is still far behind biodiversity protection for, among others, these reasons, :

1 - Most people associate nature conservation with the protection of biodiversity (Pemberton, 2007) ;

2 - geodiversity conservation is a field of nature conservation that is not well understood. Thus, "Nature conservation agencies and governments tend to emphasise the need for the conservation of biodiversity whilst virtually ignoring the geological foundation on which this is built and has evolved" (Pemberton, 2007) ;

3 - "Earth scientists are not trained in conservation theory and have had little input into the development of conservation strategies and policies, particularly as they relate to geoconservation" (Pemberton, 2007) ;

4 – The concept of geodiversity is of relatively recent introduction. "The term geodiversity was first used in 1993 as the geological equivalent of biodiversity. It has gained in international acceptance and usage in recent years and now warrants the status of a geological paradigm" (Gray, 2008).

What is meant by the phrase "protection of geodiversity"? It would seem to me that while the term may be relatively new, in practice many geologically significant areas have been protected either through "biodiversity protection" efforts, or because of geological features. For instance, Yellowstone National Park, the first in the US, was created to protect the hot springs, geysers, and canyons there, and one of the strongest proponents of protecting it was a geologist who had explored the area. Likewise many other protected areas in the US were protected either partially or wholly for the sake of geological features. Perhaps the most famous is the Grand Canyon but also, for example, Volcanoes National Park and Glacier National Park among many others. Further, many protected areas are recognized for their ecosystem as a whole, which I would think includes their geodiversity.

Do you think that there are areas of geodiversity that should be specifically be protected but aren't, or does your question more refer to public recognition of the importance of geodiversity? Some conservation practitioners are now focusing on "climate resiliency", a key component of which is referred to as "landscape complexity" (i.e. the variety of elevations, landforms, soils, bedrock, etc.), which to me encompasses geodiversity inherently. For example www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/edc/reportsdata/terrestrial/resilience/ne/Pages/default.aspx

The geo-diversity and biodiversity are fundamentally associated with each other. In addressing biodiversity, geo-diversity elements are bound to be there. So the question is to be rephrased.

Best wishes

Dear Alexander J. Wolf, I mean both considering that there are areas of geodiversity that should be specifically protected but aren't, as well as the weak public recognition of the importance of geodiversity (at least in our region of SE Europe). Here, in almost all studies and strategies of nature conservation, biodiversity has a highly dominant role, even in areas where geodiversity clearly dominates. For example, in these projects and actions, biodiversity experts and related topics highly dominate, even in the cases of a very important geo-heritage area. There are situations where the area protected for exceptional geodiversity after some time gets a dominant biodiversity "role". Or it is much difficult to get the projects and actions toward protection of a specific geo-heritage site contrary to that of biodiversity. I try to convince some policymakers or stakeholders that the protection of the (valuable) geodiversity (as an abiotic factor) is very significant for the biodiversity as well, but until now with little success.

- MICHAEL PEMBERTON, 2007. - conserving geodiversity : http://proceedings.com.au/quarrying2007/abstracts/abstract_pemberton.pdf

- Murray Gray, 2008. - Geodiversity: developing the paradigm. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association ; Volume 119, Issues 3–4, 2008, Pages 287-298

- Michael Pemberton, 2000. - conserving geodiversity, the importance of valuing our geological heritage:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242184444_CONSERVING_GEODIVERSITY_THE_IMPORTANCE_OF_VALUING_OUR_GEOLOGICAL_HERITAGE

Whenever you address to nature, the geodiversity is automatically considered as an inherent element of biome. Even the UNESCO world heritages sites considering nature strongly see the significance of geodiversity in the identified landscape. For example, the inscription of Khangchendzonga National Park in Sikkim, India was inscribed by the UNESCO (in 2016) as the World Heritage Site under mixed category of nature and culture, a good example.

Biodiversity is of course the central objective, but geodiversity is, in my view, to understand the behavior patterns of biodiversity. I've been studying geodiversity for thirty years, but I'm the only person in my country who does it. When I started, the first problem that I found is that only methods have been developed to study biodiversity up to the landscape scale. Beyond is the basic law of biogeography, that of Buffon, which apparently closes the doors, at least to study beta diversity. That my way of seeing is the most important. To my way of seeing at this moment biogeography goes through a conceptual crisis. What they call historical biogeography and phylogeography, which are the predominant conceptions, pretend to study the history of the earth from the phylogenies. This essentially means that the planet evolves according to life and not vice versa. This investment of dependent and independent variables brings the knowledge of geodiversity to blind alleys. That forced me to ignore those roads and follow unorthodox currents. That's what my friend Alwin Gentry helped me, who was once the "terrible child of botany." That great friend somehow found that Buffon's law can be fulfilled in a few meters in the Amazon jungle, although he does not call it that way. Based on this basic interpretation, he began by raising the taxonomic scale of work according to the territorial scale, and he used the taxonomic families to evaluate biological diversity. These works of Gentry, are currently the only ones on the biodiversity of the same biome in several continents. That "tropical jungle" biome is the most complex terrestrial biome on the planet. Those two publication of that author the only true works in geodiversity that have been written. I also had access to the works of Martín Piera, a brilliant Spanish entomologist who At the same time, I began to review the theoretical advances achieved in Eastern Europe during the years of socialism, which are not few or negligible and are barely known in the West. Also the neo-tropical fossil records, especially those of pollen that with the new currents of biogeography do not even take into consideration. This allowed me, first, to have a general vision of the neo-tropics as a region that achieved its current biota a few million years ago, with the formation of the Isthmus of Panama as well as the reasons why Africa is the largest reservoir of diseases for humans, many of which probably have not become evident. Second, find the nodes of biodiversity in Cuba and their importance. The regions of the world whose domesticated species can be most productive in Cuba, as well as the largest potential sources of invasive species. That my proposals are debatable, I do not believe I have the absolute truth, but I do believe that I have opened a door to biogeography and with it geodiversity and studies of biodiversity beyond landscapes. I am convinced that I will have many detractors, but whenever a new door opens, that happens.

Biodiversity is of course the central objective, but geodiversity is, in my view, to understand the behavior patterns of biodiversity. I've been studying geodiversity for thirty years, but I'm the only person in my country who does it. When I started, the first problem that I found is that only methods have been developed to study biodiversity up to the landscape scale. Beyond is the basic law of biogeography, that of Buffon, which apparently closes the doors, at least to study beta diversity. That my way of seeing is the most important. To my way of seeing at this moment biogeography goes through a conceptual crisis. What they call historical biogeography and phylogeography, which are the predominant conceptions, pretend to study the history of the earth from the phylogenies. This means that the planet evolves according to life and vice versa. This investment of dependent and independent variables brings the knowledge of geodiversity to blind alleys. That forced me to ignore those roads and follow unorthodox currents. That's what my friend Alwin Gentry helped me, who was once the "terrible child of botany." That great friend somehow found that Buffon's law can be fulfilled in a few meters in the Amazon jungle, although he does not call it that way. Based on this basic interpretation, I have started by raising the taxonomic scale of work according to the territorial scale, and I have used the taxonomic families for the biological diversity. These works of Gentry, are currently the only ones on the biodiversity of the same biome in several continents. That "tropical jungle" biome is the most complex terrestrial biome on the planet. Those two publications of that author the only true works in geodiversity that have been written. I also had access to the works of Martín Piera, a brilliant Spanish entomologist who At the same time, I began to review the theoretical advances achieved in Eastern Europe during the years of socialism, which are few or negligible and are barely known in the West. Also the neo-tropical fossil records, especially those of pollen that with the new currents of biogeography do not even take into consideration. This allowed me, first, to have a general vision of the neo-tropics as a region that achieved its current biota a few million years ago, with the formation of the Isthmus of Panama as well as the reasons why Africa is the largest reservoir of diseases for humans, many of which probably have not become evident. Second, find the nodes of biodiversity in Cuba and their importance. The regions of the world whose domesticated species can be most productive in Cuba, as well as the largest potential sources of invasive species. That my proposals are debatable, I do not believe I have the absolute truth, but I believe that I have opened a door to biogeography and with it geodiversity and studies of biodiversity beyond landscapes. I am convinced that I will have many detractors, but whenever a new door opens, that happens.

Biodiversity is of course the central objective, but geodiversity is, in my view, to understand the behavior patterns of biodiversity. I've been studying geodiversity for thirty years, but I'm the only person in my country who does it. When I started, the first problem that I found is that only methods have been developed to study biodiversity up to the landscape scale. Beyond is the basic law of biogeography, that of Buffon, which apparently closes the doors, at least to study beta diversity. That my way of seeing is the most important. To my way of seeing at this moment biogeography goes through a conceptual crisis. What they call historical biogeography and phylogeography, which are the predominant conceptions, pretend to study the history of the earth from the phylogenies. This means that the planet evolves according to life and vice versa. This investment of dependent and independent variables brings the knowledge of geodiversity to blind alleys. That forced me to ignore those roads and follow unorthodox currents. That's what my friend Alwin Gentry helped me, who was once the "terrible child of botany." That great friend somehow found that Buffon's law can be fulfilled in a few meters in the Amazon jungle, although he does not call it that way. Based on this basic interpretation, I have started by raising the taxonomic scale of work according to the territorial scale, and I have used the taxonomic families for the biological diversity. These works of Gentry, are currently the only ones on the biodiversity of the same biome in several continents. That "tropical jungle" biome is the most complex terrestrial biome on the planet. Those two publications of that author the only true works in geodiversity that have been written. I also had access to the works of Martín Piera, a brilliant Spanish entomologist who At the same time, I began to review the theoretical advances achieved in Eastern Europe during the years of socialism, which are few or negligible and are barely known in the West. Also the neo-tropical fossil records, especially those of pollen that with the new currents of biogeography do not even take into consideration. This allowed me, first, to have a general vision of the neo-tropics as a region that achieved its current biota a few million years ago, with the formation of the Isthmus of Panama as well as the reasons why Africa is the largest reservoir of diseases for humans, many of which probably have not become evident. Second, find the nodes of biodiversity in Cuba and their importance. The regions of the world whose domesticated species can be most productive in Cuba, as well as the largest potential sources of invasive species. That my proposals are debatable, I do not believe I have the absolute truth, but I believe that I have opened a door to biogeography and with it geodiversity and studies of biodiversity beyond landscapes. I am convinced that I will have many detractors, but whenever a new door opens, that happens.

See attach

Please forgive my repetition, but I had problems with evio

Isso ocorre em função do termo Geodiversidade ser menos conhecido por parte da população em geral.