Monday, July 31, 2017

Contributions to a Brazilian Code of Conduct for Fieldwork in Geology: an approach based on Geoconservation and Geoethics 

The following article on #geoethics can be downloaded from the IAPG website:

Mansur K.L., Ponciano L. C.M.O., De Castro A. R.S.F. (2017)
Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências (Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences), vol. 89, no. 1, supl. 0, 431-444,

When considering the numerous events that have prohibited the development of scientific projects or caused destruction of outcrops, it is clear that there is rapidly increasing necessity to define a Brazilian Code of Conduct for geological fieldwork. In general, this destruction is attributed to lack of knowledge as to the relevance of geological sites. The aim of this Code of Conduct is to guide geologists to adopt good practices during geoscience activities. Proposed guidelines are based on Codes of Conduct from other countries, mainly Scotland and England, on situations described in papers and on the personal experience of the authors. In this paper 29 points are suggested, in order to guarantee that fieldwork is conducted in accordance with geoethics, geoconservation and sustainability values. The proposal is structured in three parts: (1) Behavior and practices in respect to local traditions and providing information to the population; (2) Measures to minimize degradation on outcrops; and (3) Safety. The proposal seeks to broaden the debate on the need for responsible behavior during fieldwork, in order to promote respect for geodiversity. Through this code, Brazilian geoscientists will be able to contribute to the conservation of geological heritage and of outcrops with special educational relevance.

geoethics; geoconservation; code of conduct; sustainability principles; geoheritage; fieldwork


IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics:

Friday, July 28, 2017

The IAPG section of Uruguay

Welcome to the IAPG section of Uruguay! 

Leda Sánchez Bettucci
The section will work under the responsibility of Leda Sánchez Bettucci, geologist, PhD researcher at the Instituto de Ciencias Geológicas (ICG), Faculty of Science, Universidad de la República, Uruguay. She is Academic founder and Head of the Geophysical Observatory of Uruguay.

More information about Leda are available at:, and

Other IAPG national sections:

IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics:

Thursday, July 27, 2017

Overlapping Perimeters: 

Small-scale Fisheries Guidelines, and Geoethics

by Martin Bohle
Martin Bohle

European Commission, DG RTD
Corresponding Citizen Scientist / IAPG 

Picture credit:


This abbreviated essay (contribution to the EADI Nordic conference) contextualizes the FAO "Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication" (FAO SSF Guidelines) with reflections on the meaning of 'Geoethics'. The mutual context of both matters is provided through the lenses of four scholarly contributions to address the goal in the panel description: "… further enrich[ed] [the discus-sions] by developments arising from researching and promoting geo-ethics in the Anthropocene, thus connecting the challenges and opportunities of small-scale fisheries with other global issues". 
The first lens, "Global change and the future ocean: a grand challenge for marine sciences" [C. Duarte 2014] describes the state of the global ocean and coastal seas under the impact of anthropogenic global change, that is, within the 'Anthropocene'. Duarte offers, also a definition of 'anthropogenic global change' [p.1], namely "the global-scale changes resulting from the impact of human activity on the major processes that regulate the functioning of the Biosphere"; which in context of this essay should be read as 'functioning of the geo-biosphere'. The second lens, "Global Ocean Governance: New and Emerging Issues" [Campbell et al. 2016] brings into focus marine issue such as 'small-scale fisheries', 'ocean acidification' and 'blue carbon' as pressing governance concerns, which need to be addressed at regional and global scales, and for which the FAO-SSF Guidelines provide an advanced application case. The third lens, "Walking the talk: implementing the international guidelines for securing sustainable small-scale fisheries" [Jentoft 2014] emphasize that governance is the key challenge to implementing the FAO-SSF Guidelines; a challenge of a wicked nature that therefore requires more than a managerial approach to address it.  The fourth lens, "Earth System Governance – world politics in the Anthropocene" [Biermann 2014] shows that the implementation challenge of the FAO-SSF Guidelines is one particular realization of a more common governance challenge, which requires a normative approach to achieve a sustainable governance of the 'wicked' global commons. The human actor is a key-feature for the reflections in each of these four contributions. Similarly the understanding the meanings of the notions 'Anthropocene' and 'Geoethics' requires to put the human actor into the center of reflections.  
The focus on the human actor is the thread that entangles SSF-Guidelines, Geoethics, and the Human Niche.

A first perimeter: niche-building and small-scale fisheries

Niche-building is an anthropocentric and historical process [Bonneuil and Fressoz 2013, Ellis 2015, Latour 2015, Hamilton et al 2015, Bohle 2016, Fuentes 2016, Hamilton 2017]. Since prehistoric times people purposefully alter their environments, at local, regional or continental scale; including the coastal zone [Mee 2012].  
The fate of the small-scale fishery, which nowadays still contribute to about half of the global fish catch and employ about 90% of the respective workforce (FAO), within the industrialized use of the coastal zone (Newton et al 2012) may serve as contemporary example how people are changing the global geo-biosphere. 
The shift of the dynamics of the Earth systems happens mainly by the impact of the industrial global supply chains. Yet, the cumulated number of local artisanal activities has its global impact, in particular when triggered through environmental systems already strained by industrial exploitation. The small-scale fishery provides one example, of several, of a 'cascading eco-logical crisis' [Galaz et al. 2010] in the Anthropocene: failure of a local socio-ecological system (decreasing fish stocks in Central West Africa because of industrial over fishing) drives a cascade of crisis (Ebola hemorrhagic fever outbreak):

'Fish stocks have declined along the Central West African coast due to a large extent to rapid exploitation by high-tech international fishing fleet and due to the degradation of mangrove forests, sea grass beds and coral communities as a result of, for example, climate change and pollution. Consequently, diets and trading activities shift to so-called ‘bushmeat’ such as chimpanzees and flying foxes. These are well-known sources of zoonotic diseases such as Ebola, Marburg viruses and human monkeypox – all with the suspected ability to rapidly spread and cascade across scales through travel and trade. Moreover, increased bushmeat hunting has reportedly contributed to the loss of species that promote important functions in ecosystems, such as pollinators for food production. Loss of such organisms often undermine the resilience of food producing landscapes and forest ecosystems rendering them increasingly vulnerable to droughts and forest fires. The combined impacts of fish stock decline, epidemic outbreaks, additional losses in ecosystem services, water stress, and poverty put already fragile states such as Congo and Cameroon under severe pressure [Galaz et al. 2010, p. 7-8, edited]'.

In the contemporary world, the change processes of the geo-biosphere are happening simultaneously at a local, regional and planetary scale, and they are composite of natural and social processes [Hulme 2011, Tickell 2011, Monastersky 2015, Seitzinger et al. 2015, Schimel et al. 2015]. The change concerns the marine environment too, to the point that the political decision was taken to list its sustainable use among the Sustainable Development Goals [United Nations Economic and Social Council, 2016]. Geoethical thinking may facilitate actors to federate around common application cases.

A second perimeter: Geoethics and application context

The application context for geoethical thinking is known [Mayer 2015, Peppoloni and Di Capua 2016, Bobrowsky et al 2017]. Applying geoethical thinking means, for geoscientists but not only for them, including new subjects into known application context.
In a first context, geoethical thinking is perceived as tool for professional: Geoethics includes various ethical dimensions such as of individual behavior, social responsibility, and viewing Earth from different angles as a home for many (Cape Town Statement on Geoethics). Geoethical thinking searches different equilibria for a society-earth-centric view within a common frame-work, using, among other, philosophical, scientific, and socio-economic concerns. Different equilibria within a wider, common framework are needed in a diverse world: i) to reflect upon individual and professional behavior in different societal settings, as well as ii) to dwell on shared professional responsibility, integrity, know-how, mutual understanding of diversity, and intellectual hones-ty.  
In a second context, geoethical thinking is about professional ethics: when anthropogenic global change gets addressed as a governance challenge, then firm professional ethics will be needed in a context of applied geosciences; for example for matters such as risk taking, man-aging uncertainties, or revising options. Regarding the underpinning scientific, technical and socio-economic matters, each includes a range of standard ethical issues, such as whether the particular scientific and governance choice is professional 'sound'.  
In a third context, geoethical thinking is about the ethics of expert advice and (shared) com-mon sense: Today, many people ignore the processes and phenomena that shape the intersections of people's cumulated activities and the geo-biosphere. So far anthropogenic global change was unintended.  How insights about anthropogenic global change shape, including denial of global change, are subject to dynamic social and political processes, such as debates about lifestyles, preferences, values, and world-views. To that end, the practitioners, professionals, and researchers who understand the related processes and phenomena should share their professional insights with decision makers and layperson and debate publically value statements, world-views, and preferences.
In a fourth context, geoethical thinking extends the application case of human value systems: Our species has acquired the power to engineer planet Earth, namely to drive anthropocentric global change by the number of people, societal structures, and technological skills. Narrowly, anthropocentric global change is about governing the intersections of human economic activities and the geo-biosphere in function of people's needs.  Therefore, as for any governance issue, also governing anthropocentric global change is subject to value-systems.  
In a fifth context, geoethical thinking means to extend the range of applied ethics to new sub-jects: The overarching societal matters that relate to anthropocentric global change are value-driven, e.g. how to appropriate and distribute natural resources by whom and for what cost, whether to accepted side-effects and risk of collateral damages. These matters are known ethical issues. However, their complexity in the context of anthropocentric global change has no precedent, because of the number of people with different needs, diverse world-views and various preferences.  
In a sixth context, geoethical thinking is about how to take responsibility for Earth system dynamics, in anyone's daily dealings: so far people did not intend to modify planet Earth, although many were aware of the effects on the biosphere of people's cumulative activities. Yet rather recently most people had no insights into the intersection of human economic activity with the geo-biosphere. Nowadays, having lost innocence, anthropocentric global change is an intentional act, and its denial a liability.

Overlapping perimeters

The phase of human history has ended during which anthropogenic global change has happened unnoticed [Zalasiewicz 2015, Waters et al. 2016]. That insight has reached the coastal ocean and the open sea [Durate 2014]. As an illustration, small-scale fishery is one of many drivers of change. In this case the drive is through cumulated actions of many actors across diverse social-economic and natural environments, which happens within an external frame of a dominating industrialized fishery and exploitation of the coastal zone by a multitude of other ac-tors. The resulting complex 'system-to-be-governed' presents a set of wicked problems [Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009], which in turn engulf wicked 'governing-systems' too [Chuenpadgee and Jentoft 2013]. 
The insight gained from small-scale fisheries within an industrialized exploitation, thus one specific global change process, provides a metric for the complexity of anthropogenic global change in general. It also emphasizes the key-understanding that sustainable governance of peoples' activities at planetary scales is a wicked problem, be it for small-scale fisheries [Jentoft 2014] or mitigation of climate change [Pollitt 2016]. Hence [Chuenpadgee and Jentoft 2013, p. 344], 'overall values, norms and principles that guide institutions and actions' set an essential meta-order to iterate the way forward. Geoethical thinking is a contribution to develop such a meta-order for appropriate behaviours and practices, wherever human activities interact with the Earth system. 
Summarizing, once having lost innocence and such the citizen recognize anthropogenic global change as its anthropocentric intentional act then ethical scrutiny of actions is required. Under these circumstances, namely the perspective of an anthropocentric Holocene or the Anthropocene, geoethical thinking is a shared resource that deems helpful for the mutually respectful governance [Biermann 2014] of a sustainable planetary human niche for a global population of billions of citizens.


Biermann, F. (2014). Earth System Governance - World Politics in the Anthropocene. London: MIT Press.

Bobrowsky, P., Cronin, V., Di Capua, G., Kieffer, S., Peppoloni, S. (2017).
The emerging field of geoethics. In Gundersen L.C. (Ed.), Scientific Integrity and Eth-ics with Applications to the Geosciences (pp. xx–xx). John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Bohle, M. (2016). Handling of Human-Geosphere Intersections. Geosciences, 6(1), 3.

Bonneuil, C., & Fressoz, J.-B. (2013).
L’événement Anthropocène - La terre, l’histoire et nous. Le Seuil.

Campbell, L. M., Gray, N. J., Fairbanks, L., Silver, J. J., Gruby, R. L., Dubik, B. A., & Basurto, X. (2016). Global Oceans Governance: New and Emerging Issues. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41(1), 517–543.

Chuenpagdee, R., & Jentoft, S. (2013). Assessing Governability ? What?s Next. In M. Bavinck, R. Chuenpagdee, S. Jentoft, & J. Kooiman (Eds.), Governability of Fisheries and Aquaculture: Theory and Applications (pp. 335–349). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Duarte, C. M. (2014). Global change and the future ocean: a grand challenge for marine sciences. Frontiers in Marine Science, 1.

United Nations Economic and Social Council (2016). Economic and Social Council (Vol. E/2016). Retrieved from

Ellis, E. C. (2015). Ecology in an anthropogenic biosphere. Ecological Monographs, 85(3), 287–331.

Fuentes, A. (2016). The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, Ethnography, and the Human Niche: Toward an Integrated Anthropology. Current Anthropology, 57, S000–S000.

Galaz, V., Moberg, F., Olsson, E.-K., Paglia, E., & Parker, C. (2011).
Institutional and Political Leadership Dimensions of Cascading Ecological Crises. Public Administration, 89(2), 361–380.

Hamilton, C. (2017). Defiant Earth - The Fate of Humans in the Anthropocene. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hamilton, C., Bonneuil, C., & Gemenne, F. (2015).
Thinking the Anthropocene. In The Anthropcene and the Environmental Crisis (pp. 1–13). Routledge.

Haraway. (2015). Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin. Environmental Humanities, 6, 159–165.

Hulme, M. (2011). Meet the humanities. Nature Climate Change, 1(4), 177–179.

Jentoft, S. (2014). Walking the talk: implementing the international voluntary guidelines for securing sustainable small-scale fisheries. Maritime Studies, 13(1), 16.

Jentoft, S., & Chuenpagdee, R. (2009). Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicked problem.

Latour, B. (2015). Face à Gaia Huit conférences sur le Nouveau Régime Climatique. Paris: Editions La Découverte.

Mayer, T. (2015). Research Integrity the Bedrock of the geosciences. In Geoethics: Ethical Challenges and Case Studies in Earth Sciences (pp. 71–81).

Mee, L. (2012). Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea: The coastal zone in an Era of globalisation. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 96, 1–8.

Monastersky, R. (2015). Anthropocene: The human age. Nature, 519(7542), 144–147. article.

Newton, A., Carruthers, T. J. B., & Icely, J. (2012). The coastal syndromes and hotspots on the coast. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 96, 39–47.

Peppoloni, S., & Di Capua, G. (2016).
Geoethics: Ethical, social, and cultural values in geo-sciences research, practice, and education. In Geological Society of America Special Papers (pp. 17–21).

Pollitt, C. (2016). Debate: Climate change—the ultimate wicked issue. Public Money & Man-agement, 36(2), 78–80.

Schimel, D., Hibbard, K., Costa, D., Cox, P., & Leeuw, S. Van Der. (2015). Analysis, Integration and Modeling of the Earth System (AIMES): Advancing the post-disciplinary un-derstanding of coupled human–environment dynamics in the Anthropocene. Anthropo-cene, 12(2015), 99–106.

Seitzinger, S., Gaffney, O., Brasseur, G., Broadgate, W., Ciais, P., Claussen, M., Uematsu, M. (2015). International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme and Earth system science: Three decades of co-evolution. Anthropocene, 12(2015), 3–16.

Tickell, C. (2011). Societal responses to the Anthropocene. Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, 369(1938), 926–932.

Waters, C. N., Zalasiewicz, J., Summerhayes, C., Barnosky, A. D., Poirier, C., Ga uszka, A., Wolfe, A. P. (2016). The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene. Science, 351(6269), aad2622-aad2622.

Zalasiewicz, J., Waters, C. N., Williams, M., Barnosky, A. D., Cearreta, A., Crutzen, P., Oreskes, N. (2015). When did the Anthropocene begin? A mid-twentieth century bound-ary level is stratigraphically optimal. Quaternary International.

IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

IAPG at the EADI NORDIC Conference 2017 

Martin Bohle
The conference EADI Nordic (20-23 August 2017, Bergen, Norway) "Globalisation at the Crossroads – Rethinking Inequalities and Boundaries" aims to address a series of challenges in development (policy, research, practices) in a multi-polar world.

The IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics is represented by Dr. Martin Bohle (IAPG Corresponding Citizen Scientist). 

He has been invited by Mundus Maris to speak to the panel "Small-Scale Fisheries between Tradition and Modernity – Addressing Poverty Alleviation, Food Security and Social Development through the Lens of Human Rights and Dignity." 

The panel will discuss implementation issues of the voluntary FAO guidelines for small-scale Fisheries.

The IAPG was invited to "… further enrich [the discussions] by developments arising from researching and promoting geo-ethics in the Anthropocene, thus connecting the challenges and opportunities of small-scale fisheries with other global issues."  

​​Why EADI Nordic 2017The rapid growth of developing economies and the fundamental needs of many disadvantaged people across the globe are requiring, in face of "planetary boundaries" a fundamental rethinking of the future development. Addressing the economic, social and environmental challenges reflected in poverty and inequalities in both the Global South and North calls to review existing globalisation processes, population and urbanisation trends, and forms of mobilisation and civic agency.

​An excerpt of Martin's contribution, entitled "Entangling Small-scale-Fisheries-Guidelines, Geoethics and Human Niche", will be made available on the IAPG blog; the draft of the contribution is available at ResearchGate.

Information about EADI NORDIC Conference 2017 are available at:

IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics:

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

ICCCI 2017 
International Congress on Climate Change and its Impacts

José Macharé Ordoñez
Our member in Peru, Prof. José Macharé Ordoñez, sent us a message about the International Congress on Climate Change and its Impacts – ICCCI, that will be held from November 29th to December 1st, 2017 in Huaraz City (Peru).
José is President of the ICCCI Congress.

"Lots of people may think that Climate Change is not likely to affect their lives or they sustaining means. Our nearby environment, resources, and activities look so stable that we can feel that the reported slow climate changes will never arrive to a breaking point that impact to our comfort. While it is known that the Earth has suffered many strong climate and environmental changes and is still here, humankind is clearly far less resilient and could be unable to face the unfriendly environment that itself is slowly creating. 

We will meet in Huaraz, Péruvian Andes, 29th november to 1st december to discuss the physics of Climate Change, climate evolution through the time; issues on water supply by impacts on glaciers, in groundwater, or drift of rain zones; changes in ecosystems and lost of biodiversity, effects on human health, problems in agricultural production, and direct impacts on people and their economies. Also, we address the social capabilities of managing some predicted situactions. You are kindly invited to join us. Visit"

IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics is partner of the International Congress on Climate Change and its Impacts – ICCCI 2017.

Information about ICCCI 2017 are available at:

IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics:

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Sociedad Geológica del Perù - SGP​ 
endorses the "Cape Town Statement on Geoethics" 

SGP​ has endorsed the "Cape Town Statement on Geoethics" (

IAPG wishes to thank the SGP President, Carlos Monges Reynes, and the SGP Council.

Currently 17 geoscience organizations endorse or support the Cape Town Statement on Geoethics:

  1. International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS)
  2. European Federation of Geologists (EFG)
  3. American Geophysical Union (AGU)
  4. American Geosciences Institute (AGI)
  5. Geological Society of America (GSA)
  6. EuroGeoSurveys (EGS)
  7. International Association for Engineering Geology and the Environment (IAEG)
  8. International Geoscience Education Organisation (IGEO)
  9. African Association of Women in Geosciences (AAWG)
  10. Young Earth Scientists Network (YES Network)
  11. International Association for Geoscience Diversity (IAGD)
  12. Geology in the Public Interest (GPI)
  13. Italian Geological Society (SGI)
  14. Geological Society of Peru (SGP)
  15. Geology for Global Development (GfGD)
  16. South Asian Association of Women Geoscientists (SAAWG)
  17. African Network for Geo-Education (ANGE)

IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics:

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

IAPG and SGP signed an Agreement for Cooperation

On 3th July 2017, IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics and SGP - Sociedad Geológica del Perù (Peruvian Geological Society) has signed an Agreement for Cooperation.
The aim of the agreement is to promote a co-ordinated policy for promoting initiatives and events of common interest. 
In particular, IAPG and SGP will promote the involvement of their members in discussion on ethical and social implications of geoscience knowledge, education, research, practice and communication. IAPG and SGP will cooperate in the organization of the geoscience event "MINERLIMA". 
Finally SGP recognizes officially "IAPG-Peru" as the "Sección Especializada en Geoética, Cultura Geológica y Sociedad of the Sociedad Geológica del Perú".

SGP is a legal non-profit entity, founded on 3th July 1924. It comprises together geologists, other professionals, corporations, government entities and people interested in the earth sciences. Its main objectives are the diffusion of earth science and the promotion of scientific and technological research inside and outside the country, promoting cultural exchange with other organizations, collaborating with public and private universities and scientific institutions in the country and abroad in geological research. Likewise, SGP promotes the development of activities of extraction and rational use of natural resources.

SGP website:

Affiliations and Agreements of IAPG:

IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics:

Wednesday, July 5, 2017

GeoloSketchers: drawing geology

by Isaac Camps Gamundi
Isaac Camps Gamundi

Geologist and scientific editor. 
Author of, blog dedicated to the geological heritage of Catalonia (Spain)

Geolosketchers is a network of people joined by the interest in geology and for drawing.
The first GeoloSketchers meeting took place in February 2017. 
GeoloSketchers' meetings involve the collective practice of the open-air drawing in places where geology has a particular relevance and possesses visual-appealing elements.

GeoloSketchers is inspired by the Urban Sketchers movement and is mainly focused on drawing scenes of the natural environment, a widely used tool in geology and other related sciences. 
The procedure of a GeoloSketchers meeting is very simple:

  1. A public call to attend on a given date and place is launched through a social network. The location is an accessible space with relevant and visual-appealing geological features. Attendance is free of charge and no registration is required. 
  2. Attendants must cover their own expenses and join each meeting under their own responsibility.
  3. During the meetings participants are briefly introduced to what can be observed as well as to any interesting points of the area. This initial explanation excludes guided walks and/or drawing demonstrations. 
  4. Participants explore the surroundings of the area of interest, look for the most attractive spots, and start to draw. 
  5. A few hours later, GeoloSketchers meet again at the starting point and show their drawings to the group. Participants take group photos at the meetings and share them online.
The objectives of these meetings are:
  • Boosting the playful and artistic aspects of geology (It is not an academic activity).
  • Facilitating that people who like geology, to draw, and to practice their hobby as a group while meeting other people.
  • Awakening the interest of citizens for the geological heritage.
A group in Catalonia has been set up (, but Geolosketchers is an open initiative seeking to engage all the people interested in geology and who also like to draw; and it is envisioned that it will be spread as a global movement, in other regions of the world (either administrative or geological boundaries), by forming groups sharing the same idea. These groups would be autonomously organized following the same operating model and the same code of conduct exposed in an eight points manifesto:
  1. We like geology and we like to draw.
  2. We meet in areas where the geology is an important and attractive aspect of landscape and motivates us to draw any of its aspects, no matter of the scale.
  3. We draw what we can observe in situ or what we can interpret from what we are observing.
  4. Any drawing technique and supporting tool can be used.
  5. Our meetings are voluntary, open, free of charge, non-competitive and unpaid.
  6. We share our drawings online.
  7. We help each other.
  8. We respect the natural environment, people who live there, their property as well as the public property.
From these points it is necessary to emphasize three ethical implications in this initiative:

  • Creative freedom. Any technique, style or skill is valid.
  • Altruism. This activity does not seek any economic benefit, and must be supported by volunteering.
  • Respect for the environment. This activity cannot cause any kind of negative impact on the environment and the people.
If one or more people (leaders) decide to promote a local chapter by themselves, they should let it know to so that a list can be established, so that to facilitate the future creation of a website acting as a global directory, calendar and benchmark. 

More information related to this article are available in the journal of the College of Geologists of Spain (in Spanish): 

IAPG - International Association for Promoting Geoethics