Accessing Geological Heritage in Slovakia: Between Politics and Law

Abstract

The results of geotourism development in Slovakia do not correspond much to the idea of geotourism as a social priority, nor to the declared increased interest in all forms of responsible tourism. The development of geotourism, in the strict sense of the word, is a political phenomenon; here, it exists outside the legal framework. This paper examines the question of whether, to what extent, and in what manner the promotion of leading principles (such as the idea of sustainability and its manifestation in various forms of regulated tourism) should be enshrined in positive law, and what specific benefits this might bring for the development of geotourism in Slovakia. Given the questions posed are of a kind that jurisprudence may answer, the methods chosen are drawn from legal science, though also intersecting with several other social sciences. Accordingly, the approach is one of doctrinal interpretation, based on the scientific study of valid law. Slovak law as a whole, specifically as it relates to the implementation of sustainable development and regulated forms of tourism, thus sets the outer limits of the application of these interpretative methods (including linguistic, historical, and logical interpretation of law, among others). The article answers the question in the affirmative way and outlines prospects for positive change should current approaches be changed.

1. Introduction

The modern origins of geotourism were originally related in theory to “geological” tourism [1]. This was subsequently defined by several studies [2,3,4,5]. Later, under American influence (National Geographic Society) and largely without regard to the previous European direction, a much broader concept emerged [6,7]. The semantic overlap was eloquently expressed in 2011 by a declaration that emerged from the International Congress in Arouca, Peru. It defined geotourism as tourism that maintains and strengthens the identity of a territory in such a way that it considers, in addition to its geology, the environment, culture, aesthetics, heritage, and the well-being of its inhabitants. In this broad (so-called geographical) understanding, geological tourism became just one of several components of geotourism [8]. The new synthesising concept found a response in more recent definitions and geotourism and was now understood as “an approach to tourism through its geographical orientation, which is supported by its geological nature”, thereby giving a certain territory a “sense or feeling of place” [9]. Attention is attributed to the landscape and its geology, which aims to develop sustainable tourism. This means respecting a holistic understanding of the environment and using sites defined by their geological characteristics so that environmental, community, and economic benefits outweigh any negative effects. Thus, instead of the original geological “Art for art’s sake”, the new tourism branch primarily emphasises its versatile connections beyond the strict framework of geological heritage and its social responsibility—values that are manifested in many social spheres, from nature conservation to the economic well-being of the population, and which require extensive planning and appropriate management of access to the site [10].

The concepts of building geoparks in Slovakia from 2008 [11] and 2015 [12] were synchronous with the above processes, and their results were fully respected. Geotourism, as a function of the government-supported efforts to build geoparks, was (and is) also understood in Slovakia as an example of modern, regulated, and ecologically oriented tourism. Its mission, in addition to education in geological sciences, was to ensure the sustainable development of the relevant territory through the development of geotourism and the protection of the most important geosites [11]. Following this, geopark managements had the task of mediating the interests, requirements, and ideas of individual geoparks within legislative and decision-making mechanisms [12]. According to these assumptions, the development of geotourism and geoparks in Slovakia was associated with the expected legal consequences. The projection of the assignment of geotourism and the goals of its development, as well as its connection with other social spheres (nature and landscape protection, regional development, economy, cultural heritage, etc.) has not yet been adequately reflected in the Slovak legal order. The concept is known and exploited with in conceptual, politically binding documents (e.g., Government Programme Statement, Tourism Development Strategies) at all levels of public administration. It does not appear in legal regulations. The article deals, among other things, with the negative consequences of this absence. To date, the concrete results of its development in Slovakia have not yet corresponded very much to the idea of geotourism as a social priority or to the declared increased interest in all forms of responsible tourism.

This article is intended to be part of a social and professional discussion focused on concretising the concept of sustainability, filling the concept with concrete content (measures, specific policies), beyond the usual twist in rhetorical exercises of politicians and legislators. In this context, the article analyses the forms of social regulation of issues related to the development of geotourism in Slovakia, evaluates the achieved state, and offers an outlook for possible positive changes if there is a change in current approaches.

The paper examines the question of to what extent, in what way, and whether at all the promotion of leading principles (such as the idea of sustainability and its emanation into individual forms of regulated tourism) should take the form of positive law, and if so, what possible benefits this might bring specifically for the development of geotourism in Slovakia.

For this purpose, the paper is divided into the following three major parts: (1) political and legal contexts of geotourism, (2) the comparison of development intentions and achieved state, and (3) the discussion on possible effects of a positive legal regulation.

2. Methods

The methodological framework adopted in this paper is characterised by a systematic legal analysis directed at the legal regimes governing geotourism and tourism. This involves a targeted and purposeful selection of relevant legal norms in various branches of law, based on their demonstrable relevance to the topic under study. Existing positive legal regulations were reviewed through synthesis and subsequent analysis of legal and auxiliary sources. This was supplemented by a study of the professional literature related to the research topic.

From a methodological point of view, it should be emphasised that legal science is very closed and distinct from the point of view of other disciplines, but within it, there are quite significant differences between the approaches of individual sectors. At the same time, legal regulations related to tourism and geotourism belong to the so-called cross-cutting sectors, which affect a whole range of traditional sectors, and cannot overlook, for example, elements of international law.

Legal and political documents were analysed using classical methods of jurisprudence [13,14] aimed at clarifying the meaning and content of legal norms as well as internal regulations of state administration for their understanding and use, while interpretative processes intended for this that are part of law (as well as all social sciences) were used for this purpose. This combines the interpretation of a linguistic text with the recognition of connections and transitions between individual norms. These are, therefore, cases of doctrinal interpretation, based on the scientific study of valid law. The entirety of Slovak law, insofar as it concerns the application of sustainable development and regulated forms of tourism, also represents the outer limits of the applicability of these interpretative methods (methods of linguistic, historical, and logical interpretation of law, among others).

From the possible approaches, the authors chose the legal-historical approach [15]. This involves examining the development of legislation, concepts and principles relating to geotourism and tourism law over time. This approach aims to examine the current legal situation by tracing its historical roots, identifying key influences and precedents, and analysing legal developments within different contexts (e.g., economic or social).

Although the authors have explicitly chosen this historical perspective, its application does not preclude the necessary consideration of contemporary factors such as organisational legal acts and relevant knowledge from political science, suggesting its integration into a broader analytical framework to provide temporal depth and contextual understanding to the study of tourism law and geotourism.

3. Theoretical Framework

3.1. Geotourism and the Law in Slovakia

Although geotourism does not have a positive legal regulation, its issues extend to several areas that do have it (nature and landscape protection, cultural and mining heritage, regional development, etc.). Tourism as an economic sector has also been reclassified into a legal category in Slovakia [16,17,18,19]. Moreover, within geotourism itself, certain rules have already been introduced, which, as a “law”, essentially only lack the appropriate legislative form. This is a situation where as in this case, a certain rule is formulated, but it does not have any defined (and therefore suitable) legal form, i.e., any type of hierarchically organised legal regulations (such as law, decree, governmental regulation, etc.). The problem of the administrative act in which these specific rules are found is that it should determine the obligations of specific entities and not postulate universally valid rules binding everyone.

Several legal issues need to be considered in this context:

(1) First of all, it is necessary to at least clarify in advance whether conventional legal regulation is at all appropriate in the case of geotourism and geoparks. The Update of the Concept of Geoparks of the Slovak Republic [12] answered the question positively, since it admitted the introduction of classical legal regulation of geoparks, specifically in connection with the possibilities of using domestic budgetary resources for the construction and operation of geoparks. The purpose of “creating a new legislative framework” that would determine the “method of construction, operation, monitoring of geoparks” would be to integrate public funds into a single and more easily accessible financial instrument and to regulate the process of drawing down funds. According to the new concept, this step would significantly contribute to solving the fundamental issue of the sustainability of geoparks. Although this initiative was not taken into account by the subsequent Action Plan for the Implementation of Measures to Ensure the Realisation of the Updated Geoparks Concept (and was never taken into account thereafter), it is still a valid development strategy, and, therefore, the proposed option is still relevant.

(2) We can further ask ourselves to what extent geotourism is actually addressed by the developing legal sector of tourism, and how, from the perspective of geotourism itself, its inclusion in this context—or the application of certain instruments from tourism legislation—might be justified. The development of geotourism and geoparks is coincidentally almost synchronous with the development that led to the development of legal regulation in tourism as a de facto new legal branch after 2001 [20]. Tourism law can offer geotourism both established and new models as a foundation for its institutional basis. First of all, these are special legal entities established under the Act on the Promotion of Tourism No. 91/2010 Coll. [21] with the mission of primarily functioning as destination organisations and thus developing tourism in their territorial area (regional and area-based tourism organisations). The new Concept of geoparks from 2015 [12] drew attention to the possibility of involving these organisations in financing activities related to tourism in the territories of geoparks. The number of specialised legal entities in tourism is not given once and for all by the Act on the Promotion of Tourism [21]. With the adoption of the Act on the Support of Tourism Fund No. 303/2024 Coll., effective from 1 January 2025 [22], another specialised legal entity in this area was established. According to the explanatory report to the act, the aim of creating this foundation-type institution is to ensure transparent and effective financial support for projects focused on the economic, environmental and social sustainability of tourism and on infrastructure that is to serve primarily for the purposes of tourism and sustainable development of regions [23]. There is good reason to assume that the new entity will also keep in mind the needs of geotourism in its activities, as the support and development of nature tourism is among its priorities in the current election period according to the government programme for 2023 to 2027.

From a legal perspective, geotourism is related to several issues that are comprehensively, or at least to some extent, regulated by law.

(3) The main public law implications of geotourism arise from its very definition. It was linked to environmental law by the Programme Statement of the Slovak Government from 2006 [24], in which the word geoparks appeared for the first time, precisely as part of building the infrastructure for nature and landscape protection within the framework of the development of regulated tourism as one of the environmental policy tools. According to this document, a geopark was one of the forms of protection for the most important geosites and other presented localities for future generations. Protection in the Slovak law is a specific activity that prevents or eliminates pollution or damage to the environment, in contrast to environmental care, which includes any legally regulated behaviour of natural and legal persons [25]. Wherever geoconservation obligations of geotourism coincide with state protection of nature and landscape, geoparks and geotourism must respect environmental protection regulations, by-laws (statutes) of protected areas, and solitary natural monuments. Movement in the field must comply with individual levels of territorial protection of nature and landscape (five levels in total). Special territorial protection of nature and landscape is provided from the second level in individual categories (Protected Landscape Area, National Park, Nature Reserve, Nature Monument). The law establishes general protection (prohibition of damage and destruction) of minerals and fossils. Their collection, processing, trading, reporting obligations regarding the discovery of a protected mineral, the right of the state to issue a discovery, and the conditions for the acquisition of ownership by the discoverer are also regulated by the law. In perspective, conservation through geotourism could be more widely used in the future, after further differentiation of environmental policy instruments. Under the current legal framework, administrative tools fail to sufficiently stimulate those they are intended for [26], but at the same time, “intrusion from the outside” in the system of state protection of nature and landscape is also not allowed.

Environmental law in Slovakia is understood as regulating human behaviour toward the environment, which includes the care for natural resources and their rational use to achieve a favourable environmental state [27,28]. In addition to the Act on Nature and Landscape Protection [29], the care of mineral wealth is regulated primarily by the Mining Act (No. 44/1988 Coll.) [30] and the Act on Mining Activities, Explosives, and State Mining Administration (No. 51/1988 Coll.) [31]. The need to complete the development of the most important mining sites into open-air museums, museums, technical monuments, and geoparks was already foreseen in the material entitled the “New Concept of Tourism Development of the Slovak Republic until 2013” [32]. Otherwise, ignoring the rich mining past, and especially not using suitable mining works for this purpose, would be an example of the uneconomical use of resources in which Slovakia is exceptionally rich. Geotourism, according to the original Slovak definition of geotourism, is closely related to mining tourism [33]. They share a common interest in geomining heritage, i.e., the coherence of the history of the Earth with the history of humanity through the connection of tangible and intangible elements of mining heritage with mineral and rock elements that were mined in the past [34,35,36,37,38]. Mining tourism is legally regulated in some aspects (making old mining works accessible, operating conditions from a safety perspective) [39].

Overcoming regional disparities can involve various means and motives (e.g., sustainable development, knowledge economy support, human capital development, etc.). Regional development reflects economic categories but also considers non-economic variables and depends on both the quantity of growth and the quality of development [40,41,42]. Given the needs defined in this way, the orientation towards responsible forms of tourism is at the peak of its time. “Ensuring sustainable development of the relevant territory through the creation of geoproducts and the development of geotourism” is determined by the Draft Concept of Geoparks in the Slovak Republic [11] as one of the three main goals of establishing geoparks, following the meaning and mission of the European Geoparks Network (EGN) and Global Geoparks Network (GGN). The second concept, the Update of the Concept of Geoparks in the Slovak Republic [12], also adheres to this principle: “the establishment of a geopark brings economic benefits to the local population, as a rule, through the development of sustainable tourism”. The concepts emphasise that geoparks should be a significant representative of the given region (Figure 1), and in addition to their own activities, they should stimulate the creation of follow-up activities in the tertiary sector (services). These would be a suitable form for creating new business plans and job opportunities. Thanks to this, the geopark would become a significant economic stimulus for developing the relevant area. It is possible to assume that the services mentioned in the concepts are not only, strictly speaking, geoproducts, in the sense of “commercial services and goods inspired by geological heritage and geodiversity” [43], but of course they also include them.

On a theoretical level, interest in geotourism as a regional development stimulus is defined mainly by geotourism concepts and related documents. On the contrary, geotourism is usually explicitly absent from legislation and regional development strategies. So, for example, the new concept of geoparks [12] had to use an argument a simili in placing geotourism in the context of regional development. Because the Update of the National Regional Development Strategy of the Slovak Republic (GR SR, No. 222/2014) [46] mentioned only tourism, in general, as a development potential for regions.

In practice, however, the possibilities of geotourism have not been ignored, and geotourism is a recipient of public aid precisely for the regional development. An example of specific measures can be the Government Resolution of the Slovak Republic No. 593/2008 “on the analysis of the socio-economic situation of the Banská Štiavnica district and proposals for improvement in the social and economic area” [47], which resulted in specific tasks in building the Banská Štiavnica Geopark object system; further the Resolution of the Government of the Slovak Republic No. 601/2015 [48] “on the Analysis of the socio-economic situation of the Trebišov district and proposals for solutions in the social and economic area”, based on which the government ordered the Ministry of the Environment to ensure an information campaign regarding the prospects for building the Geopark Zemplín. And finally, activity No. 1.11 of the Action Plan for the Implementation of Measures of the Updated Concept [49] supported the operation of geoparks and employment growth in their territories from the state budget and several other sources (e.g., the Rural Development Programme, 2014–2020 [50]).

Geological heritage, as well as other types of natural heritage, can be considered in a broader sense as part of the cultural heritage of a society, nation, or humanity [51]. Geotourism satisfies visitors’ needs more the more complex their visit experience is. This holistic approach is well reflected in the “ABC” concept (including abiotic, biotic, and cultural elements), which geoparks strongly emphasise. By focusing on the interconnections between abiotic, biotic, and cultural aspects, the ABC concept provides an effective means for achieving a holistic comprehension of local heritage and its geo-related context. Geotourism is derived from both geology and geography. This means that its subject of interest is also the uniqueness, the peculiarity of the place from the broadest, not only abiotic, but also human or anthropological perspective, including historical, archaeological or ethnographic values. In the acronym, the last letter symbolises past and present cultural or human components [5,52]. The relationships between geological and cultural heritage can be spatial, conceptual, causal and thematic [53]. The geocultural heritage that is formed thanks to these connections has the same impact on the legal field in terms of the protection of cultural heritage and museum presentation, as is the case with geological heritage and geoconservation. The draft Concept of Geoparks in the Slovak Republic [11] incorporated an audit and analysis of cultural and historical potential in the preparatory phase of building geoparks as one of the guarantees of the sustainable development of the emerging geopark. In the subsequent implementation phase, educational exhibitions and specialised museums were also considered part of the built infrastructure of the geopark. Similarly to nature and landscape protection, if the geopark object system includes monuments of geocultural and cultural significance, it must consider the rules of state monument care. This relationship can be demonstrated in several places in the legal order. The collected protected minerals and fossils are considered objects of museum value and are subject to the Act on Museums and Galleries No. 109/1961 Coll. [54,55]. If the planned activity threatens objects and interests protected under Act No. 49/2002 Coll. on the Monument Fund [56], the decree establishing the details of the procedure for permitting the access of mining works and old mining works for museum purposes requires a document on the resolution of any conflict of interest. In this case, too, it is a complex relationship; it is not exclusively a matter of unilateral respect for legal regulations for the protection of cultural, historical, and mining heritage. Geotourism also has its own, albeit indirect, means of protection that it can use to protect geocultural heritage.

(4) In private law, the key issue for geotourism is the adequate legal form of association and cooperation of legal and natural persons in pursuing public benefit goals. The update of the Concept of Geoparks of the Slovak Republic [12] states that the condition for the functioning of a geopark is the creation of an effective management system and the implementation of its development strategy. The Concept does not link this efficiency to any specific legal form; according to it, this entity can be a “legal entity, civic association, association of legal entities, non-governmental organisation, local government, foundation, museum or institution consisting of qualified and professionally competent personnel”. It thus considers all possible classification aspects (subject of public or private law—legal form—institutional mission or subject of activity), which indicates that it perceives this issue as marginal. This is also reflected in the currently prevailing diversity, which is manifested exclusively within the forms of association regulated by private law regulations related to social life (

Table 1. Members of the Geoparks Network of the Slovak Republic.

Geopark	Operator	Legal Form	Regulation
Banská Štiavnica Geopark	ZZPO Región Sitno	Interest association of legal entities	Civil Code No. 40/1964 Coll. [58]
Novohrad–Nógrád UNESCO Global Geopark	Združenie právnických osôb Geopark Novohrad–Nógrád	Interest association of legal entities	Civil Code No. 40/1964 Coll. [58]
Banská Bystrica Geopark	Banskobystrický geomontánny park	Civic association	Act on Citizens’ Associations No. 83/1990 Coll. [57]
Malé Karpaty Geopark	Barbora n. o.	Non-profit organisation	Act on Non-Profit Organisations Providing Public Benefit Services No. 213/1997 Coll. [59]

). An example of cooperation from which state authorities promise development based on the application of a “bottom-up” approach is the existence of public–private partnerships, which are envisaged by the Action Plan for the Implementation of Measures to Ensure for Realisation of the Updated Geopark Concept [49]. Plan sees them as prospective initiators of local development in geopark territories and candidate territories by establishing “local action groups” (MAS). Local action groups are partnerships that again take on the legal form of civic associations according to Act No. 83/1990 Coll. on Citizens’ Associations [57]. So far, no state-established legal entity connected to the public budget has taken on the task of managing a geopark, although the first Geopark Concept from 2008 assumed that the existence of such institutions with a built-in infrastructure and good material and personnel background would be the best guarantor of the development of geotourism. However, several of them (e.g., the Slovak Mining Museum, the State Geological Institute of Dionýz Štúr, the Slovak Environmental Agency, the Slovak Academy of Sciences, etc.) have of course fulfilled the duties assigned by the government, especially in the preparatory phase of building geoparks. An example is the projection of the task “Supporting the building of geoparks in the Slovak Republic, especially in categories A and B, in accordance with their concept approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Slovak Republic No. 740/2008” [11] into the plan of main tasks of the Slovak Environmental Agency, based on which the agency, among other things, processed the territory of the Banská Štiavnica Geopark in the geographic information system and digitised its educational and tourist routes.

(5) A geopark achieves its goals through conservation, education, and geotourism and due to national legislation, but it does not usually take on any of the forms of a protected area [60]. There are issues related only to individual countries or wider areas according to local economic, legal, social problems, in which a transnational organisation such as UNESCO can help only by separating its model from the variability of local conditions. The Global and regional geopark networks (including the European Geoparks Network) under the auspices of UNESCO are global entities, which, however, fundamentally leave the resolution of related legal issues to the national legal systems of the member countries [61]. The establishment of the EGN and GGN led to the mass establishment of geoparks. However, as it turned out, they were mainly concentrated in Europe and China. This has led to whether financial or administrative and scientific constraints associated with the preparation and submission of an application do not significantly hinder their establishment in countries with fewer resources [62]. In 2015, UNESCO has introduced a new brand UNESCO Global Geopark (UGGp) to present its concept of a geopark free from exclusive dependence on the legal systems of individual countries, thus correcting the situation that has constrained the development of geoparks in certain parts of the world since the establishment of the World and European Geoparks Network. On the other hand, the universal standard of the UNESCO Global Geoparks Network (UNESCO Global Geoparks Network, GGN) has a binding and strictly formalised approach for member countries [63,64]. Applicants for membership must meet certain globally valid criteria and values, among which UNESCO emphasises the importance of a bottom-up initiative in building geoparks, as well as the importance of international cooperation and partnership in this area [65]. This marked the beginning of the “second wave of institutionalisation of the world geological heritage” [62], which, however, does not mean the automatic conversion of previously established geoparks or aspiring territories under a new brand. The geopark has become a global phenomenon, to a certain extent independent of the decisions of public authorities, national legislation, and the state borders of individual countries.

(6) The Interdepartmental Commission of the Geoparks Network of the Slovak Republic has formalised certain generally binding procedural rules regarding the establishment of geoparks, their inclusion in the national organisational structure, and the progression between geoparks in the global category. Geotourism itself, therefore, has rules that de facto replace positive law. These are procedural provisions (the Updated Concept of Geoparks of the Slovak Republic [12] refers to them as “procedurality”) concerning the process of including potential territories in the Geoparks Network of the Slovak Republic in Art. 1; membership in the Geoparks Network (Art. 2); the process of reassessing membership in the Geoparks Network of the Slovak Republic (Art. 3); and finally Art. 4 the process of including geoparks in the European Geoparks Network and the UNESCO Global Geoparks Network [66].

3.2. Geotourism and Slovak Policy

The fact that geoparks and geotourism have become part of government policies in Slovakia is due to the professional community’s initiative and the government’s determination to take note of international development trends in this sphere and to harmonise the aforementioned domestic initiatives with them. The synergy of both sources of inspiration was also reflected in the fact that the Slovak development concept was initially created autonomously but was later transformed to account for international developments leading to the establishment of the Global Geoparks Network (GGN). In 1999, Slovakia joined the UNESCO programme to support geoparks through the GGN.

Almost simultaneously (in 2000–2006), the work began on building the first Slovak geopark in the area of the city of Banská Štiavnica, based on the geological task “Establishment of the Banská Štiavnica Geopark” [67], which was implemented in cooperation between the Slovak Mining Museum, the State Geological Institute of Dionýz Štúr, the Technical University of Zvolen and the Slovak Environmental Agency. The idea of establishing a geopark simultaneously in Slovakia and Hungary dates back to the 1990s and thus predates the Banská Štiavnica activities, but the cooperation of associations from both countries in their efforts to become a member of the EGN and GGN (from 2010) was not crowned until the signing of a Memorandum of Cooperation in 2008 [68]. This intention was actually implemented two years later. To this day, this precedent, the international Geopark Novohrad–Nógrád, has not found a successor among Slovak geoparks. These pilot initiatives were followed up after 2004 in the Banská Bystrica area by a movement of enthusiasts from among the professional public, later formalised in the form of the civic association “Geomining Park Banská Bystrica”, cooperating with local government bodies, local professional institutions, and business entities on the project of establishing the Banská Bystrica Geopark [69]. The movement’s beginnings for establishing Slovak geoparks illustrate the possibilities of both a “top-down” and a “bottom-up” approach to implementing an intention.

The programme statement of the Government of the Slovak Republic for the years 2006–2010 implemented the concept of geotourism for the first time, specifically in the chapter Nature Protection and Landscape Creation. Geoparks were perceived in the programme statement as one of the specific components of the infrastructure for nature and landscape protection (similar to nature trails and information and training facilities), serving as a tool for developing environmental awareness and regulated tourism. The document “Principles of the State Tourism Policy of the Slovak Republic” [70], adopted in connection with the government programme statement, therefore does not specifically mention geoparks and geotourism even in the context of regulated tourism, although otherwise the protection of natural heritage within the framework of environmental policy is one of the principles of state policy in tourism.

In 2007, the “New Strategy for the Development of Tourism by 2013” [32] was approved by a government resolution, also from the workshop of the Ministry of Economy of the Slovak Republic, which was responsible for tourism during this period. The term geotourism appeared in the document this time, as part of considerations on the main forms of tourism, which highly highlighted the potential of mining tourism in itself and also for geotourism: “Based on the current state of mining facilities, it can be stated that approximately 20–30 locations are considered for their use as tourist attractions. Given the financial possibilities, it will be necessary to select only the most significant and most promising in terms of use in tourism, especially in relation to wider tourism activities in the given region. Thus, in the first stage, 7–10 locations are considered with their gradual completion into open-air museums, museums, technical monuments, geoparks, etc.”.

The first Draft of the Concept of Geoparks [11] fulfilled the government’s intentions from the programme statement. It distinguished three phases of planning, building and operation of Slovak geoparks and classified them according to the stage they were in into three categories: operated, built, and proposed. During the validity of this concept (2008–2015), a bit paradoxically, no new geoparks were added to the geoparks divided into these “constructional” categories.

Just as the New Strategy for the Development of Tourism of the Slovak Republic until 2013 was cancelled during this period, the development of geotourism as a programme objective also fell out of the government’s programme statement due to the turbulence of domestic political developments in 2010–2012, when the government was constituted by political entities in a new composition.

On the other hand, during the term of office of this government, the “Concept of Geological Research and Geological Survey of the Territory of Slovakia for 2012–2016 and with a View to 2020” [71] was adopted. While awaiting the update of the Concept of Geoparks in the Slovak Republic [12], this document acknowledged that the territory of Slovakia is “very suitable for the construction of geoparks in terms of natural values, because the great variability of the geological structure of the territory with a number of natural formations, with which in many cases objects of mining heritage and monumental value and archaeological sites of European importance are connected, which predispose it to this”. However, in the chapter on Promotion of Geology and Protection of Inanimate Nature of this document, there is no mention of geoparks and geotourism.

The programme statement of the Government of the Slovak Republic for 2012–2016 [72] once again returned to the idea of building geoparks. The government programme from May 2012 apparently intentionally includes a passage on geotourism that is essentially identical to the programme from 2006 [24] in order to emphasise the continuity of both his government after the “intermezzo” of 2010–2012. “As part of environmental care, the government of the Slovak Republic will ensure the development of environmental education and regulated tourism, which will require further building of infrastructure with regard to nature and landscape protection, expansion of the network of nature trails, geoparks, information and training facilities”.

Otherwise, in the same period, there was a significant shift in the place of geotourism in government policies, namely that supporting the construction and operation of geoparks in cooperation with affected entities, including local governments and interest groups and in accordance with the concept of geoparks of the Slovak Republic, became one of the strategic objectives in the quality area of the “Strategy for the Development of Tourism until 2020” [73]. This time, it was a strategy focused on the development of tourism, which took note and also announced the intention to create an updated concept of geoparks of the Slovak Republic and a “National Network of Geoparks”.

The Update of the Geoparks Concept [12] then actually saw the light of day in January 2015, apparently primarily so that in accordance with the government’s programme statement, over the time there would actually be an “expansion of the geopark network”. Since the period after the adoption of the original concept could not be assessed otherwise than as a de facto stagnation (with the significant exception of the inclusion of the Novohrad–Nógrád Geopark in the GGN and EGN). In a situation where the infrastructure of the three Slovak geoparks was essentially completed, their further development was linked to their ability to meet the conditions for joining the GGN. Nominally, the update was created to introduce a new categorisation of geoparks and with the ambition of becoming a model for financing, operating, and building geoparks. For this purpose, geoparks were reclassified into three new categories: geoparks with membership in the GGN and EGN, operated geoparks and areas with the prospect of their inclusion among geoparks.

In fact, however, a fourth category was also created, and probably the most significant from a practical point of view—the Geopark of the Slovak Republic with the right of membership in the Geoparks Network of the Slovak Republic. The updated concept [12] actually introduced the “certification” of geoparks, i.e., the determination of binding criteria contained in the Guidelines of the Interdepartmental Commission, the fulfilment of which is a condition for the use of the title geopark and entry into the Network. This time, the new concept was supplemented in a short time (in January 2016) with an accompanying Action plan to ensure its implementation [49]. This plan has already been developed by a new management, coordination and advisory body, and the Interdepartmental Commission of the Geopark Network of the Slovak Republic, established in 2015 [12,74].

In government programmes after 2016, there is no explicit mention of geotourism. For example, in 2016 [75], only the prevention of geological hazards was mentioned. In the government programme statement for 2020–2024 [76], there was also no mention of geotourism. This does not necessarily mean a discontinuity of the entire direction. Still, an overview of the adoption of program documents and reports on their implementation (

Table 2. The process of establishing geoparks in programme documents in Slovakia.

Year	Document	Official Name in Slovak	Legal Form	Meaning
2006	Programme Statement of the Government	Programové vyhlásenie vlády	Political Declaration	Introduction of the Concept
2008	Draft Concept of Geoparks	Návrh koncepcie geoparkov	Government Decree No. 740/2008	The Concept of the Geoparks (1) [11]
2012	Report on the Implementation of the Concept of Geoparks	Správa o realizácii Koncepcie geoparkov	Government Decree No. 608/2012	Recapitulation of the past development
2015	Actualisation of the Concept of Geoparks	Aktualizácia koncepcie geoparkov SR	Government Decree No. 15/2015	The Concept of the Geoparks (2) [12]
2016	Action plan for the Implementation of the Updated Concept	Akčný plán na implementáciu aktualizovanej koncepcie	Ministerial Decision	Strategy for further progress
2019–2024	Information on the Implementation of the Updated Concept (Onward periodically every 5 years)

) clearly shows that the entire process has stalled—even though the initial steps were taken.. Still, they are running on a “flywheel”. In 2024, the expected report on the implementation of the updated concept for the development of geotourism, which was supposed to be submitted to the government periodically every five years starting in 2019, did not even appear.

If the current government coalition builds on previous developments in the field of geotourism, it will not be achieved explicitly, but under the aegis of “development of natural tourism” [77].

4. Discussion

The movement for the establishment of geoparks and the development of geotourism had and has an extralegal character. The new concept has been implemented, revised and developed exclusively within a political framework since its beginnings. The government in Slovakia promotes the accessibility of natural and geological heritage in the form of the development of geotourism and the establishment of geoparks exclusively through internal normative instructions (so-called legal acts of an organisational nature).

Primarily through the government resolutions, respectively, and the decisions of the minister, which do not have the character of generally binding legal regulations. Those are decisions intended to implement government intentions in the hierarchical system of central state administration bodies. From the use of such a legislative and technical tool, it can be deduced that the state where the entire issue is implemented on a political rather than a legal level is intentional. Several reasons come into consideration, and we can essentially divide them into the “pragmatic” and “idealistic” categories.

4.1. Geotourism Outside the Law: Possible Causes

On the pragmatic level, we can reflect on the problems of promoting government political goals and the related legislative process, while we do not have to lose sight of considering any possible “philosophical” approaches of the legislator associated with lawmaking as such. They may manifest themselves with the projection of a certain legal principle into the regulation of specific social relations.

The very nature of geotourism has developed holistically from its geological beginnings [1] towards a relatively complex understanding of the concept [5,52]. This has brought with it intersections with the issues of environmental protection, regional development [78,79], and the protection of monuments and museums, etc. Those are all areas that have positive legal regulation in their domain. In Slovakia, it is also difficult to find a systemic application for geotourism from a legal point of view in a situation where the system of legal protection of nature, landscape, cultural heritage and regional development has existed for a long time and possibly “resists” new legal institutes with its complexity of understanding problems and the application of its points of view. Such penetration into the legal order may appear in relation to traditional legal regulations as the promotion of “non-systemic elements”.

It is precisely the uniqueness of local (national) conditions, primarily differences in the legal environment that made the establishment of geoparks as a universal, global category a time-consuming process that de facto succeeded only when the issue of the relationship between national legislation and a generally applicable global model of a geopark was resolved at the international level. It was naturally in the interests of Slovak geoparks and geotourism that domestic legislation did not represent a potential obstacle to integration into universal global structures of the UGG type.

However, we do not have to look only for fundamental reasons behind the regulation of geotourism issues by internal acts of a political nature (i.e., Government Resolutions and Ministerial Decisions). This type of regulation may just as well have a pragmatic background. It is a flexible, less binding, easily changeable regulation that does not require the sometimes difficult task of obtaining the relevant majority in parliament. At the same time, it is possible to exclude everything that could hinder the flexible implementation of government measures, such as public hearings in parliament, the exercise of the rights of various interest organisations, and the possibility of review by the courts. Since it is not a legal regulation, it is possible to ignore everything that could be an inconvenient obstacle to effective governance for the government. Governments (like people in general) generally try to avoid the negative impacts of legal regulation on them (when the regulation legally binds them too much or when it contradicts their needs, interests, or values). However, if any government were to choose this path permanently, it would always be a matter of circumventing the law, and a collision would arise with the requirement of legality in a broader sense, i.e., with the fact that social relations should be regulated by law.

In any case, as long as the understanding of a certain issue is developing, unstable, subject to changes and the search for a societal consensus, government resolutions appear to be an appropriate form of soft, preliminary regulation. Only after a certain period of time and sufficient experience does it usually come time for “hard” (rigid), i.e., standard, regulation by legal regulations. Like any concept of programmatic political measures, the development of geotourism itself is a policy, and therefore naturally subject to changes brought about by the political cycle. It can fall out and come back again into strategic and programmatic documents. Government policy, its continuity and corrections reflect the democratic political process. The development of geotourism appeared twice explicitly as a goal in the government’s programme statements in the period 2006–2016, as shown above. In the interim period, under a different political constellation, it was absent (in 2010–2012). We can only guess whether it will return as a government priority in the current election period (2023–2027) in the form of “strengthening all forms of rural and nature tourism” [77].

In the second mentioned level, we observe rather “idealistic” reasons (i.e., of a theoretical, conceptual nature). In this context, the reasons that lead the executive to the absence of positive legislation may lie in nothing more than the fact that the government simply does not share legislative optimism in this case and does not think that every problem, every social challenge or issue needs to be immediately addressed by law or other legal regulation.

However, the fact is that geotourism in Slovakia does not belong to the context of whatever tourism “without adjectives”, but it is regulated tourism, and as so is the antithesis of unwanted mass tourism. Slovak Act No. 91 of 2010 [21] considers the promotion of “tourism” as its subject matter. A more recent act with a similar ambition, Act No. 303 of 2024, however, is focused on “economically, socially and environmentally sustainable” tourism [22]. Being a case of responsible tourism it has its inherent obligations towards the principle of sustainability. Formulations of this principle are abundant in Slovakia in programme and strategic documents. Its implementation in practice encounters many barriers not only in the existing social value system, but also in the area of willingness to implement a policy aimed at implementing the goals of sustainable development at all levels [80].

Therefore, it is also finding its way into Slovak tourism law with much more difficulty. Geotourism in Slovakia oscillates between nature protection, with which it began, and tourism, into the context of which it was later included. By accepting the paradigm of responsible tourism, similar to the case of ecological tourism and other sectors defined by the principle of sustainability, a balance is achieved in this direction [81,82]. However, this means that at least from a theoretical and conceptual point of view it must reflect government policies in both areas, including any tensions that this may cause. Tourism in Slovakia is considered promising, but in terms of its possibilities, it is an undersized sector. The threat of its mass stage is not considered a matter of the day and, today as in the past, the positive effects of tourism on economic development are emphasised. The ideas of sustainable development are theoretically acceptable, but in practice, it is a radical concept [80,83]. This is ultimately reflected in implementing the principle of sustainability into the domestic legal order, specifically into the laws on tourism promotion and the tourism promotion fund. These regulations are not to be blamed in terms of diction and, at first glance, their references to sustainability are on a par with relevant international documents. However, upon closer examination, it seems that the legislator in Slovakia has at heart, more than anything else, the sustainability of the economic sector as such. According to the Act on Tourism Promotion [21], sustainable tourism development concerns protected areas. Otherwise, sustainability in connection with tourism appears in the law in connection with every tourism product that can satisfy tourist needs. The debt is partially repaid by the recently adopted Act on the Tourism Support Fund, which puts environmental and social sustainability on an equal footing with the economic sustainability of tourism [22]. After all, a more consistent approach has not yet been adopted even in the Czech Republic, with which Slovakia is often compared in the legal field due to its common legal past from the times of Czechoslovakia. In the Czech Republic, a draft Act on Sustainable Tourism was prepared in paragraph form, and according to the title, it was about supporting the sustainable development of tourism in the territory of municipalities as basic units of public administration. However, it did not advance further in the legislative process.

Geotourism in Slovakia is developing outside the legal framework, also because the concept of sustainable development in relation to tourism and its individual forms have not yet been sufficiently clarified, not to mention specific development tools.

4.2. State of the Progress

The results of geotourism development in Slovakia to date have not reflected the declared interest in all forms of regulated tourism and cast doubt on the idea of geotourism as a social priority. The pros and cons of the current development can be clarified empirically in several ways: (1) perceived problems, (2) quantifiable status achieved, and (3) international comparison.

4.2.1. Perceived Problems

Some problems appear to be “hereditary” in the process of building Slovak geoparks, in the sense that references to them travel from one conceptual material to another. The Report on the Implementation of the Geoparks Concept of the Slovak Republic [84] for the first time mentions in connection of the Geopark Banská Štiavnica as the greatest obstacle to the completion of the geopark and subsequent integration into international structures the absence of a suitable management structure, a strong management group that would ensure the coordination of interested partners—state authorities, local governments, entrepreneurs, interest groups, and citizens. The update of the Geoparks Concept of the Slovak Republic [12] in its “analysis of problems” could already respond to the longer period of time that has passed since the adoption of the original Concept. The largest group of perceived problems of geoparks (of their management, products, relations with the state administration, subsidisation, infrastructure construction) are those whose common denominator is a weak and disrespected position in the legal and social relations of which they were participants. These current problems were also approached by “traditional” problems, such as the restricted possibilities of using monuments of mining historical heritage for legislative obstacles. According to the ministry, both the Action Plan for the Implementation of the Updated Concept [49] and the Methodology for Geopark Destination Management [85] were supposed to manage institutional problems and the regulation of certain social relations (or rather, its absence), although the question of the most appropriate legal form of the geopark remained ignored. Information on the implementation of the update of the Geoparks Concept of the Slovak Republic from 2019 [86], the second and so far the last report summarising the development to date, pointed out that the geopark, essentially relegated to the position of an ephemeral tourism product, is supposed to solve the basic tasks of geopark management, such as building its infrastructure, marketing, educational activities, etc., for which, considering the financial mechanism and its (insufficient) volumes, it simply does not have the personnel and capital capacities.

4.2.2. Quantifiable Status Achieved

At the time of the adoption of the Geoparks Concept of the Slovak Republic in 2008, the preparation of two geoparks was underway and shortly afterwards the project of the third one was also implemented, and this was the final state achieved for a very long time. Seven more territories were included in the category “Proposed Geoparks” of the original concept. Of these, one geopark, namely the Malé Karpaty Geopark, became a member of the National Geoparks Network in 2021. In addition, of the proposed geoparks, only the Zemplín Geopark is currently striving to meet the criteria for entry into the Geopark Network of the Slovak Republic. The remaining five potential geoparks (Figure 1) have never been reclassified to a higher category (Dubnícky, Spišský, Silický, Jasovský, Súľovsko-manínsky). The quantifiable results of the geopark building process in Slovakia to date therefore indicate that it is falling short of expectations in many ways. This is despite the obvious incentives in the form of the potential of geoparks and geotourism for the development of responsible and ecological tourism, regional development and protection of specifically geological heritage, and even though meritorious efforts have been made by interested state authorities, experts and civic bottom-up initiatives.

The problem is not only to meet the national criteria for inclusion in the Slovak Geopark Network, but also to advance to the category of international geoparks under the auspices of UNESCO. Even from this “qualitative” point of view, the development of geoparks in Slovakia has not achieved extraordinary results. If securing an establishment on the international scene in the sense of admission to the EGN/GGN was supposed to be the decisive motive for the adoption of the Updating of the Geoparks Concept of the Slovak Republic in 2015, then this goal has so far been achieved only by the Novohrad–Nógrád UNESCO Global Geopark. This was admitted to the European Geoparks Network and Global Geopark Networks in March 2010 as the first international cross-border geopark. Formal admission took place at the 4th Global Geoparks Conference in Langkawi, Malaysia, in April 2010.

4.2.3. International Comparison

In the case of the Czech Republic, comparison with neighbouring countries is particularly meaningful due to the common political and legal past. Despite these objective circumstances and identical needs, we often observe in the field of tourism in both countries the setting of different goals, the choice of different means to reach them and, ultimately, significant differences in the results achieved [87]. However, this is not entirely true in the field of geotourism. From a legal point of view, the establishment and development of geoparks until the ascension up to a higher level are ensured by registered associations in the Czech Republic, legal entities established to pursue mutually beneficial goals in the newly codified Czech private law. It is the successor to the once common Czech and Slovak Civic Association. After successfully completing the certification process, the territory gains membership in the system of national geoparks (Network of National Geoparks of the Czech Republic). The network is headed by the main coordinating and advisory body of the Ministry of the Environment, the Council of National Geoparks of the Czech Republic, with its statute and rules of procedure. The Czech Ministry of the Environment awards the quality mark and the National Geopark designation. During its validity, it proves that the geopark territory is being developed in accordance with the Charter of National Geoparks of the Czech Republic. A uniform procedure for the nomination of a certain territory as a national geopark by the Ministry is guaranteed by the criteria contained in the Directive of the Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic No. 6/2007 [88].

In the Czech Republic, this model generally corresponds to the local approach to tourism development, which is directed by destination organisations and is based on certification as a non-legal solution. The Czech modus operandi is roughly synchronous with the first Slovak concept of geoparks. During the preparation of the Updated Concept of Geoparks of the Slovak Republic in 2015, the Slovak side was also inspired by it, although in Slovakia, the trends regarding the regulation of tourism are otherwise the opposite and since the beginning of the century the legislation in tourism has gradually been formed to a considerable extent. The difference in the dynamics of building geoparks is well illustrated by the results to date, while the starting point was essentially identical. As early as 2010, the number of functional geoparks was the same. However, the development in the Czech Republic accelerated significantly compared to Slovakia (Figure 2), and eleven national geoparks are currently operated in this country. So far, the only certified national geopark that is also a member of the European and global UNESCO Geopark Networks is the Bohemian Paradise National Geopark.

4.3. Potential Benefits of Legal Regulation of Geotourism

Geotourism is a type of tourism that emphasises a holistic approach to the subject of its interest. Based on this, geotourism has a very close connection to several social spheres, which usually have appropriate legal regulations. To some extent, it is paradoxical that very tourism—often given as an example of applying the principle of sustainability through new, responsible, and therefore regulated tourism—lacks corresponding legal regulation.

However, legal branches are given, and only exceptionally will others be added to them over time (most recently, environmental law). Geotourism, from the legislator’s point of view, will probably not be a sufficiently generally conceived issue, and therefore, preference is given to an extra-legal regulation and sub-legal norms. But this will be the case everywhere—it is also about avoiding a clash between domestic legislation and UN and UNESCO rules (global geoparks). In the case of geotourism, it is not even a separate legal regulation; it is really only a partial matter. But geotourism would be very well applied within the framework of the Act on the Support of Sustainable Development. A serious attempt to codify such a regulation was recently undertaken in the Czech Republic.

On the other hand, negative impacts of legal regulation can occur for a variety of reasons, including, e.g., increased bureaucracy and administrative burden, reduced flexibility or unintended consequences. However, this is not the case with the absence of the legal framework itself, which is specifically identified in the article as a possible cause of the underdeveloped development of geotourism in Slovakia, which leads to a generally poor awareness of this form of tourism and its minimal support.

4.3.1. Solution of “Authority Problem”

A geopark as a special legal entity, similar to tourism organisations established after 2010 based on Act No. 91/2010 Coll. on the Promotion of Tourism [21], could contribute to the optimisation of relations within the social organism, which a geopark regardless of its legal form already one way or another is, and this so to speak on a horizontal plane. It means both internally in terms of relations between membership and externally as a representative of the geopark towards authorities and institutions that have their jurisdiction established by law in the geopark territory (e.g., in the sphere of state nature and landscape protection or regional and local self-government). The Ministry of the Environment, in which charge the geoparks are situated, admits that in practice the unwillingness of tourism entities to support the functioning of the destination as a whole sometimes even leads to competition between them: “Rivalry, stress and fear of losing the working place cause many people to focus their efforts only on their benefit and the effort of cooperation is minimally” [85]. On the other hand, it seems that the issue of the legal form of a geopark is not necessary as a primary one, even to such an extent that the Methodology of geopark destination management from the ministry’s workshop admits that an individual could also be a geopark. It recommends, nevertheless, one of the legal entities, namely an “association”, which most likely means a civil association under the Act on Associations of Citizens No. 83/1990 Coll. [57] According to the ministerial manual, a geopark is an initiative of local and regional entities that participate in the geopark activities mainly according to the degree of responsibility and professionalism they have. The body is responsible for management, communication within the membership base and for planning, it appears as a “primus inter pares”. Thus, the statutory body of the society, which in this case is the geopark, then has as the main management method according to the manual only facilitation. To make the situation different, the association’s statutes should copy the functioning of special legal entities in tourism, which primarily have a supreme body, which decides on the main issues by voting according to the majority principle. These organisations also have, or can establish, other executive bodies that manage their daily activities and represent the organisation externally.

The mission and tasks of public authorities (whether central or local) are irreplaceable in this regard. This responsibility is also accepted by the relevant authorities in Slovakia, as confirmed by the current government programme statement. This is clearly reflected in the implementation of the principle of sustainability from the quality of an international obligation to the form of one of the leading legal principles of national legislation [89,90,91,92]. In Slovakia, the concern that this process will get stuck in a declaratory level could be perceived as a problem. Supporting the development of geotourism could be one of specific cases of much needed application practice.

4.3.2. Solution of “Acceptance Problem”

The development of geotourism in Slovakia is initiated by central state authorities, but it is also supported, not least, by the bottom-up initiative, from the ranks of the professional public and enthusiasts. This is, incidentally, already manifest in the Pleiades of the legal forms that these initiatives have taken on from the beginning, and which are primarily their choice (civil association, non-profit organisation, interest organisation of legal entities). If they are offered some universal model in this regard, then it is not a question of legal form, but of the organisational model referenced by central authorities in the form of recommendations and examples derived from the rules of general destination management. Apart from the undeniable advantages of this informality, which are not to restrict “bottom-up” initiatives, such a “liberal” solution also brings practical problems. The experience and expertise of destination management of geoparks is not adequately accepted within the framework of public–private partnerships in tourism and regional development. These geoparks’ managements are not accepted also as eligible recipients of financial assistance within the framework of operational programmes and support schemes in the absence of geoparks. The situation requires a coordinator from the state administration in the management of geoparks—and such a person is absent.

A geopark, which is a regional development phenomenon through its products and offers, is not sufficiently accepted as such even by the regional government, which considers it a marginal area of support from its own resources [12]. However, if the goals, interests, and needs of tourism development were to fall into legal regulation in a certain specific way, then competences and relationships in the financial area could be aligned and clarified in the vertical direction, that is, especially with the involved central, professional state administration bodies and to the providers of support from domestic and European sources. This could happen, for example, by making geotourism legal entities sui generis, with a clearly defined scope of activity in its area of interest. Or the goals, interests, and needs of geotourism would be reflected as a legal institute in the different places of the legal order. Appropriate delimitation of the competence of state bodies and private law entities would ensure an effective division of competences between the public and private spheres. Respecting the needs of geotourism development would gain the importance of an obligation guaranteed by the legal order.

4.3.3. Coping an International Element

Management is one of the four basic features of a UNESCO Global Geopark. Novohrad–Nógrád UNESCO Global Geopark became a member of the GGN (and EGN) in 2010 and has successfully defended it thrice since then (re-labelled to UNESCO Global Geopark in 2015). As part of establishing a geopark from two national organisational structures, launched by the Memorandum of Cooperation in 2008, it also met the criteria for its management and organisation. This meant the management of the geopark, of all relevant local and regional actors, through a comprehensive management plan and according to the relevant domestic legislation on both sides of the border [93]. However, when viewed from a closer look, this international geopark appears to be a superstructure, still covering two separate geoparks—each firmly anchored in its legal environment. The Slovak part operates under the aegis of an interest association of legal entities, including the region’s municipalities and other subjects. The association is governed by a board of directors, which, to a certain extent, introduces the necessary coordination in a situation where in the past, some members of the association developed essentially independent activities based on their initiative. However, the international character is still not adequately considered, and it cannot be otherwise when we consider international relations that respect the principle of sovereignty of national legal systems. Parts of the geopark in both countries cooperate on a case-by-case basis according to participation in appropriate support schemes (in the recent past, for example, the Slovakia-Hungary Geotourism Partnership (Geotop) project, implemented within the framework of the Interreg programme, an instrument financed from the European Regional Development Fund, directly intended for strengthening cross-border cooperation and cohesion of European regions, has proven itself in this regard) [94]. Alternatively, one national part of the geopark can be represented on the other side of the border by an essentially detached workplace of its organisational structure. Otherwise, the only option left is to manage the international geopark through the impractical method of sending delegations to irregularly organised international conferences to strengthen partnership and cooperation.

The intervention of the law in this situation could take the form of organising partnership relations into a legal entity of such type as joint venture, a model frequent in international economic relations. Especially of modality, in which foreign and domestic entrepreneurs jointly create a new enterprise. This would involve the creation of a legal entity with a parity share of stakeholders. A clear advantage would be the exclusion of parallel management structures and emergency financing through projects, etc. The commercial company model would be the most practical in solving management and control in a partnership situation, 50:50 from each side, which has, for example, the same number of executive directors, but rotating control over the company or the right to appoint its statutory body. This would also be applicable if it were not a cooperation between two legal entities, but the relationship would remain exclusively on a contractual basis, which would only imitate the existence of a separate legal entity.

4.3.4. Extension of Supplementary Protection of Geological Phenomena

Protecting abiotic natural heritage is one of the fundamental components of geotourism and one of its conceptual features. Aspiring geoparks must demonstrate that legal protection of geosites is ensured before submitting an application. This is easier where a statutory protected area already exists within the boundaries of the proposed geopark or overlaps with it [95].

In Slovakia, as already mentioned, geoparks and geotourism were considered in the first stage mainly in connection with the protection of nature and landscape. The reality in Slovakia with this commitment of geotourism is that in the territorial districts of geoparks, protection is accepted by legal means available to state nature conservation authorities, and the institution of a geopark is understood beyond its geographical definition through its function of destination management. In the case of a conflict between state protection of living and non-living nature and the landscape with a geoconservation commitment of geotourism, environmental protection regulations, sub-legal norms (statutes) of protected areas and solitary natural monuments, and the exclusive competence of professional state authorities in this sphere are respected undisputedly. However, other, indirect means of action in the interests of geological heritage protection are also considered. Of these, the potential for education and awareness (geoeducation) is most emphasised. It is also possible to consider the application and means of protection of geological phenomena outside the boundaries of protected areas (this is how most geosites in Slovakia are situated), if the nature protection legislation were to entrust such competence to geoparks and geotourism. It is within the possibilities of geological and geotourism experts to assess which geosites need statutory protection or to draw visitors’ attention to the applicable regulations that apply to their protection. This would bring into play extralegal measures such as nature conservation strategies, charters of valuable areas and visitor codex, examples of which can be the Nature Conservation Strategy (Australia, 2002–2006) or the Australian Natural Heritage Charter (2002) as mentioned by Gray [96]. The Scottish Fossil Code [97] since 2008 warns “Seek permission—you are acting within the law if you obtain permission to extract, collect and retain fossils”. This sentence is complemented by other basic extra-legal rules of the Scottish Charter: Access responsibly, Collect responsibly, Seek advice, Label and look after, Donate (to museum) [97]. However, mere identification of value and significance may mean little “if there is no respect for the principle and no system of enforcement” [96], which could be a clear incentive for the law to enter this area, for example, through additional tools to the basic form of administrative law regulation, such as self-regulation and voluntariness based on public authority or contract. Thanks to them, groups or individuals (geotourists) themselves are responsible for the rules and their compliance, while the public administration is the initiator, but otherwise acts only as an equal partner to others subjects [25].

4.3.5. Strengthening Transparency and Legal Certainty

The Interdepartmental Commission of the Geoparks Network of the Slovak Republic (MKSG SR) was established by the Decision of the Minister of the Environment No. 16/2015 to coordinate and support the development and cooperation of geoparks. This state body, which includes representatives of seven ministries and other state institutions, has amended the procedural rules for becoming a candidate territory a member of the Geoparks Network of the Slovak Republic (SG SR) with its Guidance [66]. Membership in this voluntary association implies acquiring the status of “Geopark of the Slovak Republic” based on the relevant decree granted by the Interdepartmental Commission. At the same time, this reflects the recommendation of the International Geoscience and Geoparks Programme that member states play an active role in the development of geoparks, which should be territories with a management body with a legal existence recognised under national legislation [93].

In addition to inclusion in the Geoparks Network, the decision of the interdepartmental commission may, based on the submitted monitoring report, extend the membership of the geopark in the Geopark Network for another four years or terminate the membership temporarily, and possibly permanently. With its recommendation, the interdepartmental commission also enters into the process of applying the Slovak geopark to become the UNESCO Global Geopark (and thus the member of EGN and GGN). Guidance in this case, however, is only an internal regulation of the state administration (internal normative act), which is otherwise purposed for the superior body in the hierarchical system of state administration to manage and direct the activities of its subordinate bodies. Internal normative acts are not generally binding, and therefore they should not establish obligations for third parties outside the organisational system of the body that issued them. Especially not when such a regulation lacks, for example, objective criteria for assessing the degree of sufficiency of compliance with the established conditions by entities seeking membership or remaining in the SG SR, or applying to become UGGp, further binding deadlines preventing unnecessary delays or remedies against the decision of a state body and possibly other legal institutes characteristic of standard administrative proceedings. The procedural rules contained in the Guidance of the Interdepartmental Commission of the SR Geoparks Network [66] are, however, actually external normative administrative acts intended to act externally towards entities outside the organisational system of their originator. In this case, they are generally binding rules of conduct that are a source of law and as such should be adopted in accordance with a superior legal regulation and also declared in the prescribed manner [25]. However, such a legal regulation is absent in the case of the Guidance of the Interdepartmental Commission of the SR Geoparks Network [66], which could, according to the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of the SR, be in conflict with the principle of legality, which is considered key in state and public administration [98]. A possible argument that the rules applied in this form do not violate any generally binding legal regulation or change any, cannot justify a violation of the principle that rights and obligations can be determined for their addressees only based on a legal regulation. The Guidance is not such; therefore, it should not contain provisions with normative content. Its inadequate use may violate the legitimate need for legal certainty of the entities concerned and the public in general, especially if it concerns the regulation of new, hitherto unprecedented social relations.

4.3.6. Development of Geotourism as a Public Interest

The essence of legal regulation through legal norms is the protection of certain interests and values. If these interests pursue social benefit and exceed personal or group interests, it is a legally relevant concept of public interest. The recognised public interest finds its expression in legal norms in Slovak law. It appears in several contexts, where it is understood differently and is therefore not regulated uniformly. It does not necessarily mean that it is only a reason for interference with human autonomy in the property sphere, as we often encounter it. If we understand it as an interest that brings benefit (not only property) to all or most citizens [99], it is a broad category of understanding, the specific meaning of which is given by the development of social practice according to its needs.

The application of the principle of sustainable development has been generally and long-term recognised as such a public interest and it would be appropriate to link it in the legal order with the relevant forms of responsible and ecological tourism, including geotourism. This connection would allow geotourism to be considered as a legal institute, i.e., a legal phenomenon regulated in several places of the legal order, in the legal regulations with which geotourism is essentially related. The Slovak legal order adheres to the principle of sustainable development rather nominally. There is a certain hesitation in specifying the principle in policies, instruments, and measures, where it could manifest itself at a practical, not just declaratory, level. It would be appropriate for the public interest in this area not to be defined only by political documents, as is the case with the “Action Plan” [49], which, in 2016, most recently summarised measures for implementing the new Concept of Geoparks of the Slovak Republic. Although it declared geoparks and geotourism as a tool for supporting regional, local, and municipal development, in the hierarchy of development strategies and development programmes envisaged by the Act on Regional Development, we do not find support for geotourism at the level of the law, nor at the level of the National Strategy, nor in regional development programmes, but only from the district level [100].

Geotourism does not necessarily require independent legal regulation and can easily be part of any law that would address sustainable tourism. Geotourism could then be legally considered and “institutionalised” in various places in the Slovak legal order, e.g., in the Mining Act or laws relating to the environment and regional development, etc. If this were to happen, its development could accelerate, and it would be ensured precisely that the sustainability that remains questionable in the current situation.

4.3.7. Solution for the “Ambivalence Problem”

To give local people a sense of pride in their region, to strengthen their identification with the area, and to improve their material position through new sources of income, is one of the most important ambitions of the movement for the development of global geoparks [101]. However, this path goes both ways, as Heraclitus already knew. The attitude of residents is as important for geotourism as what geotourism intends to do for locals, because “bottom-up” is the basic approach to building geoparks. According to the International geoscience and geoparks programme (IGGP) [93], this means involving all local stakeholders in the process, including local community groups, indigenous peoples and local organisations [101].

In Slovakia, a rather wait-and-see attitude, at best a slightly proactive one, is evident among most residents. The 2015 concept update [12] evaluated the results of the implementation of the previous concept and considered the low material involvement of human resources, insufficient knowledge of languages, as well as poor promotion and presentation of geology (which, of course, concerns locals as well as the entire society) as weaknesses. Beyond these findings, the ambivalent attitude of the population may be due to the negatively perceived “protected area effect” and a possible communication barrier.

The ambivalence of the population may be related to a certain distrust of any territorial forms resembling territorial protection of nature and landscape. The local population often perceives the strengthening of the position of nature protection authorities as a possible threat to their economic interests and traditional way of life. It seems that the concept of geoparks and the level of opportunities that this form of responsible tourism represents for residents have not yet sufficiently penetrated the public consciousness. To a large extent, this situation is caused by the communication barrier towards laypeople. The “hermeticism” of geological sciences affects both the visitors and the locals. The difference is that the former can also be a geotourist, a motivated and informed enthusiast who knows why he is in this particular place and what brought him here. Unlike the local resident, who is primarily connected to the spot by everyday interests and problems. So far, only the Methodology for Geopark Destination Management [85] in the “Local Residents” section has attempted to address these problems. In fact, it is the only one to have developed a certain “strategy” for approaching residents, on whom the entire project’s success ultimately depends. The methodology requires that the local resident be allowed to manage the operation of the geopark (which will benefit subsequently from tolerance toward geotourists and less criticism of the geopark) and be permanently involved in the protection and enhancement of the geological heritage. It recommends that geopark operators perceive and respond to suggestions from the public. The condition for co-responsibility and an active approach to the functioning of the geopark (as guides, service providers, local producers) is the education of local communities so that they become aware of the uniqueness of the territory and begin to appreciate it [85]. These requirements would be easier to implement if the geopark were an entity with a clearly defined management structure, resolving financing issue and defining relations with the public and private sectors. Especially with regard to the effect of protected area, a clear legal status could dispel distrust and doubts that this is just another restriction on the locals’ way of life. On the contrary, the knowledge that the geopark and geotourism are not limitations but a clearly defined social organism is capable of distributing opportunities, would bring what was intended from the very beginning: revitalisation of towns and villages, preservation of local culture, creation of jobs, improvement of quality of life, and a sense of common territorial identity and belonging [11].

4.3.8. Other Caused Benefits

“Legalization” of geotourism in the sense that a geopark would be a sustainable, functional, and therefore clearly legally defined social structure and geotourism would either have positive legal regulation or be taken into account as a legal institute in the relevant legal regulations is not the only conceivable way of entering the law into this area. For a start, legislation changes would be sufficient to facilitate the use of technical monuments generally for the benefit of tourism and for geotourism in particular. A business entity that carries out mining activities as part of its business may apply for a permit to open mining and old mining works for museum and other purposes under the current Decree No. 524/2011 Coll. [102] which naturally significantly narrows the circle of potential interested parties. Similarly, of the more than seven thousand caves in the Slovak Republic, the number of those that are open to the public or allow the entry and movement of visitors without restrictions is in the tens. Including geoparks alongside specialised tourism organisations would contribute to solving their financing, which would ultimately translate into the professionalisation of the personnel substrate and the strengthening of the professional aspect in their activities. Geoconservation, geopromotion, and geoeducation would be clearly defined as mandatory and authorised persons. Therefore, other tools and needs could also be taken into account and solved for which the current models of their functioning do not provide sufficient personnel capacities, e.g., construction of visitor centres and other significantly needed infrastructure, planning, collection, and evaluation of statistical data, professional destination management, etc. The ultimate goal is a functional geopark with an adequate number of employees and the possibility of adequately evaluating them, thanks to the possibility of receiving development incentives in all forms.

4.3.9. Solution for the “Discontinuity Problem”

As indicated, the movement for developing Slovak geoparks progressed mainly in politically “generous” times. Everything changed when geotourism and geoparks were omitted from the government’s programme statements. Either the government changed its political priorities or considers the work to be “done” in principle. In any case, the impacts of this change are striking. Incorporating this issue into the legal context could, on the contrary, guarantee the continuity of social support by recognising the permanent needs and directing the relevant public resources to this area, especially given that, even in comparison to neighbouring countries, growth limits have barely been reached. Geotourism development should be a generally recognised social goal, poetically speaking, at such a flight level that its future development is independent of the storms and turbulences of political life down there. Ensuring this is the mission of the law. Legal regulation would undoubtedly contribute to the sustainability of geoparks and, through them, to the long-term sustainability of the movement for developing geotourism and geoparks as they have an intrinsic relationship with sustainable development [103]. In this context, Nikolova and Sinnyovsky state that there is a need for the integration of geoparks as a holistic concept in national legislation [61]. Otherwise, geotourism could slip into the opposite and become an example of the denial of sustainable development needs.

5. Conclusions

It is understandably desirable to eliminate aberrations of the current development. For example, by fundamentally reassessing the method of achieving politically set goals in this area. One way to achieve this is to use appropriate legislative means to a greater extent. This would correspond to a shift in the solution of the issue to a higher than the current initiation level. This would be achieved by a separate law, or the law on the support of tourism or another law, comprehensively considering the needs of geotourism, similar to the regulation of other sectoral forms (such as spas, viticulture, cultural tourism and museum presentation, etc.). Or geoparks as social structures could gain solid ground thanks to a suitable legal form that would take into account the practical problems that are occurring, while in the current absence of sectoral regulation all the previous positive aspects would be preserved, especially vertical cooperation (bottom-up initiative). In brief—the initiative would not be tied down and the flexibility of possible solutions would be maintained. In practice, this would mean that geoparks could become one of the specialised legal entities operating in Slovakia since adopting Act No. 91/2010 Coll. on the Promotion of Tourism [21]. This would positively impact relations within the geopark and its external relations and allow, last but not least, to improve the efficiency of drawing available funds, which would benefit the operation of the geopark and the care of its infrastructure. Such an organisation would be a natural intermediary between stakeholders and a place where “top down” incentives and “bottom up” initiatives would mutually interfere for the benefit of the cause. Another option is the “institutionalisation” of geotourism, i.e., for individual legal regulations to consider geotourism and its needs as a legal institute, i.e., legal phenomenon regulated simultaneously in several legal regulations, which has to do with geotourism. The gain of geotourism would lie in such a case in qualities that are inherent to law—such as normativity, liability, enforceability, clarity, and predictability.

Understandably, however, one cannot rely exclusively on legal solutions as an exclusive and self-saving. It should be remembered in this context that (not only) legal thinking has traditionally been dominated by the idea of the omnipresence and omnipotence of law as a tool for rebuilding society. Current practice rejects this pan-legal extremism. On the contrary, the principle of the appropriate use of law and respect for its natural limits of applicability has prevailed [104]. Central authorities should not only determine goals but also ensure the availability and effectiveness of the means to achieve them. However, the initiative “from below” is irreplaceable. Development cannot be imposed, then there would only be successful countries in the world—and Slovakia has its own historical experience with dirigisme in public life. However, law still has its irreplaceable importance in the implementation of development plans as an effective tool, always as a form and never as a content. The question of the extent and areas of application of legal and extra-legal means is crucial for the future of sustainable and responsible forms of tourism, including geotourism.

Since this contribution did not have the ambition to propose specific measures, the level of generality of the narrative would not correspond to this. The aim was to assess the legitimacy of the very first step, which is the assessment of a possible shift in regulation from the current political to the legal level. In this regard, the following research should focus on the “what” and “how” of such a legal regulation. This involves defining the scope, exploring concrete measures, analysing their potential impact, and potentially drawing lessons from comparative legal analysis.