Peppoloni, Silvia

The development of geoethics has made remarkable progress in recent years, involving a growing number of scholars from various disciplines. This has led to the creation of spaces dedicated to sharing reflections, points of view, and study material. The network of relationships between scholars has significatively incremented both physical and virtual spaces for discussions strengthened conceptual coherence in geoethical thought, anchoring reflections in the historical evolution of the discipline and promoting further developments through open analysis. At the heart of this network is the International Association for Promoting Geoethics (IAPG), founded in 2012. More recently, two new bodies have joined this network: the Commission on Geoethics of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), established in February 2023, which serves as the supporting branch of the IAPG to the IUGS and is the official body addressing geoethics and social geosciences for the Union; and the Chair on Geoethics of the International Council for Philosophy and Human Sciences (CIPSH), established in January 2024, whose aim is to broaden the international research network by promoting interdisciplinary initiatives that integrate geosciences, humanities, and social sciences through geoethics. These three bodies together represent the International Geoethics Research Infrastructure (IGRI), built over years of activity in geoethics at the Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Rome, Italy. It also includes the School on Geoethics and Natural Issues (the “Schola”), founded in 2019, and two editorial initiatives. This paper provides an overview of the foundations of geoethics and outlines the progressive development of the international research infrastructure supporting it.

Paul Cleverley, Silvia Peppoloni, Chuck Bailey and Simon Thompson discuss ongoing concerns around geoscience AI and the need for transparency.

Policy Highlights: To achieve the recommendation stated in the title, we propose the following: - EU climate adaptation policies need to further integrate local knowledge to advance epistemic justice and ensure their success. - A process indicator is proposed to advance epistemic justice along three main dimensions, namely distributive, participatory, and recognitional epistemic justice. - The indicator serves to assess and evaluate critical ex-ante (problem framing) and ex-post (appraisal of the policy’s initial design) aspects of epistemic justice in policymaking. - The implementation of the indicator will enhance political accountability, fill existing gaps in scientific knowledge at smaller spatial scales, and foster trust among stakeholders. - The inclusion of multiple types of knowledges and disciplines in policymaking leads to more effective and just climate policies.

The socioecological crisis is the cause of a global polycrisis that demands multifaceted responses across various dimensions: scientific-technical, involving the identification of likely scenarios and sustainable solutions; cultural, entailing the cultivation of a society rooted in solidarity, respect, and responsibility; and esthetic, involving the redefinition of human sensory perception of environmental reality. Geoethics can define a framework of principles and values (the geo-ethos) capable of guiding responses to the crisis. Geoethics is fundamentally an ethics of global socioenvironmental responsibility for a planetary citizenship, integrated with geoscience (the science that studies the Earth system and its natural subsystems) which not only has a self-realizing purpose but is above all the means for: (a) responsibly assisting society in the great contemporary and future challenges of the Anthropocene by promoting policies of mitigation and adaptation to environmental changes; (b) contributing, thanks to its educational and training potential, to the development of a culture of knowledge of the “common home” and to the modification of the esthetic dimension through which human beings perceive the Earth.

Geoethics for the Future: Facing Global Challenges offers a set of points of view on highly topical issues in geosciences and beyond, including societal relevance of geosciences, georesources, sustainable development, geoeducation, georisks, data, as well as philosophical, legal, political, scientific considerations about anthropogenic global changes and the Anthropocene, enabling readers to acquire multifaceted knowledge on topics of global relevance in the 21st Century. This book explores topics vital to our historical moment and the future of human societies, through the analyzes by scholars with different disciplinary backgrounds, emphasizing the need for new cultural and scientific frameworks to address global issues. It aims to foster multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches for problem-solving, by integrating diverse knowledge and visions to effectively tackle urgent global challenges. Serving as a significant milestone in geoethics, this book provides academics, researchers and students with insights into the ethical and societal dimensions of various challenges arising from human impact on the Earth system.

SSH CENTRE (Social Sciences and Humanities for Climate, Energy aNd Transport Research Excellence) is a Horizon Europe project, engaging directly with stakeholders across research, policy, and business (including citizens) to strengthen social innovation, SSH-STEM collaboration, transdisciplinary policy advice, inclusive engagement, and SSH communities across Europe, accelerating the EU’s transition to carbon neutrality. SSH CENTRE is based in a range of activities related to Open Science, inclusivity and diversity – especially with regards Southern and Eastern Europe and different career stages – including: development of novel SSH-STEM collaborations to facilitate the delivery of the EU Green Deal; SSH knowledge brokerage to support regions in transition; and the effective design of strategies for citizen engagement in EU R&I activities. Outputs include action-led agendas and building stakeholder synergies through regular Policy Insight events. This is captured in a high-profile virtual SSH CENTRE generating and sharing best practice for SSH policy advice, overcoming fragmentation to accelerate the EU’s journey to a sustainable future. The documents uploaded here are part of WP2 whereby novel, interdisciplinary teams were provided funding to undertake activities to develop a policy recommendation related to EU Green Deal policy. Each of these policy recommendations, and the activities that inform them, will be written-up as a chapter in an edited book collection. Three books will make up this edited collection - one on climate, one on energy and one on mobility. In this file, we introduce a prototype of an indicator for epistemic justice. The indicator is designed as a process indicator, i.e., it evaluates justice in policymaking processes (mechanisms and overall efforts) rather than their outcomes. It is structured as a checklist with two main categories: i) relative to the legislative phase of policymaking, and ii) relative to the dimension of epistemic justice. We distinguish between two legislative phases of policymaking, namely ex-ante (i.e., problem framing) and ex-post (i.e., appraisal of the policy’s initial design). We also distinguish three dimensions of epistemic justice, namely recognitional, participatory, and distributive. As a result of combining these categories, the indicator has six distinct sections. In each section, relevant questions are asked for assessment and scoring, which were developed based on our combined field experiences and literature reviews. The indicator has a total of 23 questions. Each question calls for a quantitative evaluation, using a scoring system on a scale from 1 to 10. The sum of points across questions in a specific section results in a section score. The global score is the sum of points across all sections. Depending on their specific aims, policymakers may prefer to aggregate the scores of specific sections (e.g., ex-ante sections). We assume that local knowledge is a key component in advancing more effective and just policymaking, especially in the field of climate adaptation (for more details, see our chapter in the SSH Climate book). Hence, our scoring system is designed to give more prominence to local stakeholders in the policymaking process. The standardised scoring system enables tractability and accountability.

Groundwater is a vital resource for humans, non-human species, and ecosystems. It has allowed the development of human evolution and civilizations throughout history (e.g., Wittfogel 1956, Tempelhoff et al. 2009, Cuthbert and Ashley 2014, Roberts 2014). However, it faces multiple potential threats that make it vulnerable and fragile. Climate change and human activities are the primary causes that have led to water cycle disruptions, particularly a decline in groundwater quality and quantity (e.g., Gleeson et al. 2020, Chaminé et al. 2022, Richardson et al. 2023). Climate variability has induced droughts, floods, and other extreme weather conditions, significantly impacting groundwater in many regions. Meanwhile, human activities such as over-abstraction, ground contamination, deforestation, land-use change, and other anthropogenic pressures have further compromised groundwater status. Nonetheless, groundwater continues to fulfill water demands in many regions or during specific periods. Therefore, concerted efforts are imperative to ensure its sustainability. So, conservation practices and nature-based solutions must be adopted to efficiently manage groundwater and shield it from additional potential hazards or risks (e.g., contamination, pollution, or over-abstraction). Failure to act quickly can result in the loss of this critical resource, with severe consequences for the economy, society, and ecosystems. From this perspective, it is imperative to prioritize actions underscored by technical-scientific integrity, environmental responsibility, societal sensitivity, and ethical practices.

La geoetica (Peppoloni et al. 2019; Peppoloni e Di Capua 2021a,b,c) è una disciplina all’intersezione tra geoscienze (o scienze della Terra), filosofia, economia e sociologia. La geoetica si è sviluppata inizialmente come ambito di riflessione e prassi intra-disciplinare delle geoscienze, focalizzandosi sul significato culturale, sul valore sociale e sulle implicazioni etiche della conoscenza e della pratica geoscientifica. La geoetica si è da subito interrogata sul ruolo che gli operatori delle geoscienze (i geoscienziati) svolgono nella società e quali sono i loro doveri etici quando producono conoscenza, quando comunicano il loro sapere alla popolazione e ai decisori politici, quando contribuiscono alla difesa dai rischi naturali e si adoperano per l’uso prudente delle risorse minerarie ed energetiche del pianeta. Le discussioni intra-disciplinari si sono quindi concentrate inizialmente sulle questioni deontologiche, su come svolgere al meglio le proprie attività di studio e ricerca nel rispetto del metodo scientifico, su come interagire con colleghi e committenti per assicurare alti standard scientifici e tecnologici, su come rendere la comunità scientifica e professionale più inclusiva e rispettosa verso i suoi membri (Peppoloni e Di Capua 2012, 2020a, 2021a; Lollino et al. 2014; Wyss and Peppoloni 2015; Gundersen 2017; Mogk e Bruckner 2020). Tuttavia, è apparso subito evidente che le riflessioni all’interno delle geoscienze fossero solo una prima forma di approccio a questioni non strettamente tecniche della ricerca e della professione geoscientifica. Le analisi e le riflessioni della geoetica hanno cominciato a guardare fuori dell’ambito intra-disciplinare per addentrarsi all’interno di problemi più complessi che riguardano l’intera società, la sua organizzazione e i suoi riferimenti etici (Bohle e Preiser 2019; Peppoloni et al. 2017, 2019; Peppoloni e Di Capua 2020a,b; 2021a,b,c,d; Peppoloni 2020; Bohle e Marone 2021; Di Capua et al. 2021).

Risks determined by natural phenomena cannot be cancelled entirely but can be reduced by minimizing their destructive effects. At present, scientists can predict, though with a certain degree of uncertainty, the onset and the evolution over time of most natural events. Scientific progress provides societies with advanced tools and methods to defend people, such as predictive models, monitoring instruments, early warning systems, and safe building standards. Nevertheless, the defence against natural risks should consider the ethical and social aspects involved in a risk scenario: this is fundamental to help the human community recover after a disaster and support science to identify possible solutions for an acceptable living with natural phenomena. Geoethics promotes the reflection on values that should guide human interaction with the territory and the associated and interlinked individual and collective responsibilities. Geoethics discusses issues and practices in natural risk management and fosters geoeducation and risk communication as a means to improve societal resilience.

The contribution illustrates the participatory process behind and main features of an updated version of the Code of Conduct in place at the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology of Italy.