UNESCO Treaty Information - see the NJ Council of Diving Clubs 1999 opinion below 4/2005 - We still HAVE to watch this - your right
to dive as we know it is at risk. November 2001 The definitions used in this treaty are broad and vague, defining what is to be protected as “all traces of human existence”. It vests title of all shipwrecks, presumed abandoned 25 years after sinking, in the government. The treaty also promotes the idea of “preserve in place”, which is impractical in the ocean where the chemical, physical and biological forces act tirelessly to decimate shipwrecks. NOAA’s recent decision to rescue artifacts from the Monitor instead of preserving in place supports this argument. Most divers, if given the opportunity, are in favor of cooperation between the sport diving community and government archaeologists. Since most shipwreck discoveries are made within the private sector, this approach is of great value to all parties involved. Therefore, any treaty regarding management of underwater cultural heritage should provide for public access and use. All parties that have an interest in the resource need to be included in the formulation and ratification of any treaty involving shipwrecks. Your voice needs to be heard. This treaty will be discussed at
a meeting of UNESCO in Paris taking place mid-April 1999, with the State
Department representing United States interests. Your right to share
marine shipwreck resources is at state. If you feel strongly about
this issue and the limitations it could present to recreational sport divers
and trained, responsible, amateur archaeological projects--please
send your opinions to: The New Jersey Council of Diving Clubs Position
on UNESCO The New Jersey Council of Diving Clubs is an organization of 32 sport diving clubs in New Jersey and other nearby states. We respectfully submit the following comments on the Draft UNESCO Convention On Underwater Cultural Heritage. The proposed treaty essentially deals with shipwreck management on a colossal scale, as almost all underwater cultural resources (as defined) in a state's territorial or continental zone would be shipwrecks with few exceptions. The draft treaty assumes that any shipwreck over 100 years old is "underwater cultural heritage" and even allows a state to claim a 25 year old shipwreck as underwater cultural heritage within 200 miles of it ocean borders or anywhere on the adjacent continental shelf, which could be more than 200 miles. It is interesting to note that Congress rejected the extension of shipwreck legislation into the EEZ a few year back, and this proposal may be a move to circumnavigate the will of Congress. The treaty then requires the state to treat underwater cultural heritage (as defined) in a manner consistent with the principles of the Charter (ICOMOS Charter for the Protection and Management of the Underwater Cultural Heritage). This Charter sets standards for underwater archaeological investigation and excavation which, unfortunately, are rarely reached in the real world. The draft treaty then takes a punitive approach that requires a state to prohibit the use of its territory in support of any activity affecting underwater cultural heritage (as defined) which is inconsistent with the Charter, and requires seizure of the underwater cultural heritage and the implementation of criminal or administrative sanctions against the individuals or organizations involved even if the salvage took place beyond their jurisdiction. The concern of the N.J.C.D.C. is that shipwrecks play a variety of roles in our society, of which underwater archaeology is only a very, very minor aspect. Maybe 3% of our shipwreck resources will ever be the subject of an archaeological investigation. Shipwrecks act as reefs and are an important fishery resource that attract certain types of fish associated with hard habitat, and a shipwreck may be the only hard habitat for miles around. About 99 percent of the people that visit shipwrecks are sport divers and recreational fishermen, not archaeologists. There is a 50 million-dollar sport diving industry in New Jersey based solely on the thousands of shipwreck off our coast, and this industry has existed for over 45 years. Lobstermen and other commercial fishermen also utilize our shipwreck resources. Yet the draft treaty is pretending that the only importance of shipwrecks is underwater archaeology. According to the Charter, any investigation of shipwrecks (which could be interpreted to be just a visit by a sport diver or fishermen) would have to be accompanied by a project design and site assessment made available to the scientific community or the state. There is no consideration of the fishing or recreational role that most shipwrecks play. The draft treaty continually refers back to the Charter, which actual is guidelines for archaeological investigation. Any country that signs the treaty must agree to abide by the Charter no matter how badly worded that charter proves to be, and it could change to become ever more restrictive. In essence, all decisions regarding how something can be recovered from shipwrecks is being dictated by ICOMOS, which is making the decisions and not Congress. Not only is the draft treaty declaring war on any commercial salvage, but its also putting in jeopardy all other uses of shipwrecks. Unlike the Abandoned Shipwreck Act, it makes no attempt to guarantee recreational access to shipwrecks or allow for appropriate public and private sector recovery. And it does not attempt to foster a partnership among sport divers, fishermen, archaeologist, salvors and other user interests to manage shipwrecks resources, which the ASA did try to do. The draft convention intends shipwrecks to be owned and managed by governments of states, who are expected to enforce unrealistic archaeological guidelines and, of course, hire more archaeologists. But government agencies, like the Army Corps of Engineers, are one of the biggest destroyers of shipwrecks, not its protector. For example, recent massive beach replenishment projects under the COE off of New Jersey have destroyed shipwreck habitat on a massive scale. And commercial fishing in the ocean destroys far, far more shipwrecks then commercial salvage ever did. In fact, none of the really important manmade factors in the destruction of shipwrecks is addressed by the treaty! The draft treaty was written by archaeologist for archaeologist, with no one else being considered. One of the unexpected consequences may be that if enforced, the proposed convention will actually discourage underwater archaeology because few archaeological investigations ever meet all the requirements of the Charter, especially the part that requires adequate and long term financing of any archaeological investigation. In order to have a fair and just treaty, you need to look at shipwrecks as a total (multi-use) resource that reflects the actual role shipwreck play in our society. You need to tighten up the definition of underwater cultural heritage to something that is clearly of archaeological value, not all traces of human existence over 25 years old. You need to involve the other users of the resource in the process and allow them to have a say in the management, something that UNESCO is not doing. And there is no reason why an underwater cultural resource cannot co-exist with other uses of the resource. It might be easier to adjust existing admiralty law to a multi-use point of view then to trust that to some archaeologist in a government agency who happens to be dominated by an archaeological dogma that never worked in the management of shipwrecks. Finally, the treaty should be made less punitive and more based on education and involvement of the people that really utilize the resource. Several year ago I wrote a paper called "A Treaty of Ignorance" in response to the Buenos Aires Draft Convention for the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage", an earlier version of this draft treaty. Ignorance, of course, refers to ignorance of the resource. The current version has not changed much and almost all the points I originally made are still valid. As long as the proposed UNESCO Convention on Underwater Cultural Heritage looks at shipwrecks solely as an archaeological resource, it will be remain a Treaty Of Ignorance. PETITION
- 1999
1.) The law-making process is anti-democratic. The United States
should not support the Convention unless and until UNESCO permits any organization
with a vested interest in the disposition of Underwater Cultural Heritage
to be heard in the debate. Date Name Address Phone e-Mail _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________
|
|
NJCDC Home page
NJ Scuba Lobster Rules
NJ Scuba Diving Rules
NJ Scuba Diving Clubs Council Members |