1 10 6 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/420b412c648f21363610d71afd756882.pdf 1bb2715c47bd4ae700900a08bac4e49e PDF Text Text Date: March 24, 2017 KAMSAN HENG MR. DIRECTOR OF ANTIQUITY DEPARTMENT, MOCFA. MEMBER OF ECONOMIC SOCIAL AND CULTURAL COUNCIL, OCM. TEL: +855 89 810 089 EMAIL: kamsan_heng@yahoo.com TOPIC: Risk and Protective Measures of Cultural Property in Cambodia The risk to cultural property takes several forms such as risk from illegal activities, risk from neglect, and primarily the risk that cultural heritage is not well understood, but the key element of this presentation is protection. Cultural heritage property come in at least three forms; tangible, intangible, and the term Memory of the World (MoW). In response to tangible heritage property protection the government of Cambodia has taken measures that are far reaching and sustainable. Those measures include but not limited to legislation in the form of Royal Decrees and sub decrees, ministerial directives and initiatives, protective custody in secure sites such as museums, greater site protection, and management, conservation and renovation of cultural heritage ruins and artifacts. In addition to these measure, a concerted effort to promote public awareness and participation in heritage protection efforts. Supplementing Cambodian efforts are those of UNESCO, international organizations, and special agreements between nations to cooperate in stopping illegal trafficking of heritage. Efforts within Cambodia have been undertaken to recognize intangible heritage as an equally important aspect of culture that requires preservation. Organizations such as ICCMOS. ICOMOS, and World Heritage are important in the planning and management of all heritage. Cambodia is a participant in MoW with the Archives of the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum. With two World Heritage sites, Angkor Archaeological Park, and Preah Vihear, and soon to be recognized Sambor Prei Kuk Archaeological Site, and four intangible cultural heritage elements, Cambodia is well on the way to a more sustainable cultural heritage management policy and plan. In the international cooperating arena two especially productive agreements are in place. With the United States government, a “Red list of Cambodian Antiquities at Risk” has been published and distributed. It provides a good basic definition of the heritage that is most likely to be illegally traded. Additionally, with the US government cooperation in their Customs and Homeland Security, and Justice Department has returned many valuable artifacts to Cambodia and stopped the sale of others. Closer to Cambodia the Royal Thai Government has assisted in preventing cross-border trafficking and return many large and significant stone and wooden works of art. Cambodia is also grateful to the private individuals who understand the importance of heritage who have donated cultural property from their legally acquired collections to the Kingdom of Cambodia. �The measures that have been in place and reinforced by Cambodia and its’ worldwide partners are steps to insuring that the protection and management of cultural property is sustained for future generations. • Respond to the protection and conservation of tangible and intangible cultural heritage sustainable, Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts, and are taking a step forward by getting remarkable results including:  The creation of various legal and regulatory documents.  Strategic planning and implementation of legal measures in the management of cultural heritage.  Identifying archaeological sites and ruins to protect.  Management, conservation and renovation of archaeological ruins and artifacts.  The inventory of archaeological sites and temples.  The inventory of museum collections and public and private cultural property outside museum.  Preparation of technical documentation of tangible and intangible cultural heritage, World Heritage.  Improve the existing museum building and the establishment of a new museum in the provinces and city to process.  The opening of training and human resources building.  Public awareness and mobilizing the participation of communities and citizens.  To strengthen cooperation within the framework of national, regional and international. • Article 5 of the Convention on the means of prohibiting and prevent exports and exchange of ownership of cultural property illegally (the Convention entered into force on 24 April 1972, and Cambodia adopted on 26 September 1972) was written to ensure the protection of properties subscription asteroid prevent the export, import and ownership of cultural property illegally countries as a member of the Convention agreed to create an institution or organization for the protection of cultural property by equipped with staff qualified to carry out effectively its role as follows:  And contribute to the draft regulations for the protection of cultural property management.  Inventory of key public and private cultural property export of cultural property is a clause that involve extinction of national cultural heritage.  Boost the development or the establishment of scientific and technical institutions (museums, libraries, archives conservation lab workshops ...) that are necessary for ensuring the maintenance and display of cultural property. � Assigned to oversee the archaeological excavation to ensure protection (in place) because any cultural property income and protect any areas for future research.  Take measures to promote media education and promote respect for cultural heritage for all bribe.  Be deemed to preach to the masses in a way appropriate to do to show the lost cultural property.  The launch of an appropriate certificate in which the country exports any cultural properties is obtained permits and cards. Coupons should send all legally exported cultural property.  Prohibits the export of cultural property from its territory unless export letter as stated above.  Preach to the masses about the ban by using appropriate means, especially among those who can be exported or imported cultural property. • In the international arena, we also get great results should be proud:  Actual recent "archives of the Museum Tuol Sleng Genocide" has been included in the list of UNESCO of the Memory of the World (MoW) in late July 2009 after heritage tangible Two UNESCO included in the World Heritage List is the archaeological site of Angkor in 1992, and the resort national culture of Preas Vihear Temple in 2008 and Intangible Heritage of four other UNESCO inserted as masterpieces of intangible heritage of humanity of which comprises the Royal Ballet in Nov 2003, the Large Shadow Puppetry in Nov 2005, Tugging Rituals and Games in Dec 2015 and Chapei Dang Veng in Nov 2016. Memory of the World (MoW) The Archives of the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum in late July 2009 The Heritage Tangible Two UNESCO included in the World Heritage List are: Archaeological site of Angkor in 1992 �Resort National Culture of Preas Vihear Temple, in late July, 2008 Intangible Heritage of four other UNESCO inserted as masterpieces of intangible heritage of humanity of which comprises: Large Shadow Puppetry in Nov 2005 Royal Ballet in Nov 2003 Tugging Rituals and Games in Dec 2015 Chapei Dang Veng in Nov 2016 �Legal Measures and Regulations  National Level  Law on the Protection of Cultural Heritage (01/1996).  Sub Decree on the implementation of the Protection of Cultural Heritage (09/2002).  Law on the Rights and Related Rights system (03/2003).  Royal decrees Sub Decree and other notice regarding the artistic and cultural sector, especially related to cultural heritage.  Regional and International Level  Cambodia has signed a memorandum of Convention relating to the protection and particular. understand ding and the preservation of cultural heritage, in  Bilateral Agreement between the Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand on anti-border smuggling and illegal traffic of cultural property which is movable and the transmission of cultural property (06/2000).  Memorandum of Understanding between the Royal Government of Cambodia and the United States on the limits to ban the import of Khmer artifacts (09/2003). As a member state of UNESCO exhibition on July 3, 1951, Cambodia has been involved in many international activities related to the protection of tangible and intangible cultural heritage. Since 1960s, Cambodia has signed excuse Castle Convention and Protocol such as:  Conventions and the first Protocols for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. The Hague on May 14, 1954 (adopted on April 4, 1962 and the Second Optional Protocol is on May 17, 1999).  The Convention on the Means of Prohibition and Control of Imports and Exports, Change of ownership of Cultural Property Illegally called “1972 Convention”, adopted on September 26, 1972.  The Convention on the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, called “World Heritage Convention” adopted on November 28, 1991.  UNITE DROTE Convention on Cultural Property was Stolen or Illegally held Integra -ted “adopted on February 21, 2002”.  The Convention on the Protection of Intangible Cultural January 18, 2006”. Heritage “adopted on  The Convention on the Protection and Promotion of Diversity of Cultural Diversity “adopted on July 20, 2007”.  Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage July 20, 2007”. “adopted on Cultural Property at Risk  Although the Government has taken a number of measures, and in the Protection of Cultural Heritage, art looting and destruction of archaeological sites continue. Example: A recent is the destruction in a new format appears with prehistoric site was burglarized. � Finding artifacts caused demand on the international market. Traffic of all types of illegal artifacts and materials that date from prehistory to the 19th century is a country rich in cultural heritage can lead to disaster. RED LIST OF CAMBODIAN ANTIQUITIES AT RISK With the agreement on the Memorandum of Understanding between the Royal Government of Cambodia and the US government on the limits ban the imports of artifacts Khmer, US State Department has been providing assistance to the Council for the International Museum in collaboration between the Ministry Culture and Fine Arts and experts of national and international, to study and document the "Red List of archaeological Cambodia be at risk" for the purpose of protection and prevent the circulation of illegal Heritage Khmer. The work began in June 2008 and was completed in early 2009, printed in Khmer, English, French, German, Spanish and Thai. Cultural property is divided into: The type of feedstock  Stones (including precious first slap).  Metal (bronze, copper, iron, gold and silver).  Objects made of organic material (wood, paper, leaves).  Ceramics and glass objects.  Periodic:  Prehistory (5th century BC. to 5th AD.)  Pre-Angkorian (6th to 8th AD.)  Angkor period (9th to 13rd AD.)  Post-Angkorian (14th to 20th AD.) �Measures to protect artifacts I- UNESCO Convention of 1972 states that the members of the Convention agreed to take all necessary are: A- To prevent any museum in the country of its acceptance of cultural property that was illegally exported. B- Prohibit the import of cultural property that had been stolen from museums or any public institution after the Convention entered into force. C- At the request of an owner to pay back their cultural heritage, which was piled stolen and exported to other countries. Article 2- Countries are members of the Convention recognizes that imports export and transfer of ownership of possessions measure protection culture illegally is a major cause of one of the causes, those causes extinction cultural heritage of the country, which is the original owner of the properties of those, and that international cooperation is the one of the measures are measures efficiency those in protecting the cultural heritage of each country against the threat of exports, imported illegally. • For many years, the competent authorities involved in joint cultural property seats in the temples and archaeological objects found by the people to save the museum and a safe place to preserve. • Some cultural property to the competent authorities of Cambodia take from merchants who attempt to export abroad. Cambodian armed forces in the province take the dishonest traders. �• Cultural heritage, some have returned to Cambodia from other countries through the international cooperation based on the international law and agreements, bilateral or multilateral between each other and to overcome any problems that need to resist, especially the export of illegal cultural property from the territory of any payments and properties, then returned to the original owners. • Sculpture Lokeshvara, there is a lot of hand on the temple wall 2 and inscriptions and other objects was captured by Thai authorities in 1999, when transported into Thailand. Based on bilateral agreements on anti-border smuggling and illegal traffic of cultural property, movable and transmission of cultural property were returned to the country of origin. Royal Thai government awarded to Cambodia in 2000. �• Khmer artifacts 7 (01 angels on the head and a strong head 06 out of 43) that authorities take the Thai government was returned to the Cambodian government awarded on June12, 2009. • Based on the agreement bilateral on the memorandum of understanding between the Royal Government of Cambodia and the Government of the United States on a restricted ban the imports of artifacts Khmer (19 September 2003 and renewed in August 2008 and the Convention of UNESCO on the statues head APSARA was US authorities take in the state of California relatives in 2005 and returned to hand over to the Royal Cambodia on 30 July 2007. • Khmer cultural heritage and someone has returned to Cambodia from various countries through the generous donation. Jewelry, gold crown Angkor period between th th the 12 to the 13 century that foreign generous charities awarded on 04 January 2008. Statue of ancient Khmer th (hunchback), sandstone 10 century originate from the Koh Ker site foreign generous awarded on 17 October 2002. �Khmer silver Ceramic ancient with inscription th around the 13 century, foreign generous charities, awarded on 16 July 2004. Towing precious ancient script written, Bayon th style 13 century, foreign generous charities presented on 12 June 2009. Cooperation projects in the framework of international International Organization of Museums (ICOM) in collaboration with EFEO, published this book in 1993 and the second edition in 1997. This book has become an effective tool in providing information about the Khmer artifacts stolen from Cambodia to seek and to get it back. Actual result from print books, with good cooperation and greater efforts by national and international institutions so far 9 artifacts returned to Cambodia and some are researching. Brahma head (DCA.3489, Ka.2337) was cut off from the statue of Brahma from Temple of Rolous Group, Angkor area. This object was discovered in Britain in November 1994, which was sold in London by Sothebys's on 21 October 1993. British sent returned to Cambodia on 4 December 1996. Torso female statue (DCA.1429, ka.2472). was stolen in the early 1980s and has been spotted in France. Frenchman in Paris, awarded to Cambodia on 19 February 1997. �The inventory of museum collections, public and private cultural heritage outside the museum: The inventory is data recorded for public or private cultural properties which are very necessary into science, history arts or religions, although they are not required to classify a hurry.  Assistance to the management and conservation of cultural heritage.  Supporting research and education programs.  Confirmation of ownership of cultural property in case of losses.  Confirm the reality of the case of fraud. ……………………………… � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 2017 Session 7: Underwater Cultural Heritage Politics, Laws, Ethics and Values Description An account of the resource All cultural materials are potentially cultural resources. However, because not all of them can be preserved or studied, choices must be made based on evaluation and re-evaluation. Values are learned and depend on cultural, intellectual, historical, and psychological frames of reference. Consequently, valuation is made individually, but is shared by communities. Valuation of underwater cultural heritage has, then, a broad range of determining value depending on the community to which it belongs. A clear example of this is the protection of human remains. The 2001 UNESCO Convention includes, in its definition of underwater cultural heritage, human remains which have been underwater for more than 100 years. However, the Christian philosophy on the treatment of human remains is different to that of Asian philosophy that teaches that human remains will never become underwater cultural heritage since, if they are seen by someone in an underwater site, it is imperative to rescue the human remains and bury them on land according to their beliefs. This session aims to create a forum for policymakers, managers, and archaeologists devoted to underwater cultural heritage where they can share their experiences of and research on the valuation of underwater cultural heritage. We aim to accept papers that help us to understand the definition of ‘underwater cultural heritage’ in the Asia-Pacific regions, comparing those definitions with the definition of the 2001 UNESCO Convention and trying to find a common interpretation. We will also be looking to examine the meaning of the underwater cultural heritage sites and objects for different communities. Finally, we will be expecting papers exploring the different possibilities of the use and/or conservation of this underwater cultural heritage according to the values and needs of the different communities. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Elena Perez-Alvaro Licit Cultural Heritage Ltd., UK Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Risk and Protective Measures of Cultural Property in Cambodia Description An account of the resource The risk to cultural property takes several forms such as risk from illegal activities, risk from neglect, and primarily the risk that cultural heritage is not well understood, but the key element of this presentation is protection. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Kamsan Heng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource March 24, 2017 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Kamsan Heng Language A language of the resource English 2017 Session 7 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/32782553356f901500377f6efd3ceb7f.pdf 56079b3eebab34e237fbde99723d9de6 PDF Text Text A Blueprint for the Conservation of Underwater Cultural Heritage in Taiwan Dr. Ying-Ying Tung (Kuo-King Tung) 董盈穎 Associate Researcher, Bureau of Cultural Heritage, Ministry of Culture, Taiwan Istituto Centrale per la Patologia del Libro Istituto Italiano Arte Artigianato e Restauro Museology, Tainan National University of the Arts Art Administration Management, National Taiwan Normal University Email: ch0235@boch.gov.tw ; telephone: 866-912600718 Abstract Located on an important East Asian shipping route, the island of Taiwan is surrounded by waters containing a large number of underwater artefacts as a result of weather conditions, changes in the current, submerged reefs, war and other human factors. In 2006, the Bureau of Cultural Heritage (BOCH) commissioned the Institute of History and Philology at Academia Sinica to carry out a survey of underwater cultural heritage. In the ten years since, and with the assistance of scholars from France’s DRASSM, Australia, the United States and Japan, Taiwan has made remarkable progress. Wherever underwater archaeological sites are found, underwater artefacts are also. In the last ten years, the BOCH has recovered 1,567 items, the vast majority of which are metal and pottery. In addition, parts of wooden boats and vessels of the two World Wars and freighted goods have also been found. Because there is a lack of professional facilities and conservators, half of the recovered objects are still being stored in water. Taiwan’s Underwater Cultural Heritage Preservation Act, promulgated on 9 December 2015, ensures the protection of Taiwan’s underwater cultural heritage. Item 6 of Article 2 of UNESCO’s 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage states that “Recovered underwater cultural heritage shall be deposited, conserved and managed in a manner that ensures its long-term preservation.” In order to enhance the safety of artefacts once they are out of the water, and to provide comprehensive information about the restored artefacts, it is necessary to plan in advance and proceed carefully. In the next ten years, we need to �train more professional conservation and restoration personnel and to expand the necessary facilities into a complete system for the handling of underwater archaeology—including a series of tasks such as surveying, verification, monitoring, exploration, conservation and restoration, research, educational exhibition and promotional publication. Conserving recovered underwater artefacts is also an important task for underwater archaeology. A complete plan is needed before undertaking an underwater archaeological project, encompassing the conservation, registration and recording of submerged objects and the restoration, research and storage of recovered objects. We need to train conservation and restoration personnel, set up conservation and restoration facilities, equipment and laboratories for recovered artefacts, and all documentation regarding underwater cultural heritage must be centrally administered and kept in good condition at the data centre. A data system should also be set up for use by researchers and the general public. If recovered artefacts are to retain their full cultural and historical value, their conservation must be carried out by professional personnel in a way that retains all their historical information and “make the artefact talk”. Key words: Underwater Archaeology, Underwater Cultural Heritage, Conservation-Restoration, Bureau of Cultural Heritage (BOCH) 1. The Importance of Recovering Underwater Artefacts 1.1 Underwater Cultural Heritage Provides Data Integral to Human History With progress in diving technology and equipment, underwater cultural heritage has become an important type of cultural heritage, providing evidence of historical processes relating to human maritime culture and trade, oceanic migration routes and other human maritime activities. Underwater heritage sites are like time capsules, providing supplementary historical data and enriching human history. Underwater cultural heritage �makes up for deficiencies in land-based cultural heritage; only together do the two types provide the full historical information on human activity. 1.2 Evidence from Historical Research Although recovered relics can supplement or corroborate much historical information, it is only in the last 50 to 60 years that the study of underwater cultural heritage has come to be an academic discipline. Thus, many mammalian fossils have been discovered in the Penghu submarine canyon in Taiwan, including skeletons of mammoths, water buffalo, deer and horses. According to palaeontologists, these fauna fossils (known as “Taiwan Land Bridge Fauna Fossils”) prove that in antiquity the Taiwan landmass was connected to the continental landmass. Many wrecked naval vessels from the Second World War were also discovered in the Penghu sea area (such as the Guangbing gunboat), which, together with historical records and nearby lighthouses built on islands, such as the Guangbing gunboat (from the Guangdong Fleet) and(including the Gupo (Koba) Island lighthouse), constitute a complete network of underwater cultural heritage and sites. According to Japanese historical records, the Yamafuji Maru cargo ship ran aground and sank, whereas United States records state it was sunk by torpedo. Perhaps damaged objects recovered from the area could set the record straight. 1.3 A Perfectly Preserved Time Capsule The artefacts most likely to have retained their original appearance from the time of sinking are those that lie buried under the seabed at depths greater than 60 metres, where they are relatively undisturbed by human passage and where the environment is especially oxygen-depleted. An artefact that has sunk into the sea and remained there for a thousand years may look exactly as it did at the moment it sank, while a land-based �thousand-year-old artefact may long ago have shattered and even been reduced to dust. The thousands of century-old artefacts allow us to turn back time and thus constitute an important asset for historical research. 2. Characteristics and Classification of Recovered Artefacts 2.1 Characteristics of Recovered Artefacts Recovered underwater artefacts are different from regular land-based artefacts because they have been immersed in cold, dark, low-oxygen, salt-saturated seawater for hundreds or thousands of years. Recovery brings them into a new environment, which makes their conservation and restoration even more difficult than for land-based artefacts. Without expert treatment, when they leave their original environment and are exposed to the atmosphere, the rate of decomposition will accelerate. In order to avoid degradation and corrosion, artefacts have to be adapted to suit the surface environment, ensuring that all physical and chemical changes are gradual. Thus, immediately upon being taken from the water they are given urgent first treatment, and once they have been documented (photographed, registered, labeling) they are sent to the laboratory or conservation studio to continue the conservation and protection work, such as desalination, cleaning(algae, molluscs, sand, chlorine), impregnation, reinforcement, drying, filling and retouching. The aim is to restore the object to its original form with minimal intervention, to preserve its integrity and make its historical value “speak” so that it can be used for research and exhibition. 2.2 Classification of Recovered Artefacts According to the definition in Article 1 of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, underwater cultural heritage consists of: �(a) “sites, structures, buildings, artefacts and human remains, together with their archaeological and natural context” (b) “vessels, aircraft, other vehicles or any part thereof, their cargo or other contents, together with their archaeological and natural context” (c) “objects of prehistoric character” Objects found in ruins and towns are mainly stone sculptures, parts of buildings, artefacts and everyday items. Recovered vessels, aircraft and other means of transportation are generally made of wood or metal, while the objects that they carry are mainly pottery, porcelain, coins, stone goods, daily items and food supplies, and cannons and munitions for warships. Organic matter such as rope, sailcloth, textiles, leather and human bones can also be found. In sum, underwater cultural heritage can be divided into three broad categories: (1) organic matter such as bones, textiles and wood (2) inorganic matter such as metal and pottery (3) Composite material The number of categories of underwater artefacts depends on the categorization of discovered underwater archaeological sites and their contents. 3. Recovered Underwater Artefacts in Taiwan 3.1 Quantities To date, the Bureau of Cultural Heritage has overseen the recovery of 1,567 items in total: 174 in 2009, 118 in 2010, 144 in 2011, 126 in 2012, 87 in 2013, 96 in 2014, 393 in 2015 and 429 in 2016 (as shown in Table 1). �Table 1. Total recovered artefacts by year. Total recovered artefacts by year 500 400 300 數量 200 100 0 98年 99年 100年 101年 102年 103年 104年 105年 The recovered items fall into the following categories: 946 metallic items, 15 wooden, 327 pottery, 58 seashell, 127 glass, 56 stone, 1 seed and 37 other. In addition to the artefacts recovered during the BOCH survey, the underwater artefacts were recovered by many places: (1) the Cultural Affairs Bureau of Yilan County government recovered 1,471,804 items at the Qiwulan site, including 946 metallic items, 15 wooden, 327 pottery, 58 seashell, 127 glass, 56 stone, 1 seed and 37 other.organic matter such as bones, textiles and wood (2) In Penghu the recovery of Jiangjun No. 1 shipwreck, under the direction of the National Museum of History, 284 items were recovered in 1995-1998. (3) The Sobraon shipwreck recovery off Matsu Island saw the discovery of X items. 3.2 Storage Sites �BOCH currently stores recovered artefacts at four locations: Taichung, Penghu, Keelung and Tainan. Many of those recovered by the Yilan County Cultural Affairs Bureau are stored in Yilan Cultural Centre. Artefacts from the Jiangjun No. 1 are stored at the National Museum of History and the Penghu County Bureau of Cultural Affairs. The Sobraon artefacts are stored on Matsu Island. (as shown in Table 2). Table 2. Total recovered storage place. Site Department in charge / Deposit Place Green Island BOCH No.1, Guangbing Penghu Underwater gunboat, S.S. Archaeology Work Bokhare, Station Masushimakan, The National Museum … of Marine Science & Technology, Keelung Cultural Heritage Research Center, Tainan Qiwulan Site Yilan County Bureau of Cultural Affairs Jiangjun No. 1 Penghu County Bureau of Cultural Affairs Sobraon Cultural Affairs department of Lienchiang County Government. Matsu Quantity notes 100 1,022 26 100 1,151,066 Before the setting up of the 284 Underwater Cultural Heritage 25 Section at BOCH In its earlier development in Taiwan, underwater archaeology was understaffed, with a relative lack of manpower and technical ability for the conservation and restoration of recovered artefacts. Thus, the first batch of artefacts salvaged from Jiangjun No. 1 did not go through each and every part of the conservation process: 794 items of the underwater artefacts recovered by BOCH are still being stored in water. approx. 51% �have yet to be processed. Of the 1,473,655 items recovered in Taiwan, most of them have yet to be processed. 3.3 Efforts to protect underwater cultural heritage On 10 December 2015, Taiwan passed the Underwater Cultural Heritage Preservation Act, which laid the optimal groundwork to guarantee conservation of Taiwan’s underwater cultural heritage. To bolster the security of recovered artefacts, BOCH has set up an index to record their information and is organizing a storage/exhibition space and professional training in conservation workshops. This will preserve for posterity the historical data of these recovered remnants and fully realize their great historical value. 3.3.1 Staff Training and Workshops In August 2015, BOCH invited two scholars, Australia’s Mark Staniforth and Japan’s Jun Kimura, to come to Taiwan and share their expertise with the Taiwan Underwater Archaeology Team. From 2 to 12 October 2016, Australians Andrew Viduka and Jon Carpenter ran a study workshop on on-site processing of underwater artefacts (metal and wood). In collaboration with Academia Sinica’s underwater archaeology team, BOCH carried out the Taiwan Coastal Waters Underwater Cultural Heritage Survey Project and trained front-line staff at the site of the Green Island No. 1 shipwreck in the waters off Green Island to correctly handle recovered artefacts and follow the right workflow. The training gave personnel a good grasp of the knowledge and skills needed to carry out on-site conservation and protection of recovered artefacts and work management. It also helps improve the process of conserving and managing recovered underwater cultural heritage. 3.3.2 Taking Inventory and Building a Database �In 2015 and 2016, an inventory of recovered artefacts was carried out and a data registration form was drawn up in the hope of gathering the scattered information about recovered objects into one place, ultimately to be entered into a forthcoming database. 3.3.3 Setting Up the Penghu Work Station In 2014, BOCH signed a contract with Chunghwa Telecom to turn the historic Penghu Post Office and the telecommunications bureau dormitory on its east side into a national underwater archaeology work station, combining data resources and equipment for the use of the underwater archaeology workforce as a work and exhibition space. By May 2015, the renovation was complete, a reuse survey had been carried out and a plan had been drawn up to finish the work by February 2018. The historic post office building was chosen to act as an exhibition space, and the underwater archaeology work station would be moved to the former site of the telecommunications bureau dormitory. A research area, storage area, car park, preparation zone, cleaning zone and dormitory have been planned. 3.3.4 Setting Up a Collection Space for Recovered Artefacts BOCH will set up a collection space on the fourth floor of the Weishui Building at our Taichung office’s to be used as an initial repository for underwater artefacts recovered by the future underwater archaeology research centre. The space is approximately 90 m2 and able to house around 24,000,000 m3 of recovered artefacts. Detailed plans have already been drawn up, and construction is due to be complete before the end of the year. 4. Recommendations 4.1 Train conservation and restoration personnel �The lack of professional staff is why the majority of recovered underwater artefacts continue to be stored in water and also one reason why Taiwan is not doing its utmost to recover objects. Of course, if the necessary skills to treat recovered artefacts are lacking, recovery is the wrong course of action, but it is also poor policy not to salvage important underwater artefacts that are of historical value or that lie in an inhospitable environment simply because of a lack of professional restoration staff. In this way, the laborious work of surveying and identifying underwater cultural heritage has all been in vain, and the hard-won discovery of underwater archaeological sites will not lead to any further research. After surveying, checking, rechecking and confirming underwater archaeological sites, if they contain objects that fill in gaps in human history, recovery should be under consideration. But in order to resolve this problem, we must immediately start training conservation and restoration personnel, perhaps by inviting international scholars to Taiwan on a yearly basis to give courses on metal, pottery, wooden and other organic materials, so that staff can earn course credits or certificates on the treatment of recovered artefacts. Training of underwater cultural heritage conservation staff could start with those who have a Master’s degree or higher in cultural heritage, art culture, artefact conservation or other fields relating to conservation techniques. They should be encouraged to gain qualifications in underwater cultural heritage conservation, protection or management, either in Taiwan or abroad. 4.2 Expand the size of underwater archaeological work station The Penghu underwater archaeology work station is located opposite Makung Harbour. The Penghu site has a high number of wrecks, so it is the ideal location for the work station, but it currently measures only �633.54 m2. Discounting the Penghu Post Office exhibition space, the telecommunications bureau dormitory has to provide space for underwater archaeology personnel and diving-related facilities such as divers’ sleeping quarters and office space, diving tank recharge area, shower area, drying room for diving suits, storeroom, a room for various marine survey equipment, car park and corridors. If an emergency room for treating recovered underwater artefacts is to be set up, it will be rather cramped. In the event that a large volume of objects is recovered, a certain amount of space will be necessary for their treatment, so it will be necessary to find a bigger space in Penghu. Other underwater archaeological sites such as Green Island, should evaluate its quantities of underwater cultural heritage. 4.3 Integrate the data and management of all underwater artefacts in Taiwan Information regarding the underwater artefacts at Yilan’s Qiwulan site (more than 10,000) the Jiangjun No. 1 wreck in 1995 (over 200), and the Matsu Sobraon wreck (25), which were all recovered before the passing of the Underwater Cultural Heritage Preservation Act, should be integrated and managed centrally. 4.4 Set up first-rate restoration laboratories in work stations Recovered underwater artefacts are vastly different from regular landbased artefacts. The former requires immediate appropriate treatment, so the more underwater sites an area has, the more first-rate restoration and testing spaces are needed. A properly equipped facility can be used to give recovered artefacts the care they need. By restoring and preserving an artefact’s original shape and appearance, we can preserve its original historical data, to be studied by historians and exhibited for the public, and �everyone can get a closer look at precious underwater cultural artefacts that would otherwise be out of reach. The size of the conservation room determines the size of the artefact that can be treated. Because artefacts require desalination, impregnation, and chemical substitution, we must install large tanks for water or solvents or electrolysis tanks. These are extremely heavy and must be installed on the ground floor to make it easier to unload artefacts and avoid concerns about overloading the floor. 4.5 Set up an underwater archaeology data centre According to Rule 33 of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, “The project archives, including any underwater cultural heritage removed and a copy of all supporting documentation shall, as far as possible, be kept together and intact as a collection in a manner that is available for professional and public access as well as for the curation of the archives.” Since the promulgation of the Underwater Cultural Heritage Preservation Act in Taiwan, BOCH, Ministry of Culture is the only government administrative body to have jurisdiction over underwater cultural heritage. Although Taiwan has only been undertaking underwater cultural heritage work for ten years, the annual surveys and related research data should be systematically collected and stored centrally as soon as possible. An underwater archaeology centre should also be set up with the goal of assembling all the data for the use of researchers and the general public. 4.6 Underwater excavation work only to be carried out by trained conservation and restoration personnel According to Article 35 of Taiwan’s Underwater Cultural Heritage Preservation Act, when artefacts are excavated a plan must be drawn up �for their conservation and protection. Emergency treatment must be carried out by professionals of underwater archaeology, underwater work and conservation. During assessment of artefact recovery, professional restoration personnel must be brought in in order to understand the degree of risk artefacts face in their environment and situation and so better prepare for recovery. For example, should the artefact be recovered by hand, by wrapping it up, or using a bag or a hook? On the day of recovery, the professional conservation personnel should be on board the work boat to handle, labelling and clean the items or give urgent attention to more fragile items. Some excavation sites are remote, and excavation may take several days or weeks, in which case a temporary work station should be set up on shore. If the quantity of objects is very large, it will be necessary to consider setting up a formal work station, where personnel, apparatus and all the main facilities can be stationed. 5. Conclusions The waters around Taiwan are teeming with historical maritime culture. It is estimated that just over 99% of our underwater cultural heritage still lies on the seabed, waiting to be uncovered. Underwater archaeology has developed late in Taiwan and still faces serious challenges. It needs the support of government policy and an influx of fresh young talent. Recovered artefacts need to be dealt with carefully, with advance planning. Item 6, Article 2 of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage states that “Recovered underwater cultural heritage shall be deposited, conserved and managed in a manner that ensures its long-term preservation.” It is impossible to store recovered artefacts in water tanks forever—they will still decompose. But while we cannot allow over half of our recovered artefacts to continue to be stored �in water, nor can we leave them unrecovered simply because we lack storage locations or trained personnel, i.e. preserving the status quo by using “in-situ preservation”. Henceforth, the most important criterion for conservation and protection personnel is professional qualification, which means we need to start training people straightaway. We need to work closely with professional personnel when setting up laboratories and conservation facilities. Surveying, verification, exploration, conservation and restoration, research, educational exhibition and promotional publication are all tasks for underwater archaeology. We must not merely work on the initial stages and then ignore the subsequent conservation and restoration of recovered artefacts. Rather, we have to look at it as a whole process and take each task to completion. With the right restoration and testing space and the right equipment and tools, we can give recovered underwater artefacts the attention they require, restoring and preserving their original shape and appearance. In this way, we can preserve the entirety of these items’ historical data, so historians can study them, the public can see them in exhibition and everyone can get a closer look at precious underwater cultural artefacts that would otherwise remain out of reach. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 2017 Session 7: Underwater Cultural Heritage Politics, Laws, Ethics and Values Description An account of the resource All cultural materials are potentially cultural resources. However, because not all of them can be preserved or studied, choices must be made based on evaluation and re-evaluation. Values are learned and depend on cultural, intellectual, historical, and psychological frames of reference. Consequently, valuation is made individually, but is shared by communities. Valuation of underwater cultural heritage has, then, a broad range of determining value depending on the community to which it belongs. A clear example of this is the protection of human remains. The 2001 UNESCO Convention includes, in its definition of underwater cultural heritage, human remains which have been underwater for more than 100 years. However, the Christian philosophy on the treatment of human remains is different to that of Asian philosophy that teaches that human remains will never become underwater cultural heritage since, if they are seen by someone in an underwater site, it is imperative to rescue the human remains and bury them on land according to their beliefs. This session aims to create a forum for policymakers, managers, and archaeologists devoted to underwater cultural heritage where they can share their experiences of and research on the valuation of underwater cultural heritage. We aim to accept papers that help us to understand the definition of ‘underwater cultural heritage’ in the Asia-Pacific regions, comparing those definitions with the definition of the 2001 UNESCO Convention and trying to find a common interpretation. We will also be looking to examine the meaning of the underwater cultural heritage sites and objects for different communities. Finally, we will be expecting papers exploring the different possibilities of the use and/or conservation of this underwater cultural heritage according to the values and needs of the different communities. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Elena Perez-Alvaro Licit Cultural Heritage Ltd., UK Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource A Blueprint for the Conservation of Underwater Cultural Heritage in Taiwan Description An account of the resource Located on an important East Asian shipping route, the island of Taiwan is surrounded by waters containing a large number of underwater artefacts as a result of weather conditions, changes in the current, submerged reefs, war and other human factors. In 2006, the Bureau of Cultural Heritage (BOCH) commissioned the Institute of History and Philology at Academia Sinica to carry out a survey of underwater cultural heritage. In the ten years since, and with the assistance of scholars from France’s DRASSM, Australia, the United States and Japan, Taiwan has made remarkable progress. Wherever underwater archaeological sites are found, underwater artefacts are also. In the last ten years, the BOCH has recovered 1,567 items, the vast majority of which are metal and pottery. In addition, parts of wooden boats and vessels of the two World Wars and freighted goods have also been found. Because there is a lack of professional facilities and conservators, half of the recovered objects are still being stored in water. Taiwan’s Underwater Cultural Heritage Preservation Act, promulgated on 9 December 2015, ensures the protection of Taiwan’s underwater cultural heritage. Item 6 of Article 2 of UNESCO’s 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage states that “Recovered underwater cultural heritage shall be deposited, conserved and managed in a manner that ensures its long-term preservation.” In order to enhance the safety of artefacts once they are out of the water, and to provide comprehensive information about the restored artefacts, it is necessary to plan in advance and proceed carefully. In the next ten years, we need to train more professional conservation and restoration personnel and to expand the necessary facilities into a complete system for the handling of underwater archaeology—including a series of tasks such as surveying, verification, monitoring, exploration, conservation and restoration, research, educational exhibition and promotional publication. Conserving recovered underwater artefacts is also an important task for underwater archaeology. A complete plan is needed before undertaking an underwater archaeological project, encompassing the conservation, registration and recording of submerged objects and the restoration, research and storage of recovered objects. We need to train conservation and restoration personnel, set up conservation and restoration facilities, equipment and laboratories for recovered artefacts, and all documentation regarding underwater cultural heritage must be centrally administered and kept in good condition at the data center. A data system should also be set up for use by researchers and the general public. If recovered artefacts are to retain their full cultural and historical value, their conservation must be carried out by professional personnel in a way that retains all their historical information and “make the artefact talk”. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Dr. Ying-Ying Tung Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2017 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Dr. Ying-Ying Tung ( Language A language of the resource English https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/f4166c74d80fc0210e6535eb459594e5.pdf 66a24b1cfac35c8bfc61bbff0c002114 PDF Text Text A non-member State’s practice on the incorporation of the UCH Convention: Taiwan’s experience Pei-Fu Wu Ph.D. candidate, National Sun Yat-sen University, R.O.C. Investigator, Coast Guard Administration, Executive Yuan, R.O.C. Abstract The United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture (UNESCO) adopted the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage in 2001 which entered into force in 2009. In order to preserve, protect and manage underwater cultural heritage, State Parties should preserve underwater cultural heritage and take actions accordingly. The R.O.C. has followed the developments afore mentioned since 1999, and a specific legislation “Underwater Cultural Heritage Preservation Act” was enacted and entered into force in 2015 while facing various challenges along the way, even the R.O.C. is not a member of the UNESCO nor a Party to the Convention. The emergence, evolution, and practice in terms of the incorporation of the Convention into domestic legislation warrants the necessity of in-depth studies and further theorization since such experience relates to the success or failure of policies with respect to the incorporation of international conventions into domestic legislation. This paper provides an analytical assessment on the approaches that the R.O.C. incorporated the Convention through applying or modifying relevant theories regarding the incorporation of international conventions into domestic laws, and suggestions on confronting similar challenges. Key words: UNESCO, Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, incorporation into domestic legislation I. Forward The adoption and ratification of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (hereinafter referred to as the UCH Convention) have had an impact on the international community, including Taiwan. Taiwan is not a UNESCO Member State nor a party to the UCH Convention and has no international law duty to sign, approve or �comply with the UCH Convention. In response to this change, under the commission of the Ministry of Culture (hereinafter referred to as the MOC and its predecessor Cultural Affairs Council, hereinafter referred to as the CAC) and supervision of scholars, the author has participated in this academic research and bill drafting, namely the permanent “Underwater Cultural Heritage Preservation Act” (hereinafter referred to as the UCHPA), the “Rules for the Implementation of the Underwater Cultural Heritage Preservation Act,” the “Guidelines for Underwater Archaeological Work,” and the “Rules for the Management of Activities directed at Underwater Cultural Heritage.” The adoption and implementation of the UCHPA not only demonstrates Taiwan’s political will in participating this international affair, but it also affects the agency authority, legal regimes, and marine affairs management domestically. The experiences mentioned above may cast new light on Taiwan’s incorporation of other international instruments in the future, even more for other smaller countries like Taiwan with respect to UCH issues. The author exams Taiwan’s relevant laws regarding UCH, and takes an overlook on the incorporation of the UCH Convention, particularly related bill-drafting processes. Finally, some preliminary observations are illustrated. II. Taiwan’s incorporation process According to surveys conducted by the Academia Sinica group headed by Academician Chent-Hwa Tsang, at least fifteen shipwrecks have been confirmed surrounding the waters of Taiwan, and part of them have been listed on the national register.1 Besides, some UCH were discovered in inland waters. These UCH continue to face a threat from man and nature, and such danger should be reflected in national policies and legislations for their preservation, protection, and management. �The Cultural Heritage Preservation Act (hereinafter referred to as the CHPA) is the core of Taiwan’s legal protection of cultural heritage. However, the CHPA is dominated by inland concept, with extremely limited sea or underwater notion or almost non-existent. In the 2002 amendment of the CHPA, it was stipulated that “res nullius antiquities” and “res nullius ancient monuments” in submerged water are state-owned, and finders would be rewarded accordingly. These provisions were deleted in the 2005 amendment, leaving only that international investigations and excavations of sites within the territorial sea of the R.O.C. are regulated and authorized. This removal led to an insufficient linkage between the CHPA and the preservation, protection, and management of UCH. Nor can it be the foundation for the MOC as the competent authority in charge of UCH. Legally speaking, the CHPA can no longer be the basis for the preservation, protection, and management of UCH, nor it be part of the so called “relevant laws and regulations” in the “Law on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone of the Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the LTS).” Other laws directly regarding UCH are unavailable to be applied as a groundwork for the preservation, protection, and management of UCH. Article 16 of the LTS states: ‘The historical relics or monuments found in the archaeological, scientific research, or any other activities in the territorial sea and the contiguous zone of the Republic of China shall be owned by the Republic of China and shall be disposed of by the relevant laws of the Republic of China.’ The provision was delivered by the Legislative Yuan (namely the Congress) in the bill review process, not the Executive Yuan (namely the Cabinet). The Congress raised the article based on articles 33 and 303 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea2 focusing on State ownership or disposition, without taking into account the shortcomings of �the Convention at the time of its adoption of the two articles, and the international law in which the international community was engaged in the UCH issues. The LTS could not be the appropriate legal foundation for the preservation, protection, and management of the UCH. Given the general needs of Taiwan to promote her national marine policy, a scholar advocated the position and function of the UCH legal regime from the policy and maritime legislation perspective and drafted a UCH bill. The initiative is the initial driving force for Taiwan’s incorporation of the UCH Convention. In 1997, under the commission of the Ministry of the Interior, scholars submitted a report themed as “Strategic Arrangements Regarding Maritime Legislations.” They proposed that maritime legislations should be carried out to push forward the national marine policy, including an “Underwater Cultural Heritage Act” (Hu, 1997). Afterward, in 1998, scholars drafted the first “Bill of the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, Republic of China” for the CAC (Hu, 1999). However, the draft bill was not submitted to the Congress. The reasons behind deserve a detailed discussion. In 1997, the CAC invited scholars and relevant agencies to review the provisions of the CHPA. The academic representatives supported the regulation of UCH in the CHPA and had only different opinions on its practices, such as abstract or a particular chapter. The scholar who drafted the LTS called for a particular legislation regarding UCH. Officials are conservative on the issue. The CAC delegation expressed his doubt about the necessity of developing a particular bill regarding UCH. The delegation from the Ministry of Education stated that it was immature to deal with the theme. The Ministry of the Interior said that at the present stage, due to coordination difficulties, unless the MOC is established in the future and exercises authority over ancient antiquities as well as �monuments, the government should act in accordance with the CHPA. They reached the final resolutions as follows:3 Before the MOC is established, the primary task of the CAC falls mainly on cross-agency coordination and consultation. In principle, the CAC respects the authority of the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of the Interior. Some of the relevant standards regarding the protection of UCH provided in this meeting are incorporated from the UCH Convention, and others are from draft bills. However, whether it is mature to incorporate these norms into our local law should be reconsidered. These international norms must be quite mature enough to be incorporated. It is significant to protect UCH, and the government should pay more attention and collect information. Most of the relevant problems regarding UCH could be solved according to article 16 of the current LTS. When it comes to amending the CHPA, some issues need to be reconsidered: how to rule UCH in the CHPA? Is there an immediate need? How about the maturity of the international norm (draft)? Even if we take the terms of the license clauses, the scope of the mandate will also involve the issue of legal retention, and the concept of res nullius seems to have not yet reached a consensus domestically. The case is proposed to maintain the status quo, and relevant agencies shall collect more information on this topic and have in-depth analysis, as soon as the overall structure and concept are mature, the amendment of the CHPA or a particular legislation is available. The CAC has commissioned the National Sun Yat-sen University (The Center for Marine Policy Studies) in June 1999 to complete a research program and put forward a particular bill for legislation4. The report has been delivered to the relevant agencies for reference. Before the establishment of the MOC, the Ministry of Education command the �preservation as well as maintenance of archaeological relics, and the CAC should fully collaborate with the Ministry of Education. In fact, it is difficult to solve most of the related problems mentioned above by the LTS. The government exercises jurisdiction over UCH in the territorial sea and contiguous zone of R.O.C. only, and the maritime jurisdiction is less than that by the CHPA. The comprehensive application of the laws results in a lack of jurisdiction over UCH in the contiguous zone and beyond. Furthermore, the LTS only stipulates ownership over UCH with other aspects of UCH preservation, protection, and management blank, especially international cooperation. Legal vacuum undoubtedly impedes the protection of UCH. Since 2006, the CAC commissioned various research programs regarding UCH issues (Hu, 2006). In 2008, the scholars resubmitted an “Underwater Cultural Heritage Preservation, Protection and Management Act (Draft)” to the CAC, that is, the predecessor of the UCHPA (Hu, 2008). In 2012 the MOC commissioned scholars to submit the “Guidelines for Underwater Archaeological Work (draft)” which was then incorporated into the permanent “Rules for the Management of Activities directed at Underwater Cultural Heritage” (Hu, 2012). In addition to the efforts of the MOC, scholars have continued to promote relevant work in different areas and levels, such as the introduction of the UCH Convention (Hu and Wu, 2009), the organization of international conferences and visits, initiatives carrying out in the Council of Marine Affairs Advancement, Executive Yuan. The UCHPA was passed in 2015 by the Congress with several revisions. In response to the changes and a significant number of statutory authorization requirements, the MOC once again commissioned scholars a research program to draft nine regulations or rules accordingly (Hu, 2016). The drafts were completed in 2017, and �the MOC initialed them all in the same year. From the academic initiative to the full completion of the UCH legal regime, twenty years have elapsed. III. Taiwan’s practice of incorporation of the UCH Convention The incorporation process and the success acquired have shown some considerable signs, worthy continuing to carry out legislative policy research in the future. First, from the legislative policy perspective, through the development of the UCHPA and its reference to other existing laws and regulations, a complete UCH legal regime was established. UCH issues involve authorities, duties, and functions of almost all agencies of the Cabinet. To effectively adapt to the inter-disciplinary and inter-agencies nature, the government incorporated the UCH Convention into the UCHPA and incorporated the contents of the Annex Rules of the UCH Convention into the subordinate ordinance authorized by the UCHPA with Taiwan’s national conditions thoroughly considered. The UCHPA apply to all UCH issues with priority. Any rules or norms in contradiction with the spirit of the UCHPA shall be amended in due course gradually in the future. Second, national interests are the primary considerations of Taiwan’s incorporation of the UCH Convention. According to the official statements, the CAC formed its perception regarding the preservation, protection, and management of UCH based on international and domestic factors. The former is the worldwide value on the preservation and protection regarding UCH. The latter is Taiwan’s promotion and implementation of her national marine policy. The significant principles and spirits of the UCH Convention were not timely implemented in the domestic legal regime. The current law could not be fully applied to the preservation, protection, and management of UCH. The lack of norms regarding UCH resulted in the lack of jurisdiction over the conservation of UCH. Meanwhile, nation-wide precise rules regarding UCH are absent for interest groups or �stakeholders, especially the fishing and diving communities. Thus, private salvage and incidental damage are unavoidable. The lack of specific awarding incentives over UCH discoveries led to investigation difficulties. Positively, the government assessed that although the annual required administrative costs would up to about NT$ 20 to 50 million after the adoption of the draft (UCHPA), Taiwan would be benefited from an output value conservatively estimated NT$ 120 billion each year. And it would bring other non-economic benefits or values, such as that UCH is fully protected and managed. The authority would learn more about the preservation, protection, and management of UCH. Public access would enrich social education as well. Since 2006, the CAC has been planning to promote a series of medium and long-term projects regarding UCH, including general survey, regulations research and billing, historical research, preservation of excavated UCH, personnel training, educational promotion and international cooperation. The CAC envisaged in cultivating underwater archaeology with Taiwan characteristics and developing Taiwan’s marine culture in line with the “Prosperity with the Ocean” policy. Third, native scholars played a significant role in the legislative process. The incorporation was initiated by a small number of academics out of national interests, rule-legitimacy, and other factors. They followed and introduced the international development of the UCH issue domestically. By the cooperation with the government, internal administrative selfinterpretation of the UCH Convention and awareness were raised. The academic community actively called on the Congress to pay close attention to the issue and put forward the draft respectively. Eventually, the bill was soon adopted than expected. It is no doubt that domestic �driving force, especially elites from the academic community, influenced more than international or external pressure. Fourth, the incorporation of the UCH Convention is still in progress. There are still many opportunities and challenges ahead, especially capacity building. The preservation, protection, and management of UCH in Taiwan involve the management of activities directed and incidentally directed at UCH, as well as law of salvage and law of finds, territorial sovereignty, and maritime jurisdiction disputes. These controversies comprehend cultural (heritage), maritime law, admiralty law and other different legal areas. The author’s drafting experiences over the past years indicate that the preservation, protection, and management of UCH at least comprehend half of the agencies of the Cabinet. Meanwhile, the adoption of the UCHPA has impacted these organizations, especially their authority, duties, and functions individually. The process of drafting the UCHPA also showed strong cross-agency coordination and cooperation nature. The interdisciplinary feature has made the issue more dependent on higher and direct political support from the Cabinet itself. Before the Cabinet are empowered directly to coordinate the issue by the UCHPA, the MOC and even the future Marine Affairs Council (or the Ministry of Marine Affairs) will be responsible for cross-agency cooperation and coordination. Apart from this, drafting the particular bill regarding UCH is one of the priorities of the incorporation of the UCH Convention. Much of the work in the broad sense has yet to be pursued and at the same time constitute opportunities as well as challenges for Taiwan. International factors played a limited role in Taiwan’s incorporation of the UCH Convention. However, we shall never under estimate their influence. There is a great room for Taiwan to utilize international forces aggressively. For example, international collaboration on site excavation, information exchange, �cultural diplomacy or UCH diplomacy are encouraged in accordance with the UCHPA. Disputes over maritime and UCH jurisdiction arose from the UNCLOS and the UCH Convention, coupled with the East China Sea and the South China Sea disputes as well as the potential jurisdiction overlapping over sunken military aircrafts all involve Taiwan’s major national interests. It even more provides the government with a window of opportunity to deal with the cross-Strait relations and relevant collaborations with Mainland China. To deal with the issue appropriately, the MOC would need to cooperate actively with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defense, the Mainland Affairs Council, and other agencies. There is a significant room for future development regarding UCH related foreign affairs. When the Congress passed the UCHPA, a resolution was accompanied by a Congress request for a written report regarding the official strategy in response to the national security need to the Education and Culture Commission of the Congress by the MOC with conciliation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defense and the Mainland Affairs Council. In the report replied, the MOC defined the scope of UCH related national security issue as “international information and communication security, international criminal cooperation, international information flow, international research cooperation and international exchange cooperation.” The definition reflects part of the permanent and future needs of Taiwan, showing that the government may need to offer some fresh insights into the issue to meet the national interests. The affected interest groups or stakeholders, like fishing and diving communities, had insufficient awareness of the principles of the UCHPA and relevant regulations in the legislative process. Whether the government attains their full support remains uncertain in the future. Public awareness regarding UCH affairs remains in the spirit of �mysterious treasure hunting or legendary commercial exploitation. If the spirit of the preservation, protection, and management of UCH is to be effectively implemented, in-depth public awareness and public access will be indispensable. As a part of marine affairs, the preservation, protection, and management of UCH has a close relationship with other marine affairs and involves duties of different agencies. The implementation of the UCHPA and relevant regulations have a significant impact on those agencies, along with the relatively minor feature of the issue in Taiwan, political will would be essential. As to the judicial implementation of the UCHPA, expertise regarding cross-border cultural heritage crime investigation, return, and restitution needs to be cultivated. �Table 1: Some features of Taiwan’s incorporation of the UCH Convention. Level The public Opportunity minority nature Challenge 1. inadequate public awareness and public access 2. minority nature The 1. academic position integration difficulties academic enthusiasm and among scholars from different community expertise fields 2. lobbying and voicing in different occasion The Cabinet 1. major resources 2. political will and capacity building (budget, personnel, expertise) power on inter-agency coordination and cooperation The understanding and Congress support from particular support from most political political elites with inadequate understanding and elites academic backgrounds The judicial 1. potential to deal with capacity building (expertise, system the issue 2. rule of law international collaboration) �IV. Conclusion The experience and observation over the past twenty years indicated that long-term internal academic concern and government efforts devoted regarding UCH legislation for national interests eventually acquired fruitful success. With coordination and cooperation among different agencies, especially the Cabinet itself and the Congress, Taiwan finished her initial legal construction regarding the preservation, protection, and management of UCH comparable to international standards. In the future, Taiwan has a long way to go on this issue, whether she is a member of the United Nations and UNESCO or not. As an indispensable part of the world marine culture and human history, in addition to strengthening capacity building, Taiwan needs to devote more on UCH related foreign affairs, so that can properly preserve, protect, and manage this common heritage of mankind, and ultimately achieve the universal goal of world peace. Endnotes The Bureau of Cultural Heritage, Ministry of Culture, “Time Capsule on the Seabed: Taiwan’s Underwater Cultural Heritage,” https://zhtw.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=800518620050069&id=4401 30549422213, June 10, 2016 (accessed June 15, 2016). 2 Article 33 of the UNLCLOS states: 1. In a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, described as the contiguous zone, the coastal State may exercise the control necessary to: (a) prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea; (b) punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea. 2. The contiguous zone may not extend beyond 24 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. Article 303 of the UNLCLOS states: 1. States have the duty to protect objects of an archaeological and historical nature found at sea and shall cooperate for this purpose. 2.In order to control traffic in such objects, the coastal State may, in applying article 33, presume that their removal from the seabed in the zone referred to in that article without its approval would result in an 1 �infringement within its territory or territorial sea of the laws and regulations referred to in that article. 3. Nothing in this article affects the rights of identifiable owners, the law of salvage or other rules of admiralty, or laws and practices with respect to cultural exchanges. 4. This article is without prejudice to other international agreements and rules of international law regarding the protection of objects of an archaeological and historical nature. 3 The 9th meeting record on the re-amendment regarding the amendment of the CHPA was issued by the CAC on Oct. 15, 1998, by a letter referenced as Wen-Jian-E-Tzu(文建壹字) No. 06770. It is on file with the author. 4 Nien-Tsu Alfred Hu, 1999. Report on the Preliminary Study on the Domestic Legislation Regarding UCH, commissioned by the Cultural Affairs Council. In the report delivered to the CAC, scholars drafted the first “Bill of the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, Republic of China. References Nien-Tsu Alfred Hu, 2016. Report on the Research on the Legal Regime with Respect to UCHPA, commissioned by the Ministry of Culture. Nien-Tsu Alfred Hu, 2012. Report on the Research on the Guidelines for Underwater Archaeological Work, commissioned by the Cultural Affairs Council. Nien-Tsu Alfred Hu, Pei-Fu Wu, 2009. The 2001 UNESCO UCH Convention and the Practices of Its Contracting Parties in Terms of the Incorporation of the Convention into Domestic Legislations. In Wen-Yan Chiau (Eds.), The Ocean and Taiwan Conference, Taiwan Research Foundation, Taipei: 192-230. Nien-Tsu Alfred Hu, 2008. Report on the Bill-drafting Regarding UCH, commissioned by the Cultural Affairs Council. Nien-Tsu Alfred Hu, 2006. Report on the Research on the Utilization of UCH and the Arrangement of International Conferences, commissioned by the Cultural Affairs Council. �Nien-Tsu Alfred Hu, 1999. Report on the Preliminary Study on the Domestic Legislation Regarding UCH, commissioned by the Cultural Affairs Council. Nien-Tsu Alfred Hu, 1997. Report on the Strategic Arrangements Regarding Maritime Legislations, commissioned by the Ministry of the Interior. The Cultural Affairs Council, 1998. The 9th Meeting on the Reamendment Regarding the Amendment of the CHPA. Official Letter, WenJian-E-Tzu(文建壹字) No. 06770. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 2017 Session 7: Underwater Cultural Heritage Politics, Laws, Ethics and Values Description An account of the resource All cultural materials are potentially cultural resources. However, because not all of them can be preserved or studied, choices must be made based on evaluation and re-evaluation. Values are learned and depend on cultural, intellectual, historical, and psychological frames of reference. Consequently, valuation is made individually, but is shared by communities. Valuation of underwater cultural heritage has, then, a broad range of determining value depending on the community to which it belongs. A clear example of this is the protection of human remains. The 2001 UNESCO Convention includes, in its definition of underwater cultural heritage, human remains which have been underwater for more than 100 years. However, the Christian philosophy on the treatment of human remains is different to that of Asian philosophy that teaches that human remains will never become underwater cultural heritage since, if they are seen by someone in an underwater site, it is imperative to rescue the human remains and bury them on land according to their beliefs. This session aims to create a forum for policymakers, managers, and archaeologists devoted to underwater cultural heritage where they can share their experiences of and research on the valuation of underwater cultural heritage. We aim to accept papers that help us to understand the definition of ‘underwater cultural heritage’ in the Asia-Pacific regions, comparing those definitions with the definition of the 2001 UNESCO Convention and trying to find a common interpretation. We will also be looking to examine the meaning of the underwater cultural heritage sites and objects for different communities. Finally, we will be expecting papers exploring the different possibilities of the use and/or conservation of this underwater cultural heritage according to the values and needs of the different communities. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Elena Perez-Alvaro Licit Cultural Heritage Ltd., UK Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource A non-member State’s practice on the incorporation of the UCH Convention: Taiwan’s experience Description An account of the resource The United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture (UNESCO) adopted the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage in 2001 which entered into force in 2009. In order to preserve, protect and manage underwater cultural heritage, State Parties should preserve underwater cultural heritage and take actions accordingly. The R.O.C. has followed the developments afore mentioned since 1999, and a specific legislation “Underwater Cultural Heritage Preservation Act” was enacted and entered into force in 2015 while facing various challenges along the way, even the R.O.C. is not a member of the UNESCO nor a Party to the Convention. The emergence, evolution, and practice in terms of the incorporation of the Convention into domestic legislation warrants the necessity of in-depth studies and further theorization since such experience relates to the success or failure of policies with respect to the incorporation of international conventions into domestic legislation. This paper provides an analytical assessment on the approaches that the R.O.C. incorporated the Convention through applying or modifying relevant theories regarding the incorporation of international conventions into domestic laws, and suggestions on confronting similar challenges. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Pei-Fu Wu Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2017 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Pei-Fu Wu Language A language of the resource English Zotero Author Pei-Fu Wu https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/aac684a25246f9d94bd70937f29ea769.pdf 1c6e71ba4896ed3f5732973be43800ee PDF Text Text The elaboration of the UNESCO 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage Etienne Clément Abstract The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage was adopted in 2001. Like many such treaties, its text is the result of a compromise between opposing views. The negotiations leading to this instruments started in the Eighties at the initiative of underwater archaeologists who teamed up with lawyers and with the International Law Association. These pioneers considered that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) did not protect adequately the underwater cultural heritage. But many States Parties to the UNCLOS were reluctant to re-open any kind of negotiation that might affect the delicate balance of the UNCLOS. Moreover, the industry of salvage was also extremely reluctant to any new international legislation that may affect their activities, especially in the high seas. The process of preparation of an international legal instrument was suspended several times. It was finally put on tracks thanks to the pugnacity of a few UNESCO staff and ICOMOS members supported by Ministries of a Foreign Affairs of several countries wo convinced the UNESCO General Conference to enter the process of elaboration of a Convention. During the negotiation of the text, the views expressed by the delegations of UNESCO Member states were often antagonistic. In the discussions, the ICOMOS Committee on Underwater Cultural Heritage (ICUCH) played a major role, by sensitizing the diplomats to the urgency of adopting a legal instrument at a time when technology had made possible to explore practically all ancient vessels lying on the seabed. The author has participated in some key steps of the elaboration of the Convention and will present some of the legal and ethical positions expressed at the negotiations and that have led to the compromise adopted in 2001. Key words: UNESCO, UNCLOS, outreach, UCH �Introduction The protection of the underwater cultural heritage, in particular ancient shipwrecks laying on the seabed under various jurisdictions, is by nature an international issue. It is therefore natural that the United Nations, in particular UNESCO as the specialized agency with the UN mandate for cultural heritage, has looked into the matter and adopted in 2001 the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, one of the seven UNESCO Conventions in the area of culture. It was elaborated as a response from the international community to the removal and destruction of underwater cultural heritage by industrial activities and by the so-called “treasures hunters”. The Convention reflects the growing recognition of the need to ensure the same protection to underwater cultural heritage as that already accorded to land-based heritage. It provides legal protection, enables States Parties to adopt common approaches to preservation and provides effective professional guidelines. The mains principles of the convention and its Annex had long been endorsed by professionals in UCH. It is to be remembered that the draft of the Annex was drafted by UCH professionals who started working on it in 1983. The Convention entered into force in January 2009. As of 15 July 2017, 57 countries are States Parties to it, which is an honorable score but does not give it the status of a universal instrument. For instance only two countries in Asia and the Pacific have joined it. But those States which joined it made an important commitment by agreeing on rules applicable by vessels bearing their flag and by their nationals, including also the treasures hunters. �Keys steps towards a Convention UNESCO has been concerned with the protection of UCH since its early days. Its Recommendation on International Principles Applicable to Archaeological Excavations, a non-legally binding text adopted by the General conference in 1956 applies also to underwater archaeology. The Council of Europe, as early as 1978, began to develop a draft European convention for the protection of the underwater cultural heritage. The draft reached an advanced stage but was never adopted by the Council of Ministers. The issue was raised again during the negotiations for the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention and resulted, in the closing days of these negotiations, in the adoption of two articles (149 and 303). However these articles are widely felt by cultural experts to be unsatisfactory and incomplete. They are indeed ineffective to protect underwater cultural heritage beyond the contiguous zone, they do not resolve the conflict between ownership claims, salvage claims and cultural heritage interests and they do not give any guidance on how underwater cultural heritage should be treated. They are also sufficiently ambiguous to give rise to alternative interpretations. In 1990, under the leadership of its Chairperson, Professor Patrick J. O’Keefe1, the Cultural Heritage Law Committee of the International Law Association undertook to study the international legal protection of the underwater cultural heritage. It produced its first report and a draft text of a convention for the meeting of the International Law Association in Cairo in 1992. One year later, the Director-General of UNESCO was requested by the UNESCO Executive Board to undertake a study into the feasibility of a new international instrument. As the International Law Association �had an advisory status with UNESCO and was well advanced in its work on a draft convention, the Director-General decided to wait until the ILA work was complete before reporting back to the UNESCO Executive Board. In 1994, in Buenos Aires, the Cultural Heritage Law Committee produced its final report and draft convention to the ILA meeting which adopted it and transmitted it to the Director-General of UNESCO. In parallel to this legal process, a group of influential underwater archaeologists who were members of the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) created the ICOMOS Committee for Underwater Cultural heritage (ICUCH) and advocated within ICOMOs for the development of specific ethical and professional standards for underwater archaeology. They argued that underwater archaeology had particular requirements related to its environment which has led to the development of specific techniques and that underwater conservation is always a pressing and expensive immediate necessity. Their efforts led to the preparation and adoption of the International Charter on the Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage by ICOMOS General Conference in Sofia in 1996. To be noted that the ICUCH played a major role during the whole negotiation process of the 2001 Convention, in particular through its Chairpersons, Graeme Henderson (Australia) and Robert Grenier (Canada). With the ILA draft in its hands, as a useful basis for a possible new instrument, the UNESCO Secretariat was ready to start preparing a feasibility study requested by the Executive Board. Within the UNESCO Secretariat in 1994, Dr. Lyndel V.Prott was the Head of the International Section of the Division of Cultural Heritage. She played a major role, as a renowned lawyer and an international civil servant, all over the process of elaboration of the Convention. I had the honor to be the other member of �her two-person team and rejoined later by a then junior colleague, Mr. Ieng Srong. In preparing the feasibility study, the Secretariat looked at the relevant articles of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and at the International Charter on the Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage. In 1995, a large number of artifacts found in the wreck of the Titanic, which was discovered several years before, were exhibited all over the world. This travelling exhibition gave a sort of technology signal that most shipwrecks that could be found on the seabed were technically accessible and that cultural objects could be removed. At the occasion of one such international exhibition in Greenwich (United Kingdom), an expert meeting was organized for legal experts and underwater archaeologists. It included those experts who had worked on the ILA draft and the ICOMOS Charter as well as lawyers familiarized with salvage Law. The discussions anticipated the difficulty of finding a compromise on a draft legally-binding text which could be accepted and implemented universally. The Director-General submitted the feasibility to the Executive Board in May—June 19952 and recommended that this Board transmits its recommendation to the UNESCO General Conference which has the authority, under UNESCO’s constitution, to decide on the elaboration of a Convention. But during the discussion, although a number of delegates emphasized the urgency of the situation, the majority requested more time before launching the preparation of a Convention. They insisted that the jurisdictional aspects of the question should be further studied, namely the compatibility of a possible new convention with the provisions on jurisdiction contained in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). �Therefore, instead of transmitting the Director-General’s recommendation to the General conference, the Executive Board requested him to urgently convene an expert meeting to discuss this issue and to report to the General Conference just a few months later. But the time was too short between June and October 1995 to convene, before the General Conference, an expert meeting based on a fair geographical balance and representing the various interests involved. The Secretariat therefore wrote to all countries which had expressed an interest in order to receive their comments on the feasibility study. Thirteen replies (Australia, Colombia, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, The Netherlands, Philippines, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States and the U.N. Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea) were received. A majority of them were in favor of a Convention. But divergent opinions were expressed about the content of the norms, for instance on the concept of a specific cultural heritage zone or on specific protected areas. It was also accepted that UNESCO was the appropriate forum and that the norms to be prepared should duly take into account the balance achieved in the UNCLOS Convention. The 1995 session of the UNESCO General Conference did not launch yet the formal process of elaborating a Convention. Instead, it invited the Director-General: - to pursue further discussions with the United Nations in respect of the UNCLOS and with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) - to organize, in consultations with UN and IMO, a meeting of experts representing expertise in archaeology, salvage and jurisdictional regimes - to make the views of the experts known to UNESCO Member States and invite their comments; �- and to report back to the 29th session of the General Conference (1997) Therefore UNESCO Secretariat had proposed to the IMO (London) and to the United Nations Division of the Law of the Sea (New York) to nominate some of the above experts in order to ensure consistency with the work already developed within these two organizations. The expert meeting took place in May 1996. It was chaired by Dr. Carsten Lund (Denmark). To be noted that Dr. Lund remained the Chair of all further intergovernmental experts meetings that took place until the adoption of the Convention in 2001. The 1996 meetings was an important one because it agreed that a possible Convention be grounded on the principle incorporated in Article 303 (1) of the UNCLOS Convention which says that: “States have a duty to protect objects of an archaeological and historical nature found at sea and shall cooperate for this purpose”. The majority agreed that UNESCO was the right venue for such a Convention, although a minority group believe that it should be adopted within the Law of the sea framework at the United Nations in New York. The General Conference finally gave the green light for a Convention in October 1997 at its 29th session3. It decided that the question should be regulated and that the method adopted should be an international convention. It invited the Director-General to convene meeting, but this time with expert representing their Governments. Four such governmental experts meeting took place from 1998 to 2001. The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage was finally adopted on 2 November by the Plenary Session of the 31st General Conference with 88 votes in favor, 4 against and 15 abstentions4. �Major issues during the negotiation of a Convention The three main issues at the core of the experts’ deliberations were: - the jurisdiction (including the necessary compliance with the UNCLOS) - the relation with the Law of salvage or salvage law - the standards for research in underwater cultural heritage. Jurisdiction Fig. 1: The maritime zones. In the territorial sea, the national legislation of the coastal State applies to underwater cultural heritage. Beyond the territorial sea, the coastal State’s jurisdiction is generally very limited under national legislations. Often the coastal States have jurisdiction over their own nationals and vessels bearing their flag. But it is often expressed in vague terms and with serious difficulties of implementation without any State cooperation system. Underwater cultural heritage being largely located in the oceans which fall �under the Law of the Sea Convention, its legal regime falls under UNCLOS articles 149 and 303: Article 149 Archaeological and historical objects. All objects of an archaeological and historical nature found in the area shall be preserved or disposed of for the benefit of mankind as a whole, particular regard being paid to the preferential rights of the State or country of origin, or the State of cultural origin, or the State of historical and archaeological origin. Article 303 Archaeological and historical objects found at sea i. States have the duty to protect objects of an archaeological and historical nature found at sea and shall co-operate for this purpose. ii. In order to control traffic in such objects, the coastal State may, in applying Article 33, presume that their removal from the sea-bed in the zone referred to in that article without its approval would result in an infringement within its territory or territorial sea of the laws and regulations referred to in that article. iii. Nothing in this article affects the rights of identifiable owners, the law of salvage or other rules of admiralty, or laws and practices with respect to cultural exchanges. iv. This article is without prejudice to other international agreements and rules of international law regarding the protection of objects of an archaeological and historical nature. These articles, according to archaeologists and lawyers concerned with the preservation of the underwater cultural heritage, were considered as �insufficient for an effective protection of the cultural heritage. Indeed, in the Exclusive Economic Zone and on the Continental Shelf, UCH remains practically unprotected. Another serious problem is that the provision in Article 303 stating that 'Nothing in this article affects the rights of identifiable owners, the law of salvage or other rules of admiralty…” appeared to protect the commercial exploitation of historic shipwrecks, leading to the destruction of archaeological resources without their scientific examination. The relation with salvage law was therefore an issue of very lively discussions, often antagonistic, during the several experts meetings form 1998 to 2001. Salvage law Salvage Law or Law of Salvage or Law of Finds is based on practical and economic considerations. The function of salvage is to encourage the recovery of goods at sea that are in danger of being lost. The primary objective of the salvage industry, recognized in salvage law, is the recovery of commercially valuable property from a shipwreck. But in some countries, the salvage industry had extended its activity to commercial exploitation of submerged archaeological sites, often by teams of unqualified persons. Therefore for many years archaeologists had been concerned by the loss of scientific information caused by such unprofessional excavation and by the destruction of artefacts not considered commercially valuable. The activities of the salvage industry were regulated by the 1989 International Convention on Salvage, adopted under the auspices of the International Maritime organization (IMO). It does not include provisions on the underwater cultural heritage. As the Article 303, iii, of the UNCLOS protects salvage law, most experts considered that the international legal framework in 1998 was an invitation to looting. �Standards for research in UCH When the first meeting of experts opened in 1996, the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) had just adopted its International Charter on the Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage at its General Conference in Sofia (see above). To be noted that the International Law Association had included in several provisions of its draft Convention on UCH that underwater excavations were to be undertaken in accordance with the ICOMOS UCH Charter, which would be an annex to the ILA draft. Therefore given the importance of the ICOMOS Charter which sets standards for research and conservation of the UCH, the members of the ICOMOS Committee for Underwater Cultural heritage (ICUCH) were associated closely to the elaboration of the text of the UNESCO Convention. They were very influential in the process leading to the adoption of the 2001 Convention. The way towards a compromise The process involved a long and patient campaign initiated by underwater archaeologists in Europe, Australia, North America and later in other regions. They needed to convince even their own peers - i.e. the ‘land’ archaeologists- to team-up with them in order to convince Ministries of Foreign affairs of their respective countries to support the idea of a Convention. Indeed in many countries Ministries of Foreign Affairs were quite hesitant to open negotiations on an issue related to the Law of the Sea, only a few years after the entry into force of the UNCLOS Convention. To be noted that members of the International Law Association (ILA), especially Professor Patrick J. O’Keefe, the Chairperson of the ILA Cultural Heritage Law Committee, played an �important role in the informal lobby in favor of an effective convention. Other influential institutions included ICOMOS, ICUCH, the International Council of Museums (ICOM) and several Maritime museums all over the world. In 1998, reaching of a compromise to be included in a Convention appeared to be very challenging. At the beginning of the discussions, there was a consensus only on the necessity to avoid creating a new “archaeological zone” in addition to the zones established by UNCLOS. There was also an agreement that a Convention should refer to some kind of guidelines on how to treat UCH. All the other issues were the object of profound divergences between experts and between the UNESCO Member States. However, gradually, a consensus emerged to obtain protection of UCH wherever it is located beyond the territorial seas, in all maritime zones including international waters, through a State cooperation system. The salvage Industry was also represented in the experts meetings. Indeed at the request of the UNESCO General Conference, UNESCO Secretariat had asked the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to designate experts to represent the interests of the maritime industry, including the salvage industry. The Tourism diving industry was not invited as such, but several countries’ delegations included experts which expressed the views of this sector. The consistency with the UNCLOS Convention was ensured by representatives of the UN Division of the Law of the Sea (New York) who played a very positive role in this respect. Some “Treasures Hunters”, although not invited officially, showed up at one of the meetings and opposed the adoption of a text, without success. To be noted that “treasures hunters” were more influential among �international TV channels, which, during the years of the negotiations, displayed TV shows glorifying their activities. The negotiations also had to face language difficulties. For instance, archaeologists and lawyers understood differently the concept of “rules”, the former saw them as rules applicable to professionals and the latter as rules applicable to States. This has rendered the role of the courageous Chairperson, Dr. Carsten Lund (Denmark), an almost impossible task5. The composition of each country’s delegation was also a challenge. Only important delegations could include international lawyers, cultural heritage lawyers, salvage lawyers as well as archaeologists. But most delegations were composed of only one international lawyer, often with little background in archaeology. The compromise adopted in 2001 Despite the antagonistic positions that continued to be expressed during the whole negotiation process, a compromise was reached in 2001. It included a very advanced State cooperation system containing provisions of legal and professional or ethical nature binding both States parties and UCH professionals. The Convention was structured under a main text and an Annex which is an integral part of the Convention. The main text contains basic principles for the protection of UCH and a detailed State cooperation system. The Annex includes widely recognized practical rules for the treatment and research of UCH which reflects practically the text of the ICOMOS Charter. The basic principles of the Convention include the obligation to preserve UCH “for the benefit of humanity”, the “in situ” preservation as the first option (not the only one), a commitment for no commercial exploitation and an obligation of training and information sharing. It does not include �the sovereignty rights of States and the issue of the ownership of wrecks which remain regulated by civil law, other domestic law and private international law. The compromise on the relation with salvage law was one of the most difficult to reach. It is contained in Article 4 of the 2001 Convention which excludes the application of salvage law, except when and if three cumulative conditions are met: Article 4- Relationship to Law of Salvage or Law of Finds Any activity relating to underwater cultural heritage to which this Convention applies shall not be subject to the law of salvage or law of finds, unless it: (a) is authorized by the competent authorities, and (b) in in full conformity with this Convention, and (c) ensures that any recovery of the underwater cultural heritage achieves its maximum protection. But the Convention was not adopted by consensus. The Culture commission of the General Conference had recommended the Plenary of the UNESCO 31st General Conference to adopt the draft Convention by 94 votes in favor, 5 against and 19 abstentions. The Plenary adopted it with 88 votes in favor, 4 against and 15 abstentions6. Conclusion Sixteen years later, the Convention is ratified by 57 countries. This relatively low level of ratification can be explained by several factors. Perhaps it still reflects the fact that the Convention may have a few detractors among some of the UNESCO Member States. But most �probably, many countries do not consider the ratification as a priority as they do have the technology nor the human or financial resources to be involved in activities towards the underwater cultural heritage. In these countries, there are also very few archaeologists who have training in underwater archaeology. There is therefore no effective influential group that could persuade their respective authorities to join the Convention or that could campaign among the public on the importance of this heritage for their country and for humanity. But the advancement of technology and the ability of a growing number of countries to own such technology may however have a positive influence on the rate of ratifications in the following years. Endnotes 1 Professor Patrick J. O’Keefe has worked for more than 40 years on legal instruments to protect the underwater cultural heritage. He has. 2 UNESCO General Conference documents 28C/39 and 28C/39 Add. 3 UNESCO General Conference Document 29C/Resolution 21 4 UNESCO General Conference Documents 31C/24 and 31C/Resolution XV, para D 5 Lund, C., 2006. The making of the UNESCO Convention 2001. Finishing the interrupted voyage, papers of the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Workshop on the 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, Institute of Art and Law/UNESCO, Leicester/Bangkok: 14-19 6 UNESCO General Conference Documents 31 C/24 and 31 C/Resolution XV, para D References: Clément, E. 1996, Current developments at UNESCO concerning the protection of the underwater cultural heritage, Marine policy, Vol 20, No 4, pp 309-323 O’Keefe, P.J., 2014, Shipwrecked Heritage: A Commentary on the UNESCO Convention on Underwater Cultural Heritage, Second edition, Institute of Art and Law, Builth Wells, UK. �Prott, L.V., 2006, Finishing the interrupted voyage: papers of the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Workshop on the 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, Institute of Art and Law/UNESCO, Leicester/Bangkok. Srati, A., 1999, Draft Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural heritage, a commentary prepared for UNESCO, UNESCO document CLT99/WS/8 UNESCO, 1984, La sauvegarde du patrimoine subaquatique, cahiers techniques: musées et monuments # 4, UNESCO document [II] CLT.82/XXIX.4/F Biography Etienne Clément, JD 1978, LLM International Law 1980, (University Brussels) had responsibilities in UNESCO 1984-2015. He contributed to the development of international standards for the protection of cultural heritage, including to the elaboration of 2001 Underwater Cultural Heritage Convention. From 1998, he was UNESCO Representative to Cambodia, Deputy Director Field operations (Paris), Deputy Director Regional Bureau (Bangkok) and Director Pacific States. He is author of articles on conventions for cultural heritage and is currently advising governments on these instruments. He lectures at Science Po Lille (France) and is member of ICOMOS International Committee on Legal, Administrative and Financial Issues (ICLAFI). � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 2017 Session 7: Underwater Cultural Heritage Politics, Laws, Ethics and Values Description An account of the resource All cultural materials are potentially cultural resources. However, because not all of them can be preserved or studied, choices must be made based on evaluation and re-evaluation. Values are learned and depend on cultural, intellectual, historical, and psychological frames of reference. Consequently, valuation is made individually, but is shared by communities. Valuation of underwater cultural heritage has, then, a broad range of determining value depending on the community to which it belongs. A clear example of this is the protection of human remains. The 2001 UNESCO Convention includes, in its definition of underwater cultural heritage, human remains which have been underwater for more than 100 years. However, the Christian philosophy on the treatment of human remains is different to that of Asian philosophy that teaches that human remains will never become underwater cultural heritage since, if they are seen by someone in an underwater site, it is imperative to rescue the human remains and bury them on land according to their beliefs. This session aims to create a forum for policymakers, managers, and archaeologists devoted to underwater cultural heritage where they can share their experiences of and research on the valuation of underwater cultural heritage. We aim to accept papers that help us to understand the definition of ‘underwater cultural heritage’ in the Asia-Pacific regions, comparing those definitions with the definition of the 2001 UNESCO Convention and trying to find a common interpretation. We will also be looking to examine the meaning of the underwater cultural heritage sites and objects for different communities. Finally, we will be expecting papers exploring the different possibilities of the use and/or conservation of this underwater cultural heritage according to the values and needs of the different communities. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Elena Perez-Alvaro Licit Cultural Heritage Ltd., UK Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The elaboration of the UNESCO 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage Description An account of the resource The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage was adopted in 2001. Like many such treaties, its text is the result of a compromise between opposing views. The negotiations leading to this instruments started in the Eighties at the initiative of underwater archaeologists who teamed up with lawyers and with the International Law Association. These pioneers considered that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) did not protect adequately the underwater cultural heritage. But many States Parties to the UNCLOS were reluctant to re-open any kind of negotiation that might affect the delicate balance of the UNCLOS. Moreover, the industry of salvage was also extremely reluctant to any new international legislation that may affect their activities, especially in the high seas. The process of preparation of an international legal instrument was suspended several times. It was finally put on tracks thanks to the pugnacity of a few UNESCO staff and ICOMOS members supported by Ministries of a Foreign Affairs of several countries wo convinced the UNESCO General Conference to enter the process of elaboration of a Convention. During the negotiation of the text, the views expressed by the delegations of UNESCO Member states were often antagonistic. In the discussions, the ICOMOS Committee on Underwater Cultural Heritage (ICUCH) played a major role, by sensitizing the diplomats to the urgency of adopting a legal instrument at a time when technology had made possible to explore practically all ancient vessels lying on the seabed. The author has participated in some key steps of the elaboration of the Convention and will present some of the legal and ethical positions expressed at the negotiations and that have led to the compromise adopted in 2001. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Etienne Clément Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 11/24/2017 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Etienne Clément Asia-Pac Session 7 2017 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/e9501e89c86be4d23d22596ced86f864.pdf 161a636e91266705b1699c71225189bd PDF Text Text Preservation of Underwater Cultural Heritage in Taiwan: Legislation and Challenges Ching-Ching Kuo Ph.D. Student, Department of Environmental Biology and Fishery Science Institute of Marine Affairs and Resource Management National Taiwan Ocean University, Keelung, Taiwan kuomaster@gmail.com Chun-Pei Liao Ph.D. Student, Department of Environmental Biology and Fishery Science Institute of Marine Affairs and Resource Management National Taiwan Ocean University, Keelung, Taiwan a314172427a@hotmail.com Wen-Yan Chiau Dr. /Professor, Institute of Marine Affairs and Resource Management National Taiwan Ocean University, Keelung, Taiwan chiau0717@gmail.com Abstract The Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage was adopted in 2001 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The convention acknowledges the importance of underwater cultural heritage as an integral part of the cultural heritage of humanity and a particularly important element in the history of peoples, nations, and their relations with each other concerning their common heritage. The responsibility of protecting and preserving the underwater cultural heritage therefore rests with all States (UNESCO, 2017.). By echoing the spirit of the above convention, the Legislative Yuan (Parliament) of Taiwan adopted the Underwater Cultural Heritage Preservation Act on November 24, 2015. The Act was promulgated by the President and was also put into force on 9 December 2015. The Law is in seven chapters with 44 articles. The chapters cover general provisions, attributed rights and international cooperation, activities involving underwater cultural heritage, in-situ preservation of underwater cultural heritage, excavation management in the sea, public education  Correspondent author. �and professional training, penalties, and supplementary provisions. This paper introduces the recent research projects of underwater cultural heritage in Taiwan, illustrates the enactment process of the new law and highlights its main features. The paper concludes that it is essential to have further integration of management affairs, establishing national research institute, strengthening the international cooperation and the professional training, implementing related bylaws and mechanisms, and promoting public awareness, which also become daunting challenges faced by Taiwan as it marches toward the protection of its precious underwater cultural heritage. Key words: UCH, Taiwan, UNESCO Introduction Underwater Cultural Heritage (UCH) refers to all traces of human existence having a cultural, historical, or archaeological character, such as ruins, architecture, handicrafts, human remains, boats, aircrafts, environments having an archaeological character and natural environments. According to Article 3 of Taiwan’s Underwater Cultural Heritage Preservation Act promulgated on December 9, 2015, “Underwater Cultural Heritage” means all traces of human existence having a historical, cultural, archaeological, artistic, or scientific character which have been partially or totally under water, periodically or continuously: (1) sites, structures, buildings, artifacts and human remains, together with their archaeological and natural context; (2) vessels, aircrafts, other vehicles or any part thereof, their cargo or other contents, together with their archaeological and natural context; and (3) objects of a prehistoric character. The UCH contains rich information related to cultures, history, geography and technology. A shipwreck, for instance, is testimony to trade and cultural dialogue between peoples. It also functions as a time capsule, providing a complete snapshot of the life on board at the time of sinking. Therefore, how to protect this common heritage of all mankind become the center of international concern. �Brief History of Legislation Since 2000, some scholars in Taiwan, Professor Wen-Yan Chiau (later served as legislator) with the National Taiwan Ocean University, have being concerned about the protection of UCH and have organized several international conferences. In 2005, Professor Chiau was commissioned by Construction and Planning Agency, Ministry of the Interior to conduct a literature study on UCH in Dongsha (Pratas) Islands in the South China Sea. He concluded that at least 28 wrecks were clearly recorded. Over the past ten years, the UCH research projects made by the Academia Sinica and the National Sun Yat-sen University, under the authorization of the Ministry of Culture, discovered nearly 100 wrecks in the waters around Taiwan, including GUANG-BIN Warship that participated in the first SinoJapanese War and British S.S. BOKHARA were sunk in Penghu (Pescadores) Archipelagoes, British SOBRAON near Matsu Islands and the unknown “GREEN ISLAND No. I” in East Taiwan (Bureau of Cultural Heritage, 2014). These wrecks are as valuable as “NANHAI No. I” and “DANDONG No. I” of China and the important research projects in other countries. In the past, however, such precious UCH resources in Taiwan were not protected through a proper mechanism and were possibly destroyed by illegal and unappropriated underwater activities. Moreover, the important principles and spirit of the UNESCO UCH Convention have not yet been implemented in the domestic laws and the existing Cultural Heritage Preservation Act does not apply to the preservation, protection and management of UCH. Thus, there is an urgent need to formulate an exclusive law for Taiwan to preserve, protect and manage its rich and valuable UCH. In view of this, the Ministry of Culture drafted a specific law called the "Law on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage of the Republic of �China". After years of discussions, the draft of Underwater Cultural Heritage Preservation Act was finally proposed by the Executive Yuan (Cabinet) and submitted to the Legislative Yuan (Parliament) for discussion. The Draft was completed gradually through researches conducted by experts and scholars commissioned by the Ministry of Culture, expert meetings, national public hearings, and related legal operating procedures as well as the acquisition of public consensus (Ministry of Culture, 2015). In the Legislative Yuan, Legislator Wen-Yan Chiau and Legislator Pi-Han Chen also proposed the corresponding versions (Legislative Yuan, 2015). Since the 8th session of the Parliament had limited time for UCH discussions, Legislator Chiau consulted Professor Nien-Tsu Alfred Hu and some key officials with the Ministry of Culture and integrated three versions into one, which served as the basis of discussion upon the consent of the Committee. On November 9, 2015, the integrated version was reviewed by the Committee and submitted to the Legislative Yuan for determination. On November 24, 2015, the Legislative Yuan finally approved the Underwater Cultural Heritage Preservation Act through a three-reading procedure. The Act was promulgated by the President on December 9, 2015, becoming the first exclusive law regarding the preservation of UCH in Taiwan (Office of the President, R.O.C., 2015). The approval and implementation of the Underwater Cultural Heritage Preservation Act ensure the effective preservation, protection, and management of UCH in the waters around Taiwan under a specific and clear legislation. Principles and Main Contents Taiwan’s Underwater Cultural Heritage Preservation Act consists of seven chapters with 44 articles in total: Chapter One "General Provisions", �Chapter Two "Right Attribution and International Cooperation", Chapter Three " Activities Directed at Underwater Cultural Heritage ", Chapter Four " In-situ Preservation of Underwater Cultural Heritage", Chapter Five "Excavating Out Of The Water", Chapter Six "Penalty Provisions" and Chapter Seven "Supplementary Provisions". Main contents of the Act are summarized as follows (Laws and Regulations Database of the Republic of China, 2017). 1. Respect and response to the spirit of the UNESCO Convention The themes of Taiwan’s Underwater Cultural Heritage Preservation Act are to preserve, protect and manage UCH, build the historical connection, and develop the characteristic of the maritime country in accordance with the spirit of the UNESCO Convention and other international agreements. In this regard, the Act includes the principles of the Convention in many articles with the hope to preserve and manage UCH in Taiwan like that operated in many parts of the world. For example, Article 4 of the Act reflects the spirit of the Convention and stipulates that “Any activity involving underwater cultural heritage should avoid unnecessary interference with human remains and historical sites” and that “UCH should not be commercially exploited.” 2. Carry out general survey and registry management Article 5 of the Act stipulates, “the competent authority shall undertake a general survey of underwater cultural heritage, or record and manage the files after conducting the investigation, research and review, in accordance with the procedures prescribed by this Act, on the reports from individuals or organizations that indicate a suspected underwater cultural heritage existed.” In addition, Article 6 also regulated that the competent authority shall fully set up case data for the investigation, �research, excavation, preservation, and restoration for underwater cultural heritage. The data shall be permanently preserved in accordance with the Archives Act and its relevant regulations. The survey of underwater cultural heritage is also stipulated in Article 9 of the Act：“Where an environmental impact assessment is required for an exploitation activity, or where a governmental agency and state-owned enterprise makes or ratifies a plan with respect to exploitation and utilization of a water area, it is required to conduct a prior investigation related to the existence of underwater cultural heritage or suspected underwater cultural heritage. A notification of the discovery shall submit to the competent authority if any.” 3. Establish a national institute for the preservation and research of UCH Referring to the foreign cases (e.g., Department of Underwater and Marine Archaeological Research, DRASSM, in Marseille, France), Article 7 of the Act stipulates that “the competent authority may designate a dedicated organization for the preservation and research of underwater cultural heritage to perform the investigation, research, excavation, restoration, education, promulgation, international cooperation, and other activities with respect to underwater cultural heritage.” For recruiting professionals to protect UCH in Taiwan, Article 11 of the Act also stipulates that “the competent authority shall educate and train the relevant professionals with respect to underwater cultural heritage in order to undertake the preservation of underwater cultural heritage.” The items, manners, procedures, examinations, evaluations, utilization, withdrawal, revocation, and other related affairs of the professionals will be further regulated by competent authorities after consulting related agencies. �4. Establish a Review Mechanism Regarding the administrative aspects, Article 8 of the Act expressly stipulates that the competent authority shall convene the review committee of underwater cultural heritage to review the following subjects: (1) applications for activities directed at underwater cultural heritage; (2) coordination with other authorities in charge of other affairs with respect to activities incidentally affecting underwater cultural heritage; (3) the recordation and management of underwater cultural heritage; (4) the zoning of underwater cultural heritage protection areas; (5) subject substantially relating to the preservation of underwater cultural heritage. 5. Report the discovery of cultural relics Pursuant to Article 13 of the Act, “anyone who discovers suspected underwater cultural heritage shall terminate any activity that has an influence on such heritage, maintain completeness of the site, and promptly report the discovery to the competent authority excepted that there is a need to prevent an urgent and severe danger or there is a substantial public interest at stake, such activity may not be terminated, and the discovery of such shall be reported to the competent authority.” After receiving the report referred to in the first paragraph, the competent authority may take the following measures: (1) restrict or terminate all or part of the activity which has an influence on the suspected underwater heritage in a specific water area; (2) undertake necessary investigation, research, and other related underwater operations; and (3) set up a temporary protection zone in the water area of the discovery site. Article 18 of the Act also stipulates that the citizen or the vessel master of the country, who discovers suspected underwater cultural heritage or activities directed at underwater cultural heritage in the �exclusive economic area or on the continental shelf of other states, shall promptly report such discovery or activity to the competent authority. The government of Taiwan may report such discovery or activity referred to in the preceding paragraph to the relevant states or international organizations. 6. Stipulate right attribution and international cooperation The right attribution and international cooperation are included in Chapter 2 of the Act. For instance, Article 15 of the Act stipulates that “any underwater cultural heritage discovered in the internal waters and territorial sea of the Republic of China, except for the state vessels and aircraft in which a foreign state declares an interest, shall belong to the Republic of China.” “The Republic of China, in the exercise of its sovereignty, has the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate, authorize, or approve activities directed at underwater cultural heritage in the internal waters and territorial sea of the Republic of China.” With a view to cooperating on the best methods of protecting the state vessels and aircraft prescribed, however, the competent authority, should inform the flag state and, if applicable, other states with a cultural, historical or archaeological link, with respect to the discovery of such identifiable state vessels and aircraft. Additionally, Article 21 of the Act stipulates that the ROC government may enter into bilateral, regional or other multilateral agreements or develop existing agreements with other states or international organizations, for the preservation, protection, and management of underwater cultural heritage. 7. Strictly regulate activities directed at UCH Article 22 of the Act stipulates that “activities directed at underwater cultural heritage shall not be undertaken unless an application with an �underwater cultural heritage activity plan is filed by a scholar, experts, or academic/professional scientific research institutions to the competent authority and approved thereby.” With the case of international cooperation, the Act further regulates that “foreigner(s) shall cooperate with domestic scientific research organizations or institutions to file such application.” Pursuant to Article 23 of the Act, those activities directed at UCH should be supervised by the competent authority; The competent authority shall also stipulate the regulations related to the UCH activities including the operational procedure, qualification of relevant operational personnel, method for in situ preservation, method for evacuated, preservation or protection method after excavation, and other matters related to the underwater cultural heritage activities should be complied with. Practically, this highlights the importance of bylaws of the Act. 8. In situ preservation and planning for UCH protected areas With echoing to the spirit of the Convention, Article 27 of the Act expressly stipulates that “the preservation in situ of UCH shall be the first option before allowing or engaging in any activities directed at this heritage.” And, the proper means for in situ preservation may include recordation management, protection zone, or other proper preservation measures. When the review committees make a decision that it is necessary to designate a specific underwater cultural heritage protection zone, according to Article 28, the competent authority should consult with relevant authorities to designate and publicize an underwater cultural heritage protection zone within such water area to preserve the underwater heritage in situ. To allow the public engagement, Article 28 also regulated that the authority should hold a public hearing or explanation session inviting civilians or groups with an interest at stake to attend. �Article 30 of the Act regulates the content of the management and protection plan, which include the following: (1) basic data: location, measure of area, significance of the underwater cultural heritage, description and scope diagram of research; (2) range classification; (3) accountable authority distribution and reporting system (4) routine maintenance: preservation, maintenance and recordation of the environmental landscape; (5) emergency maintenance: prevention of natural or human damage and emergency disaster disposal; (6) education and promotion: production and exhibition of promotional material as well as education activities; (7) source of funding; (8) management plan of entrust; and (9) other matters related to management and protection. For well managing UCH, Article 31 of the Act regulates the activities that are prohibited within UCH protection zone, such as salvage of UCH, usage of explosives, trawling or anchoring, mining, installation of electric cables and pipelines, discarding waste water or hazardous substances, dredging and construction of ocean engineering. As for management and protection of the underwater cultural heritage and settling illegal matters, according to Article 32, the competent authority may request assistance from the Coast Guard Administration to help in the enforcement of the Act. 9. Regulate the conditions for UCH salvage In principle, the underwater cultural heritage shall not be excavated out of the water. Pursuant to Article 34, exceptions are only limited to the following situations: (1) the underwater cultural heritage related to historical status or recognition of the nation: (2) the absence of such underwater cultural heritage could be detrimental to a full understanding of human history; (3) the underwater cultural heritage is of substantial commercial value that cannot be protected without excavating it out of the water; (4) excavation is necessary for the investigation and research of �underwater cultural heritage; (5) the underwater cultural heritage cannot be sufficiently preserved, protected or managed without excavating it out of the water due to an emergency or the change of the existing environment; (6) other situations in which the competent authority deems necessary to excavate out of the water. While excavation to be undertaken, pursuant to Article 35 of the Act, the preservation and maintenance plan for UCH should be proposed at the same time, and in which “non-destructive technology and survey method shall be used preferentially.” In addition, the expertise of underwater archaeology, underwater operators, and preservative scientist shall jointly participate in the measure for the excavation or emergency disposal. 10. Stipulate strict penalties for protecting UCH Chapter 6 of the Act strictly stipulates the penalty provisions. As Article 37 regulates, for instance, any person who commits any of the following offenses shall be liable to imprisonment for up to five years, detention, and/or a fine of NT$200,000 to NT$10,000,000: theft of UCH with an intention to possess for his own or for a third person, damage of UCH within the protection zone or temporary protection zone, conveyance of UCH which belongs to the Republic of China out of the country, and undertaking UCH activities without prior approval of the competent authority. It is hope that the penalties can effectively stop the illegal activities which are harmful to the protection of UCH in this country. Challenges Ahead Over the past few decades, Taiwan has realized its richness of UCH through academic research and investigation, research projects commissioned by Ministry of Culture, findings by the local civil groups, fishermen or diving enthusiasts. However, these precious cultural relics �and artifacts were not protected properly due to the absence of related laws on the preservation of UCH in this country. Since the implementation of Taiwan’s Underwater Cultural Heritage Preservation Act is still in its infancy, the protection of UCH is unavoidably encountering many challenges as follows (Chiau and Kuo, 2014). Dissemination and Implementation of bylaws The Underwater Cultural Heritage Preservation Act is a fundamental law of Taiwan for the protection of UCH. In late 2016, the Ministry of Culture had already formulated some 9 bylaws for implementing the Act. They include the enforcement regulations on：UCH survey and management before development in the marine area, seabed and subsoil management, activities directed at UCH, UCH professionals training, promotion of public education on UCH, delineation and management of UCH protection zone, and incentives and subsidy on UCH research and protection. However, the challenges are to disseminate those concept of protecting UCH and smoothly implement those tasks among various stakeholders. Establishment of a national-level research institution Pursuant to Article 7 of the Act, the Ministry of Culture may appoint an institute responsible for UCH preservation, protection and management. It is believed that this national-level institute is able to best integrate various research resources, including technologies, professions and budgets. The DRASSM established in Marseille, France, for instance, is a national-level research institute with a history of more than 50 years. Having equipped with research vessels and many professionals, the Institute has been participating in various international UCH projects and has achieved abundant results with solid budgets and operations. In �2009, the National Research Institute of Maritime Cultural Heritage was established in Korea to promote the country’s maritime culture and exchange research results with other international research institutions or museums. These institutes are all worth referring to as Taiwan establishing its own one. Enhancing technologies and professionals training The technologies such as side scan sonar, multibeam depth sounding system, sub-bottom profiler and magnetometer have been applied in UCH survey and research in Taiwan (Liu, 2010). However, there is a necessity for developing and/or enhancing new technologies especially for those UCH buried in shallow waters, lagoons, estuaries and river bed. On the other hand, it is in short of UCH professionals in Taiwan. Over the past ten years, although several training workshops for underwater archaeology have been held in Taiwan, few trainees are willing to engage in underwater archaeology due to limited job opportunities. After the Act is promulgated, the demand for professionals will definitely increase. The Ministry of Culture should be keen to training and employment of UCH professionals, especially their appropriate and stable job opportunities. The Ministry should also have professionals recruited in its subordinated agencies and even engage the international professional certification in order to provide appropriate and safe jobs for UCH professionals. Strengthening international exchange and cooperation Pursuant to Article 19 of the Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage promulgated, the UNESCO urges the international cooperation and information sharing regarding the protection of UCH. As mentioned above, the research, protection and management of UCH is still in its infancy in Taiwan. As a cultural entity and a responsible country, �there is essential to learn from and/or work with other countries for better managing the common heritage for all mankind. Raising the public awareness on UCH protection With the development of underwater technologies and diving techniques, it is easy to dive into the deep sea, resulting in more opportunities of discovery, collection and destruction of UCH. However, different from treasury hunting, the concept of preservation of UCH must promote through the nation-wide education and propaganda to raise the public awareness of the protection of UCH. Firstly, the government may include UCH concepts in the textbooks for the public schools and encourage universities to establish related departments on UCH research. Secondly, many countries establish maritime museums and marine parks to encourage the public to engage in cultural tourism. For example, underwater museum in Alexandria, Egypt, Mary Rose in the UK, Baiheliang Underwater Museum in China, Underwater Archaeological Park in Finland and Dalarö Blue Park in Sweden showcase the creativity by combining nature and cultures. These examples are all worth referring to for raising the public awareness on UCH. In the aspect of social education, the educational promotion for diving enthusiasts is especially important in this case. Improving integration among related government agencies The management of UCH involves many aspects, including investigation, research, excavation, repair, education, promotion, supervision, enforcement, international cooperation and other related activities. Many government departments and agencies may engage in the administrative procedures in Taiwan, including Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Education, Council of Agriculture, Coast Guard Administration, Ministry of the Interior, �Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry Communications and local governments. of Transportation and Related stakeholders and interested parties, such as fishermen, diving clubs, or recreation industries are also involved. In view of this, a better governance of UCH issues will rely on the close cross-department cooperation. And, integration among the related agencies is a must and represents a daunting challenge faced by Taiwan. Concluding Remarks Although Taiwan’s Underwater Cultural Heritage Preservation Act is promulgated, daunting challenges remain in the implementation of this brand new legal system. It is hope the government can facilitate the establishment of a national research institute of UCH, training programs for professionals and the public awareness of the protection of UCH. International cooperation and information sharing also deserve the priority. Reference Office of the President, R.O.C., 2015. Promulgation of the Underwater Cultural Heritage Preservation Act, Gazette of the President Office, No. 7223, Taipei. Ministry of Culture, 2015. Legislative Yuan Approved the Draft of Underwater Cultural Heritage Preservation Act through a Threereading Procedure and Implemented the Legislation of Underwater Cultural Heritage in Taiwan, http://www.moc.gov.tw (Retrieved on 16 January 2016). Bureau of Cultural Heritage, 2014. The Phase 3 Survey of Underwater Cultural Heritage in the Waters around Taiwan, Ministry of Culture, Taipei. Laws and Regulations Database of the Republic of China, 2017. Underwater Cultural Heritage Preservation Act, �http://law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=H0170102 (Retrieved on 14 July 2017). Legislative Yuan, 2015. The Report of the Education and Culture Committee on the Draft of Underwater Cultural Heritage Preservation Act proposed by Legislator Pi-Han Chen and other 27 Legislators and Legislator Wen-Yen Chiau and other 28 legislators respectively, Legislative Yuan Related Documents, Yuan-Tsung No. 1082, Government Proposal No. 15341, Legislator Proposal No. 17968 and No. 17668-1. Chiau, W.-Y. and Kuo, C.-C., 2014. Current development and challenges of underwater archaeology in Taiwan, presented at the International Workshop on Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage and Building-up the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road, South China Sea Institute, Xiamen University. National Development Council, 2012. Golden Decade and the National Vision, Executive Yuan, Taiwan. Liu, C.-Y., 2010. Applications of Underwater Technology in Marine Archaeological Survey, presented at the 2010 Seed Talent Training Workshop on Underwater Archaeology, National Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 2017. Underwater Cultural Heritage, http://www.unesco.org/new/zh/culture/themes/underwater-culturalheritage/2001-convention/ (Retrieved on 14 July 2017). � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 2017 Session 7: Underwater Cultural Heritage Politics, Laws, Ethics and Values Description An account of the resource All cultural materials are potentially cultural resources. However, because not all of them can be preserved or studied, choices must be made based on evaluation and re-evaluation. Values are learned and depend on cultural, intellectual, historical, and psychological frames of reference. Consequently, valuation is made individually, but is shared by communities. Valuation of underwater cultural heritage has, then, a broad range of determining value depending on the community to which it belongs. A clear example of this is the protection of human remains. The 2001 UNESCO Convention includes, in its definition of underwater cultural heritage, human remains which have been underwater for more than 100 years. However, the Christian philosophy on the treatment of human remains is different to that of Asian philosophy that teaches that human remains will never become underwater cultural heritage since, if they are seen by someone in an underwater site, it is imperative to rescue the human remains and bury them on land according to their beliefs. This session aims to create a forum for policymakers, managers, and archaeologists devoted to underwater cultural heritage where they can share their experiences of and research on the valuation of underwater cultural heritage. We aim to accept papers that help us to understand the definition of ‘underwater cultural heritage’ in the Asia-Pacific regions, comparing those definitions with the definition of the 2001 UNESCO Convention and trying to find a common interpretation. We will also be looking to examine the meaning of the underwater cultural heritage sites and objects for different communities. Finally, we will be expecting papers exploring the different possibilities of the use and/or conservation of this underwater cultural heritage according to the values and needs of the different communities. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Elena Perez-Alvaro Licit Cultural Heritage Ltd., UK Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Preservation of Underwater Cultural Heritage in Taiwan: Legislation and Challenges Description An account of the resource The Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage was adopted in 2001 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The convention acknowledges the importance of underwater cultural heritage as an integral part of the cultural heritage of humanity and a particularly important element in the history of peoples, nations, and their relations with each other concerning their common heritage. The responsibility of protecting and preserving the underwater cultural heritage therefore rests with all States (UNESCO, 2017.). By echoing the spirit of the above convention, the Legislative Yuan (Parliament) of Taiwan adopted the Underwater Cultural Heritage Preservation Act on November 24, 2015. The Act was promulgated by the President and was also put into force on 9 December 2015. The Law is in seven chapters with 44 articles. The chapters cover general provisions, attributed rights and international cooperation, activities involving underwater cultural heritage, in-situ preservation of underwater cultural heritage, excavation management in the sea, public education and professional training, penalties, and supplementary provisions. This paper introduces the recent research projects of underwater cultural heritage in Taiwan, illustrates the enactment process of the new law and highlights its main features. The paper concludes that it is essential to have further integration of management affairs, establishing national research institute, strengthening the international cooperation and the professional training, implementing related bylaws and mechanisms, and promoting public awareness, which also become daunting challenges faced by Taiwan as it marches toward the protection of its precious underwater cultural heritage. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ching-Ching Kuo Chun-Pei Liao Wen-Yan Chiau Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 11/24/2017 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Ching-Ching Kuo Chun-Pei Liao Wen-Yan Chiau Asia-Pac Session 7 2017 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/45797196b5f418082118327cf12bec5a.pdf 4f835872505b469e39b2ff2f5a1e7481 PDF Text Text The ethics behind climate change: Small Island Developing States in the Pacific as new underwater cultural heritage Dr. Elena Perez-Alvaro Licit Cultural Heritage Ltd. elenaperezalvaro@gmail.com Abstract Predictions forecast changes in climate that may affect underwater cultural heritage in the future. Warmer waters mean more chemical changes and the proliferation of teredo navalis. Ocean currents may cause disturbances to the layer of sediment protecting underwater cultural heritage sites. The rises in sea levels would reduce the amount of time an air-breathing diver can safely spend under water and hence their productivity. Rises would also mean expansion, which could raise the problem of ocean delimitation. Also our land tangible cultural heritage will be submerged: entire nations and their cultural heritage may disappear, an issue affecting mostly the Small Island Developing States -many of them in the Pacific-, more vulnerable to rises in sea levels. Their identity as citizens of their cities, as members of a community with their own tangible past, complete with their cultural heritage, will disappear. Their land heritage will become underwater cultural heritage but for more than 100 years will not be protected under the 2001 UNESCO Convention. This paper will look at climate change in these Asia-Pacific communities from the ethics as a core element and will study the introduction of these flooded areas as new underwater cultural heritage, proposing an AsiaPacific values-orientated qualification of underwater cultural heritage as a natural resource. Key words: SIDS, tangible cultural heritage, climate change, UNESCO Convention Introduction One of the commonly agreed principles of preservation of underwater cultural heritage named by the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage is the preservation in situ �as the first option (Preamble, Article 2.5. and Rule 1 of the Annex (UNESCO, 2001). The reason for this being mainly because archaeological objects are better preserved under layers of mud and in saline water. The ship, once she has sunk and lies at the seabed, reaches a state of equilibrium with the upper parts destroyed and the buried remains covered (Green, 1990). After reaching this state of equilibrium, the wreck will either be only disturbed by human intervention or by geological changes like the ones forecast by climate change (Wachsmann, 2011). Global warming is, as (Chapman, 2003) observes, an environmental and political issue. Climate change is warming the oceans and the ice at the poles is melting causing sea levels to rise. Oceans are also being over fertilized and suffering chemical changes, such as acidification or changes on the salinity. Currents also may change their pattern and consequently, ecosystems are becoming increasingly endangered. These climate changes will have a direct impact on underwater cultural heritage (Dunkley, 2013); (Van de Noort, 2013). Higher global surface temperature will dry out some submerged heritage and, on the contrary, sea-level rises will flood many coastal areas, creating new underwater cultural heritage. In fact, climate change will raise the sea level enough to inundate 136 sites considered by UNESCO to be cultural and historical treasures (Marzeion and Levermann, 2014). In addition, each one of the changes (warmer waters, changes in currents, rising oceans and chemical changes) will have a different effect on the various materials that constitute a submerged archaeological site. Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are vulnerable to rises in sea levels and even become uninhabitable (UNESCO, 2008). In this regard, some authors warn that climate change will also modify social and cultural behaviours, with communities changing how they live and work, migrating �and abandoning their heritage. Therefore, all heritage needs to be considered vulnerable to natural disasters (UNESCO, 2008). The first part of this paper will analyse some cases of sites affected by climate change that have already happened. Later, we will look at the concept of “climate change”. The third part studies what would happen to these Small Islands Developing States and the concept of identity. We will next be looking to both ethical and legal aspects of climate change affecting the cultural heritage. Finally, this paper will propose a new policy for the preservation of underwater cultural heritage under the threat of the climate change. Issue Climate change has already caused damages to underwater cultural heritage. Sheridan and Sheridan (2013) state that civilization is heading to informed self-destruction. They define culture as “the last cab off the climate rank”. Several examples: 1. In Spain, a Phoenician shipwreck is being exposed due to the change of currents affecting the oceans. The shipwreck that was 25 years ago at a depth of 6 metres it is now only at a depth of 1.8 metres (Rubio, 2014). Its preservation in situ may not be the best option anymore, since it is now readily accessible to human intervention and to further changes in the currents that may damage her. 2. The raising of sea levels has disturbed the underwater graves of soldiers killed in World War II on the Marshall Islands (McGrath, 2014). The tides have exposed a cemetery containing 26 human bodies and the coffins and human remains are being washed away. 3. According to a leaked diplomatic cable1, the Dalai Lama called attention to the climate changes that Tibet is suffering. Although �Tibet is entirely landlocked, its temples are being inundated which will convert them to underwater cultural heritage in the future, an example that could be repeated: The Dalai Lama argued that the political agenda should be sidelined for five to ten years and the international community should shift its focus to climate change on the Tibetan plateau. Melting glaciers, deforestation and increasingly polluted water from mining projects were problems that 'cannot wait.' The Dalai Lama criticized China's energy policy, alleging that dam construction in Kham and Amdo have displaced thousands of Tibetans and left temples and monasteries underwater. In view of these examples, climate change is an ultimate moral challenge and cultural heritage managers have to be prepared for policy’s changes (Sheridan and Sheridan, 2013). If the current global temperature is prolonged over the next two millennia, 40 of the UNESCO Cultural World Heritage sites will be affected. Of the 720 sites listed in the cultural and mixed categories in the UNESCO World Heritage list, 136 of them will be impacted by rises in sea levels (Marzeion and Levermann, 2014). In addition, 3 to 12 countries will lose more than half of their current land surface (Marzeion and Levermann, 2014). Consequently, climate change may affect the underwater cultural heritage in two forms: a) Additional submerged places will be created and, on the contrary, previously submerged places will become exposed. A total of fifteen of the world’s twenty megacities are situated by the sea. “If water levels rise even further, by 3, 4 or 5 metres in centuries to come, we will have to give up some of the cities” (Rahmstorf and Richardson, 2009). These underwater cities or even countries will be in the future underwater cultural heritage. This paper will focus on this aspect. �b) The current underwater cultural heritage will be affected, damaged or moved. Variations in seawater follow universal chemical, physical and biological laws. The shipwreck, in contact with water, experiences equilibrium (Florian, 1987). At 400-800 metres depth archaeological sites experience low and near constant water temperatures all year-round (Daly, 2011). Sunlight, a biodeterioration accelerator, does not penetrate below 200m. At the seafloor the current speeds are often very low with minimal tidal effects and sediment transfer rates are also low. Erosion by currents, tidal movements or changes in water circulation, resulting in objects being removed and displaced is a real threat as well as erosion by dredging, fishing and anchoring. Sediment accretion will be also having consequences (Chapman, 2003): archaeological deposits could be buried by accreting silts. As a consequence, the discovering of the new underwater sites would be more difficult. State of knowledge Earth is a planet with high water content (71%). In fact it should be called Ocean, instead of Earth as the volume of water is 1370 million km³ (Rahmstorf and Richardson, 2009). There are four main climate changes that will affect the oceans: 1. The Warming of the Waters. There have always been fluctuations in water temperature, especially in the surface layer of water that is in direct contact with the atmosphere (the top 50–200 metres). The temperature in this layer has increased by more than 3°C in the last 50 years. Such an increase in temperature will most likely gradually spread to deeper layers, where shipwrecks and other heritage sites are located. This warming could result in changes such as coral bleaching and species migration. Other issues will also affect �underwater tangible heritage such as chemical changes or the increasing of shipworms. 2. Currents. Some experts predict that climate change could cause a possible interruption of the thermohaline circulation, largely responsible for regulating the earth’s temperature. Such change would affect the submerged heritage in different ways, such as the modification of the sediment layer. Much underwater cultural heritage is preserved at present thanks to a protective layer of sediment, mostly formed by microorganisms. Any disturbance of this layer could damage the archaeological materials. A change in currents can also displace some or all of a submerged archaeological site, decontextualizing it from its original location or otherwise dispersing the objects. 3. Chemical Changes. A variety of chemical changes might occur in the waters as a result of climate change such as acidity and salinity. If the pH of seawater decreases and the oxygen increases, it will become more acidic. As a consequence, underwater material is more likely to corrode. Also textiles dissolve more readily in acidic water, meaning any archaeological textiles remaining under water would likely be lost. Changes in salinity may also be proved problematic since salinity also accelerates corrosion. 4. The Rising Sea Levels. Increased global temperatures melts land ice, which adds water to the sea. Similarly, an increase in water temperature results in the expansion of the sea, since warm water occupies a larger volume than colder water. Sea levels react only very slowly, and it takes many centuries—or even millennia—for large continental ice masses to melt. However, since ice masses are becoming wetter because of the contact with water, they will almost certainly melt at a much faster rate. Researchers estimate �that there will be a rise in the sea level of between 18 and 59 cm by the year 2100; but it could exceed one metre. The rising sea level would be the most difficult challenge facing cultural heritage. Not only could it submerge the land-based cultural heritage, but underwater cultural heritage might also be affected. Some of the issues recognised in this regard are as follows:  Increased depth. More water means greater depth and shipwrecks lying on the seabed will be subject to greater pressure, which may be more than they can withstand.  Prospection. It would have an effect, mainly due to the reduction in the amount of time a diver can remain under water.  Marine boundaries. Higher sea levels will result in legal maritime boundaries becoming less well-defined. Political issues and legal disputes are expected to arise in the affected areas and the melting of the Arctic will open new maritime commercial routes which will translate into claiming of new territories as we will see.  Flooding. Some land-based archaeological sites will flood, meaning that some cultural heritage will become underwater cultural heritage.  Increased storms. Higher sea levels will cause more powerful storms that will devastate low-lying areas. These will be in the form of tropical storms and hurricanes/cyclones, at best eroding at worst destroying both land and underwater heritage. Although these are largely predictions for the future, some cultural heritage sites are already experiencing these changes. Small Islands Developing States The Pacific Islands region comprises 22 countries and territories, nine of them fully independent (Barnett and Campbell, 2010). It is divided into �three regions: Melanesia -of large cultural diversity and more than 800 languages spoken-, Polynesia -more homogenous- with “only” 30 languages- and Micronesia -with strong links to the United States (Barnett and Campbell, 2010). This cultural diversity may change for the effects of climate change. The IPCC 4th assessment report identifies small island states as being the most vulnerable countries of the world to the adverse impacts of climate change. The Pacific is in fact one of the world’s most vulnerable regions. Not only their cultural heritage will be affected but also their agriculture, water resources, forestry, tourism and other industry-related sectors. However, the impact of climate change in these communities will not only be noticeable on flooding lands, but also in its effects on agricultural production and fisheries, and, as a consequence, in the availability of food. However, there has been little research on understanding how people is going to adapt to climate change. For instance, the Tuvalu State is already losing not only its territory because of the floodings, but also its identity and heritage: its culture as a nation is transforming. Communities on the Torres Strait are also suffering king tides and flooding that make life non-viable. The islands will probably be completely submerged in the future, meaning 7000 people already have to adapt to climate change. Australia has invited them to live on Australian territory but this would mean that the land of such states—and, therefore, their tangible culture—will be lost. There are two basic responses to climate change for these territories: mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation includes all policies and laws that have been drafted on climate change. Adaptation has its origins in evolutionary biology, seen as the basis for natural selections and it implies long-term processes. This paper proposes a mix of mitigation and �adaptation actions in order to understand and face the effects of climate change on the cultural heritage. Ethical dilemmas This section will highlight the main ethical dilemmas attached to the loss of a territory, as it is going to happen to some Asia-Pacific States. 1. Identity seems a concept intrinsically linked to the concept of heritage. For Ashworth (2007) heritage is a need of the individual and of society to reinforce a socio-cultural identity: it is a contemporary commodity and it is linked to the concept of “national identity” that can be shaped through a few selected points of heritage and supporting mythologies. An object of heritage can become an evocative symbol of identification that acts as a trigger for emotions and narratives. 2. Emotion: this identification of a person with a place or an object is established because the person identifies itself with the place (or object) and feels something related to it. In this regard, Smith (2006) concludes that the “real sense of heritage is when our emotions and sense of self are truly engaged”. The emotional value of heritage is felt and it is reinforced through experiences and re-experiences that create a sense of nostalgia (Smith and Waterton, 2009). Heritage is then not valued for the specific information it contains but for the notions it evokes among people. 3. Memories: memories, as emotions, are not spontaneous but they need to be actively remembered (Smith and Waterton, 2009): they need a root in a concrete object or site and need to be maintained. Cultural heritage is intrinsically political and symbolic, used in lieu of description to evoke memories or emotions. And it is highly selective. If some Small Island Developing States of the Pacific leave their territories and, as a consequence, part of their tangible cultural heritage, �they will lose part of their identity, their memories and the emotions that they experience with their heritage. Legal perspective Legislation can be used to minimize human threats to underwater cultural heritage. There is only 1.9 million km² of ocean area where nature conservation regulations apply. There is some Marine Protected Areas (MPA) but some authors (Rahmstorf and Richardson, 2009) believe that at least 20 to 30% of the world’s oceans should be protected. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007), Group I concludes that the oceans are warming and the salinification of water is changing. Although they are not visible ocean circulation changes, the ocean biogeochemistry is changing since there is evidence of decreased oxygen concentrations. And the sea level is definitely rising (IPCC, 2007). Despite of all this information, international instruments fails to protect cultural heritage from climate change forces (Sheridan and Sheridan, 2013). There are gaps in the capacity of the legislation for future protection. Only the Convention Concerning the Protection of the Worlds Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972) has some response to climate change (Sheridan and Sheridan, 2013). The 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage does not mention climate change as an adverse factor for underwater cultural heritage. However, Dromgoole (2013) feels that the term in the definition “partially or totally underwater, periodically or continuously, for at least 100 years” is of importance for the predicted sea level changes due to climate change. However, and despite this minor concession, the Convention does not explicitly mention “climate change” and as a consequence, it does not propose solutions. Neither the 1982 UNCLOS Convention does. �The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) has no direct reference to underwater cultural heritage, nor does the Kyoto Protocol (1997) which aims to reduce the levels of greenhouse gases. The instruments that try to cover the topic provide good intentions rather than solutions. They make a good starting point for the development of the field, although they tend to be vague and imprecise and no remedies are proposed. As a consequence, there is a need for ranking the potential impact of climate change on individual heritage and determining the vulnerability, sensitivity and resilience to future changes (Howard, 2003). Conclusions As this paper has tried to demonstrate, rises in sea levels, warmer waters, ocean acidification and changes in currents will affect underwater cultural heritage (Dunkley, 2013). Warmer waters mean more energetic oceans (that cause more erosion) and the migration of invasive species. It also means expansion, which will cause the problem of oceans delimitation. In addition, this rises in sea levels will reduce the amount of time and productivity an air-breathing diver can spend under water safely. In addition, saltier waters mean less clear waters. Changes in ocean temperatures also affect and alter oceanic currents which will have an impact on underwater visibility for divers besides of the erosion of the heritage. And although the direct effects of acidification are not still well understood (but it is known that will harm marine fauna) it increases the current rates of metal corrosion, which will be particularly harmful to the underwater heritage of the World Wars (Dunkley, 2013). Each site deserves unique treatment and it is difficult to set common criteria. The climate change consequences on heritage need different strands of research, like risk factors, socio-economic research and nature and cultural stress factors (UNESCO, 2008). Some authors predict that �future generations will face damage and loss of underwater cultural heritage or will have to make great efforts to protect them (Marzeion and Levermann, 2014). However, as Sheridan and Sheridan (2013) observe, it seems that people may need to see their cultural heritage threatened, temples washed away or cathedrals destroyed by flooding to be convinced of the effects of climate change in culture and to evaluate and propose solutions. However, it is erroneous to assume that the most visible remains are the most threatened. There is a need for practical and political response to the effects of climate change on underwater cultural heritage but also a priority of raising awareness of the impacts. Some authors emphasise the inadequate financial resources and a lack of creativity on managing underwater cultural heritage despite it being a growing “industry” (Kingsley, 2011). Some inter-agency cooperation might be necessary (Van de Noort, 2013), as well as convincing policy makers to include climate change impacts in planning (Cassar and Pender, 2005). This paper proposes the inclusion of underwater cultural heritage as natural heritage, which is another subject on policy agendas for protecting the world’s oceans from climate change. The differentiation between cultural and natural is a barrier that excludes underwater cultural heritage and avoids a common interdisciplinary work, as it will be seen in the next section. However, is an Asia-Pacific values-orientated qualification of underwater cultural heritage as a natural resource, focusing on identifying and recovering the connections between the nature and culture sectors. Proposal The present study focuses the required actions to manage the underwater cultural heritage under the threat of climate change in four steps: recognizing the loss, starting the debate, creating a legal framework in �which situate the debate and recognizing underwater cultural heritage as a natural resource. 1. Recognizing the loss: there have already been two periods of climate change in the past which could have affected the heritage. It is essential to understand that although climate change does destroy the heritage, it also creates new heritage (for instance flooded cities or islands will become underwater cultural heritage in 100 years). This is an ethical issue on heritage as process: understanding that it is inevitable to lose some cultural heritage but that we will also gain some. On these premises, however, it is again the time to evaluate the importance of the sites and to undertake actions to preserve the selected ones. 2. Starting the debate: climate change debate has occupied few concerns in the archaeological and heritage arena. Whatever the causes, the effects may be devastating (Chapman, 2003). This paper has tried to trigger the debate, which needs to be discussed and disseminated through academic, social and political agendas. 3. Creating a legal framework: the 2001 UNESCO Convention that guides States on the management of their underwater cultural heritage does not include climate change as a danger to the heritage. As with any other international instruments, the authors of the Convention would hope to become an example to the states (Carman, 2013). If this Convention does not take climate change into consideration neither will States. This paper presents a high-risk concept: underwater cultural heritage is a part of the oceans and as a consequence underwater cultural heritage preservation has more similarities to underwater natural heritage than to terrestrial cultural heritage. Although the methodology (archaeology) and the ethical concerns that both underwater and land heritage face have a major equivalence, in the aspects of preserving and facing climate change, underwater cultural heritage has to fight the same battles as the �natural heritage in the oceans. The changes that will affect them are the same. As a consequence, the same legal and political agendas on climate change affecting the oceans should already include (as coral reefs are included) underwater cultural heritage on their agendas. 4. Recognizing underwater cultural heritage as a natural resource: Aznar-Gómez (2013) states that although underwater cultural heritage is not considered a natural resource by the UNCLOS Convention, the seabed and the sand is covering the archaeological objects. Also the nonsedentary fishing species live around artificial reefs made by shipwrecks. For this reason, some authors (Rössler, 2006) have tried to link cultural and biological diversity for the better preservation of underwater cultural heritage. In fact, the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage is an instrument for the preservation of both, cultural and natural heritage. Aplin (2002) argues that distinction between natural and cultural heritage is blurred and Chapman (2003) reminds the close relationship between ecological and archaeological site management and suggests a liaison between archaeologists and other parties interested in natural environment. Lixinski (2008: 379) claims that the “nature and culture dichotomy” listed in the 1972 World Heritage Convention is simply artificial, as it is proved to be in the wording “the combined works of nature and man”. According to the author, the holistic approach to heritage seen as “significance” and not as a place or as an object blurs that dichotomy. Accordingly, it is necessary to adjust natural policies on the oceans to accommodate underwater cultural heritage. If shipwrecks are considered artificial reefs, the same preservation policies applied to natural reefs can be applied to the artificial ones (that is, underwater cultural heritage). �Endnotes 1 US embassy cables. The guardian. 10th August 2010 Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/220120 References Aplin, G. 2002. Heritage identification, conservation and management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ashworth, G. J. 2007. On townscapes, heritages and identities. In: Institute for Advanced Studies Colloquium on Urban-Rural (2007). Flows and Boundaries. Lancaster: Lancaster University. Aznar-Gómez, M.J. 2013. Treasure hunters. In: AIMA 13 Conference: Towards Ratification: Australia's Underwater Cultural Heritage. [Unpublished paper]. Canberra: 4 October 2013 Barnett, J., and Campbell, J. 2010. Climate change and small island states: Power, knowledge, and the South Pacific. Earthscan. Carman, J. 2013. Legislation in Archaeology: Overview and Introduction. In: C. Smith (2013) Encyclopaedia of Global Archaeology. New York: Springer: 4469-4485 Cassar, M. and Pender, R. 2005. The impact of climate change on cultural heritage: evidence and response. Published in the 14th Triennial Meeting The Hague Preprints. Vol. II. Chapman, H. P. 2003. Global warming: The implications for sustainable archaeological resource management. Conservation and management of archaeological sites, 5(4): 241-245. Daly, C. 2011. Climate change and the Conservation of Archaeological sites: a review of impacts theory conservation and management of archaeological sites. Dublin Institute of Technology, vol. 13, no 4: 293310. Dromgoole, S. 2013. Underwater cultural heritage and international law. Cambridge University Press. (Vol. 101). �Dunkley, M. 2013. Ocean Climate Change and Underwater Archaeology. [online]. English Heritage 12th September 2013. Available at: http://heritagecalling.com/2013/09/12/oceanic-climate-change-andunderwater-archaeology/. Florian, M-L.E. 1987. Deterioration of organic materials other than wood. In C. Pearson (1987). Conservation of marine archaeological objects. Butterworth and Co Publishers: 21-54. Green, J. 1990. Maritime Archaeology: A technical Handbook. San Diego: Academic Press. Howard, P. 2003. Heritage: management, interpretation, identity. London: Library of Congress Cataloguing-in Publication Data. IPCC 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change. Available at: https://www.ipccwg1.unibe.ch/. Kingsley, S. 2011. Challenges of Maritime Archaeology: in too deep. In: T.F. King (2011). A companion to cultural resource management. Wiley: Blackwell Publications: 223-244. Kyoto Protocol 1997. United Nations. Available at: http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php. Lixinski, L. 2008. World Heritage and the Heritage of the World: Book Review. By F.Francioni and F. Lenzerini. The 1972 World Heritage Convention: A Commentary, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008 European Journal of Legal Studies. Vol 2 (1) 2008: 371-386. McGrath, M. 2014. Climate change helps seas disturb Japanese war dead [online]. BBC News: Science and Environment. 7th June 2014. Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27742957. Marzeion, B. and Levermann, A. 2014. Loss of cultural world heritage and currently inhabited places to sea-level rise. Environmental Research Letters. 9 (2014) 034001: 1-7. Rahmstorf, S. and Richardson, K. 2009. Our threatened Oceans. The sustainability Project. London: Haus Publishing. �Rössler, M. 2006. World Heritage- Linking Cultural and Biological Diversity. In: B.T. Hoffman (2006). Art and Cultural Heritage: Law, Policy and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 201-205. Rubio, M. 2014. Peligro: el mar devuelve el barco fenicio. [online]. Laverdad.es: Murcia. 6th May 2014. Available at: http://www.laverdad.es/murcia/v/20140505/mazarron/peligro-devuelvebarco-fenicio-20140505.html. Sheridan, R. and Sheridan, J. 2013. International heritage instruments and climate change. Illinois: Common Ground Publishing LLC. Smith, L. 2006. Uses of Heritage. London and New York: Routledge. Smith, L. and Waterton, E. 2009. Heritage, Communities and Archaeology. Wiltshire: Duckworth Debates in Archaeology. UNESCO 1972. Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Paris, 16 November 1972. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/. UNESCO 2001. Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. Paris, 2 November 2001. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001260/126065e.pdf. UNESCO 2008. Policy Document on the Impacts of Climate Change on World Heritage Properties. UNESCO World Heritage Centre publications on climate change. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/CC-policydocument/ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1994. United Nations “Rio Conventions”. Available at: http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/items/6036.php. Van de Noort, R. 2013. Wetland Archaeology in the 21st Century: Adapting to Climate Change. In F. Menotti and A. O’Sullivan (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Wetland Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 719732. �Wachsmann, S. 2011. Deep-submergence Archaeology. In: A. Catsambis, B. Ford and D.L. Hamilton (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Maritime Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 202-221. Biography Elena Perez-Alvaro, doctor in Underwater Cultural Heritage, is a cultural heritage consultant for Licit Cultural Heritage Ltd. Her primary responsibility is to provide the clients with curatorial specialist advice, from management to legal or uses advice. Her publications consider ethical, legal and management aspects of cultural heritage, including the valuation and interpretation of cultural heritage, protection from climate change, the enhancement of intangible heritage, the relationship between natural and cultural heritage, cultural heritage of colonised countries or the cultural heritage of indigenous communities. She has also undertaken a wide variety of teaching posts, including at university level. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 2017 Session 7: Underwater Cultural Heritage Politics, Laws, Ethics and Values Description An account of the resource All cultural materials are potentially cultural resources. However, because not all of them can be preserved or studied, choices must be made based on evaluation and re-evaluation. Values are learned and depend on cultural, intellectual, historical, and psychological frames of reference. Consequently, valuation is made individually, but is shared by communities. Valuation of underwater cultural heritage has, then, a broad range of determining value depending on the community to which it belongs. A clear example of this is the protection of human remains. The 2001 UNESCO Convention includes, in its definition of underwater cultural heritage, human remains which have been underwater for more than 100 years. However, the Christian philosophy on the treatment of human remains is different to that of Asian philosophy that teaches that human remains will never become underwater cultural heritage since, if they are seen by someone in an underwater site, it is imperative to rescue the human remains and bury them on land according to their beliefs. This session aims to create a forum for policymakers, managers, and archaeologists devoted to underwater cultural heritage where they can share their experiences of and research on the valuation of underwater cultural heritage. We aim to accept papers that help us to understand the definition of ‘underwater cultural heritage’ in the Asia-Pacific regions, comparing those definitions with the definition of the 2001 UNESCO Convention and trying to find a common interpretation. We will also be looking to examine the meaning of the underwater cultural heritage sites and objects for different communities. Finally, we will be expecting papers exploring the different possibilities of the use and/or conservation of this underwater cultural heritage according to the values and needs of the different communities. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Elena Perez-Alvaro Licit Cultural Heritage Ltd., UK Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The ethics behind climate change: Small Island Developing States in the Pacific as new underwater cultural heritage Description An account of the resource Predictions forecast changes in climate that may affect underwater cultural heritage in the future. Warmer waters mean more chemical changes and the proliferation of teredo navalis. Ocean currents may cause disturbances to the layer of sediment protecting underwater cultural heritage sites. The rises in sea levels would reduce the amount of time an air-breathing diver can safely spend under water and hence their productivity. Rises would also mean expansion, which could raise the problem of ocean delimitation. Also our land tangible cultural heritage will be submerged: entire nations and their cultural heritage may disappear, an issue affecting mostly the Small Island Developing States -many of them in the Pacific-, more vulnerable to rises in sea levels. Their identity as citizens of their cities, as members of a community with their own tangible past, complete with their cultural heritage, will disappear. Their land heritage will become underwater cultural heritage but for more than 100 years will not be protected under the 2001 UNESCO Convention. This paper will look at climate change in these Asia-Pacific communities from the ethics as a core element and will study the introduction of these flooded areas as new underwater cultural heritage, proposing an AsiaPacific values-orientated qualification of underwater cultural heritage as a natural resource. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Elena Perez-Alvaro Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 11/24/2017 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Elena Perez-Alvaro Asia-Pac Session 7 2017