1 10 5 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/2b025dc658519af2369571e723593e36.pdf 1f5cc197d24e650c481acfd42e8b5f29 PDF Text Text The Role of ICOMOS, ICUCH and NAS in Underwater Cultural Heritage Protection in the Pacific Mark Staniforth Monash University Melbourne Australia Email: mark.staniforth@monash.edu Abstract This paper outlines the role played by ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites), which is an international non-governmental organization (NGO) dedicated to the conservation of the world's cultural monuments and sites and specifically in awareness raising and training related to underwater cultural heritage protection. ICOMOS membership requires an individual to be a practicing cultural heritage professional or have professional qualifications in the fields of conservation or preservation such as architect, archaeologist, town planner, and engineer, administrator of heritage, art historian or archivist. ICOMOS International Scientific Committees (ISCs) (such as ICUCH) are the vehicles through which ICOMOS brings together, develops and serves its worldwide membership according to their fields of specialized interest. ICOMOS expects the ISCs to be at the heart of scientific inquiry and exchange in their domains and to share knowledge among them to foster multidisciplinary approaches to heritage protection and management. ICUCH (International Committee on Underwater Cultural Heritage) was founded in 1991 by ICOMOS Australia to promote international cooperation in the protection and management of underwater cultural heritage and to advise ICOMOS on issues related to underwater cultural heritage around the world. ICUCH currently has ten members from the Asia and the Pacific region and this paper will discuss the role of ICUCH in the region. Furthermore ICUCH’s mission will only be achieved in conjunction with other stakeholders, such as the Nautical Archaeology Society (NAS). NAS training aims to increase public awareness at local, provincial and national levels about the extent and nature of underwater and maritime cultural heritage as well as about underwater and maritime archaeology. Key words: Training; Collaboration, Cooperation, Public awareness, Underwater cultural heritage protection Introduction The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) is a global, professional non-governmental organization (NGO) established in 1965 that is dedicated to the conservation and protection of the world’s cultural heritage monuments and sites (see http://icomos.org/en/). The Nautical Archaeology Society (NAS) is a global non-government organization (NGO) based in the UK that had its beginnings back in 1964 (see http://www.nauticalarchaeologysociety.org/). Non1 �government organisations, such as ICOMOS and NAS, are often dependent on membership fees for the majority of their funding and therefore tend to have limited funding available to conduct ‘activities’ on a ‘paid’ basis. They also often have a very small number of paid staff and therefore it is up to the membership, working collaboratively, and individual members, usually working with other partners, to volunteer their time (usually at no cost), find funding and conduct activities ‘under the auspices’ or ‘on behalf of’ a particular NGO. Clearly ICOMOS, NAS and other ‘membership-based’ NGOs depend on their membership to take a proactive role in initiating, and contributing to, collaborative activities often volunteering their services pro bono (at no cost). This paper considers ICOMOS and one ICOMOS ISC - ICUCH (International Committee on Underwater Cultural Heritage) together with NAS and the NAS Training Programme. It discusses a range of activities conducted by ICOMOS and NAS members, in relation to raising public awareness and conducting training about the management, preservation and protection of underwater cultural heritage in the Asia and the Pacific region. Unlike the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage had no fund to pay for activities included in the original convention although an account has now been established to allow for pooling donor donations to support certain projects and programmes (Jeffery, 2006; Parthesius and Jeffery, 2011: 281). This lack of funding as well as inadequate numbers of trained and experienced maritime archaeologists and underwater cultural heritage managers in many countries in the Asia and the Pacific region are recognized as significant problems. The 2001 UNESCO Convention, nevertheless, has two articles related to public awareness and training. The first is Article 20 - Public Awareness that states: Each State Party shall take all practicable measures to raise public awareness regarding the value and significance of underwater cultural heritage and the importance of protecting it under this Convention. and the second is Article 21 - Training in underwater archaeology, which states: States Parties shall cooperate in the provision of training in underwater archaeology, in techniques for the conservation of underwater cultural heritage and, on agreed terms, in the transfer of technology relating to underwater cultural heritage 2 �The need for raising public awareness about, as well as training and teaching (capacity building) in, maritime archaeology and underwater cultural heritage management in the Asia and the Pacific region have been identified as important issues for more than a decade including during at least three UNESCO supported regional meetings and in their resultant action plans or recommendations. The first arose from the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Regional Workshop on the 2001 UNESCO Convention held in Hong Kong in 2003 (Prott, 2006: 158-160). The second was from the 2010 International Meeting on Protection, Presentation and Valorisation of Underwater Cultural Heritage held in Chongquig in China (Shuguang, 2011: 433434). The third was the Asia-Pacific Meeting on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage held in Koh Kong, Cambodia in 2012. ICOMOS ICOMOS has more than 11,000 members, over 100 National Committees and nearly 30 International Scientific Committees. International Scientific Committees (ISCs) focus on specialist areas of heritage conservation and are made up of ICOMOS members drawn from those specialist areas. ICOMOS expects the ISCs to be at the heart of scientific inquiry and exchange in their domains and to share knowledge among them to foster multi-disciplinary approaches to heritage protection and management see http://www.icomos.org/en/about-icomos/committees/scientific- committees ICOMOS works for the conservation, protection, use and enhancement of cultural heritage monuments, sites and places including buildings, historic cities, cultural landscapes and archaeological sites. ICOMOS is dedicated to promoting the application of theory, methodology, and scientific techniques to the conservation of the world's architectural and archaeological heritage. Its work is based on the principles enshrined in a number of ICOMOS Charters including the 1964 International Charter on the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (the Venice Charter), the 1996 Charter on the Protection and Management of the Underwater Cultural Heritage and the 2000 International Charter for the Protection and Management of the Archaeological Heritage (see http://icomos.org/en/chartersand-texts). ICOMOS works closely with UNESCO, ICOM, ICCROM and other partners, across a wide range of areas in relation to cultural heritage protection, preservation, management and training. ICOMOS is primarily composed of its National 3 �Committees (NCs). Within the Asia and the Pacific region (as defined by UNESCO and comprising of 50 nations) there are more than 20National Committees at present plus ICOMOS Pasifika which covers all of the island nations of the Pacific Ocean. Many of these National Committees have websites and for a complete list of National Committees with contact details and website addresses see http://icomos.org/en/network/national-committees/list-of-national-committees. ICOMOS Pasifika was created in 2007 and aims to further the conservation and protection of heritage places in the Pacific Islands, with a focus on the cultural and natural specificities of the region. In particular, ICOMOS Pasifika aims to raise awareness with regards to the conservation of heritage places in the Pacific Islands amongst local, national and regional cultural organizations in the region (see https://www.facebook.com/pages/Icomos-Pasifika-International-Council-onMonuments-and-Sites/357945310963424). ICOMOS holds a General Assembly (Congress or Conference) every three years – the 18th ICOMOS General Assembly with the main theme of “Heritage and Landscape as Human Values” will take place in Florence, Italy from 10 to 14 November 2014 (see http://www.icomos.org/en/about-icomos/governance/general-information-about-thegeneral-assembly/18th-general-assembly-florence-2014). To date the only ICOMOS General Assembly to be held in the Asia and the Pacific region was the 15th General Assembly held in Xi’an, China in 2005 (see http://www.international.icomos.org/xian2005/home_eng.htm). ICOMOS membership requires that an individual be working as a practicing cultural heritage professional and/or to have formal qualifications in one of the fields related to cultural heritage conservation/preservation such as architects, archaeologists, historians, town planners, engineers, administrators of heritage, art historians, geographers, anthropologists or archivists. The author, for example, has been an ICOMOS member for more than two decades. Individuals, and institutions, can apply for membership through their National Committee and there are more than 100 ICOMOS National Committees. If there is no National Committee in a particular country, however, then membership requests can be made through the ICOMOS International Secretariat for approval by the ICOMOS Executive Committee (see http://www.icomos.org/en/get-involved/join-icomos). The author encourages all underwater cultural heritage professionals in the Asia and the Pacific region to join ICOMOS and to get involved in ICOMOS ISCs. 4 �ICOMOS provides a network of experts that benefit from the interdisciplinary exchange of its members and who are available to provide assessment and advice on cultural heritage matters. ICOMOS publishes reports and special editions on cultural heritage topics such as the Heritage at Risk – Special edition titled Underwater Cultural Heritage at Risk (2006) which can be downloaded from the ICOMOS website (see http://www.icomos.org/en/component/content/article?id=195). In addition ICOMOS supports open access, free and unrestricted, to scientific publications, through the project ICOMOS Open Archive: EPrints on Cultural Heritage (see http://openarchive.icomos.org/). Part of the ICOMOS mission is to help to raise public and government awareness about cultural heritage protection and cultural heritage issues. It also encourages ICOMOS members to volunteer and participate in capacity building and training activities. These parts of the ICOMOS mission provide the general basis for members of ICOMOS ISCs to undertake, and be involved in, awareness raising, training and capacity building activity, which is the main focus of this paper. ICUCH ICUCH (International Committee on Underwater Cultural Heritage) was established as an ICOMOS scientific committee in 1991 to promote international cooperation in the protection and management of underwater cultural heritage and to advise ICOMOS on issues related to underwater cultural heritage around the world (see http://icuch.icomos.org/the-icomos-international-committee-on-the-underwatercultural-heritage/). ICUCH has a global membership of professionals and focuses on international cooperation, legislative issues, and quality standards for interventions and training and closely cooperates with regional and international NGOs, including NAS, in raising public awareness. In the early 1990s ICUCH developed the ICOMOS Charter on the Protection and Management of the Underwater Cultural Heritage which was ratified by the 11th ICOMOS General Assembly in Sophia, Bulgaria in 1996 see: http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/underwater_e.pdfICUCH also assisted in the drafting of the UNESCO Convention for the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001) and continues to lobby for its ratification (see http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-heritage/2001convention/official-text/). The aims of ICUCH include to: stimulate international interest in the conservation of the world's underwater cultural heritage among government and private institutions, 5 �practitioners and the general public; establish standards for the training and qualification of practitioners involved with the conservation and management of underwater cultural heritage sites; and share experience and expertise in the conservation and management of underwater cultural heritage sites. For more than a decade ICUCH membership was restricted to one member from each country but this situation changed as a result of the Eger-Xi’an Principles for the International Scientific Committees of ICOMOS adopted by the 15th General Assembly of ICOMOS at Xi’an in October of 2005, as amended by the Scientific Council in July 2008 (Eger-Xi’an Principles, 2008) see: http://www.icomos- uk.org/committees/international-scientific/. Since 2009 ICUCH can, and does have, more than one member from a number of countries including Argentina, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Lebanon, South Africa and the USA. In addition, over the past five years, ICUCH has considerably expanded its membership from about 20 to 48 members. The Asia and the Pacific region (as defined by UNESCO) currently has 10 ICUCH members (one from each of Japan, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Thailand, India, Indonesia and China and three from Australia). It is clear that, just as ICOMOS need more members in the Pacific, ICUCH needs one, or more, members from the Pacific. ICUCH membership is not simply an issue for the Asia and the Pacific region, for comparison, the Europe and North America region has 19 members while the Africa region has just 5 members and the Arab States just 4 members. Fortunately in 2014 ICUCH will be considering an expansion of ICUCH membership as part of the flowon effects from the Eger-Xi’an Principles. The author has been a member of ICUCH since 2009 and for a full list of ICUCH members see: http://icuch.icomos.org/icuchmembers/ ICUCH’s Vision, Mission and Strategy for the period 2009-2012 were formulated at the Annual General Meeting of ICUCH in Québec in 2008 and include the following missions: ▪ To assist other stakeholders in the field of maritime archaeology to manage, protect, carry out sound study, and share knowledge on underwater cultural heritage. ▪ To raise public awareness of the existence of the world’s archaeological underwater cultural heritage. ▪ To promote the protection and management of underwater cultural heritage through facilitating development of national and regional cooperation, programmes, and legislation. 6 �▪ To encourage an inclusive approach in underwater cultural heritage. These particular missions were to be carried out using the following strategies: ▪ Promoting and actively assisting in capacity building in all the roles mentioned in the Annex of the 2001 UNESCO Convention. ▪ Promoting education in underwater cultural heritage at all levels. ▪ Being strongly involved in raising public awareness. These ICUCH missions and strategies, specifically those that encourage ICUCH members to undertake, and be involved in, awareness raising, training and capacity building in underwater cultural heritage protection and management, are the main focus of this paper. ICUCH, for example, is an official partner of UNESCO Underwater Cultural Heritage Partners in Asia and the Pacific see: http://www.unescobkk.org/culture/uch/partners/ As part of the Asia-Pacific Regional Capacity-Building Programme in Underwater Cultural Heritage several ICUCH members, including the author, were invited to contribute to three UNESCO Foundation Courses and two Advanced Courses on Underwater Cultural Heritage between 2009 and 2011 (Staniforth, 2010). These courses were primarily funded by the Government of Norway with support from the Government of Thailand but they have not been run since 2011 as a result of a lack of available funding. These courses were primarily held in Chanthaburi (Fig. 1) in Thailand see: http://www.unescobkk.org/culture/uch/capacity- building/courses/foundation/ One valuable product of this particular collaboration has been the development of the Training Manual for the UNESCO Foundation Course on the Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural heritage in Asia and the Pacific (UNESCO Bangkok, 2012). This training manual can be downloaded (for free) at: http://www.unescobkk.org/culture/uch/uch-publication/. Another publication that a number of ICUCH members contributed to is the Manual for Activities directed at Underwater Cultural Heritage published by UNESCO in 2013 (Maarleveld, Guerin and Egger, 2013) which is available to be downloaded (for free) at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-heritage/ In addition to involvement in awareness raising, training and capacity building individual ICUCH members have been involved in collaborative research and 7 �underwater cultural heritage management projects in the Asia and the Pacific region (Kimura et al., 2014; Lê et al., 2011; Manders, 2010). Fig. 1 First UNESCO Foundation Course on Underwater Cultural Heritage in Chathaburi, Thailand in 2009. (Mark Staniforth) NAS The Nautical Archaeology Society (NAS) was formed to promote interest in underwater cultural heritage and is dedicated to advancing education in nautical and maritime archaeology for everyone – its members, the general public and across the global archaeological sector. NAS membership is open to everyone regardless of qualifications and NAS publishes a quarterly member’s newsletter as well as a peer reviewed academic journal twice a year – the highly respected International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (IJNA). The NAS International Training Programme has been delivering courses in maritime archaeology and underwater cultural heritage for nearly 30 years see: http://www.nauticalarchaeologysociety.org/content/what-nastraining-programme The NAS Training Programme has a modular structure, starting with a one day Introduction course and working through the Part I, II and III Certificates and finally the Part IV Diploma. The NAS programme has a published handbook available, now in its second edition (Bowens, 2008) and is open to everybody with the Introduction course requiring no prior learning or qualifications. The NAS Training Programme is designed with courses in a wide range of topics and subject areas within nautical 8 �and maritime archaeology. The author has been involved with the NAS Training Programme since the mid 1990s when the Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology (AIMA) introduced NAS training into Australia (Moran and Staniforth, 1998). From 1997 AIMA tailored the NAS Training programme to suit Australian conditions and sites and the author served for five years as the first AIMA/NAS Senior Tutor in Australia. Over the last fifteen years or so, dozens of AIMA/NAS Training courses have taught hundreds of people in all states of Australia about underwater cultural heritage and maritime archaeology (see: http://www.aimaunderwater.org.au/parts-i-iv/). In addition AIMA/NAS Training has also been successfully incorporated into university level studies in maritime archaeology, for example, those conducted at Flinders University (Staniforth, 2008). In 2012 the Nautical Archaeology Society (NAS) gave permission for a pilot program of NAS training to be conducted in Vietnam (at no cost) on a “one-off” basis. NAS Training was conducted at the Institute of Archaeology building in Hanoi, over a three-day period during November/December of 2012. Early in 2013 NAS granted a free NAS International license to the Institute of Archaeology (IA) in Vietnam and the author was appointed as the NAS Senior Tutor for Vietnam for a five-year term. With support from the Nghe An province an NAS Introduction to Maritime Archaeology training course (1 day) was held in Vinh city on Thursday 16 October 2013. Thanks to the Hoi An People's Committee, which agreed to sponsor NAS training at Hoi An in November 2013, an NAS Introduction courses (1 day) took place on 7 November followed by an NAS Part 1 course (2 day) on 8 and 9 November 2013 (Fig. 2). The NAS Training programme in Vietnam has been designed to increase awareness at local, provincial and national levels about the extent and nature of Vietnam’s underwater and maritime cultural heritage as well as about underwater and maritime archaeology. With the assistance of partners, sponsors and contributors, NAS training has been provided free of charge to more than 100 Vietnamese students, government agency personnel, archaeologists and others in order to raise awareness about underwater cultural heritage and maritime archaeology in Vietnam. Hopefully, this should help Vietnam to preserve and protect its underwater cultural heritage see: http://www.themua.org/vietnam/nas.php 9 �Fig. 2 NAS practical training at the Nghe An Museum in Vinh City, Nghe An, Vietnam. (Mark Staniforth) University level teaching UNESCO has suggested that the minimum qualification for an archaeologist is: “A degree in archaeology or similar qualification recognized by the country in which the archaeologist is working” see: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-culturalheritage/underwater-heritage-tutorial/tutorial/ Throughput the world, tertiary qualifications at some level from undergraduate degrees through to Doctoral level degrees from a fully accredited university are usually seen as the basic qualifications required for professional underwater or maritime archaeologists and underwater cultural heritage managers (Staniforth, 2008a; 2008b; 2009; 2010). Unfortunately university level teaching in maritime archaeology is both limited and expensive in the Asia and the Pacific region, which means that only a limited number of maritime archaeologists and underwater cultural heritage managers have been able to benefit from this level of training. One of the few examples where university level training has been made available at no cost to participants, was organized partly using ICUCH networks, when the Maritime Archaeology Program (MAP) at Flinders University was awarded funding from Aus AID, the Australian federal government’s overseas aid organization, to bring 11 midcareer professionals involved in maritime archaeology from the Asia-Pacific region to Australia for a 6 week training program (Staniforth, 2011). Mid-career professional 10 �training like this goes some way to fulfilling social justice and equity aspirations to make university level teaching in maritime archaeology available to more people in the Asia and the Pacific region (Fig. 3). Fig. 3 Opening ceremony of the Flinders University Intensive Progam on Underwater Cultural Heritage in Adelaide, South Australia in 2009. (Jun Kimura) Language of Instruction There is no doubt that for training courses with participants who come from a number of different countries, such as the UNESCO Foundation courses, there is a need for a single common language. One result is that most previous training activities in the Asia and the Pacific region have been conducted in English. Nevertheless, in order to successfully conduct public awareness raising and training within an individual country, the content really has to be interpreted and translated into the national language. The language of instruction was seen as one of the key issues for NAS Training in Vietnam, for example, where it was clear that we needed to have the training both interpreted into spoken Vietnamese and translated into written Vietnamese. Fortunately the Institute of Archaeology (IA) has been able to provide interpretation services for NAS training and, in addition, the entire content of the NAS Introduction course (11 sessions) has now been translated into Vietnamese. One of the benefits of this approach has been to increasingly involve IA archaeologists in NAS training with the stated aim of allowing NAS training to be primarily taught by Vietnamese archaeologists within five years. In 2013 IA was also able to establish an Underwater 11 �Archaeology Department, headed by Dr. Le Thi Lien, which was, in a small part, as a result of the NAS training initiative and will aid NAS training over the next few years. Conclusion ICOMOS, ICUCH and NAS can and do provide networks, advice, support and training programmes but they are by no means the only ways of conducting these activities. It is hoped that some approaches outlined in this paper can be adopted and adapted by other countries, organizations and individuals in the Asia and the Pacific region as the basis for effective collaboration and co-operation in awareness raising, training and teaching of underwater archaeologists and underwater cultural heritage managers. Acknowledgements I would like to particularly thank my colleagues in ICUCH, NAS and at Flinders University for their contributions to, and support for, the networks, programmes, projects and field schools that this paper discusses. Also the enthusiasm and interest of the trainees and students has helped to make these activities productive as well as enjoyable to conduct. I hope that they enjoy their involvement with underwater cultural heritage as much as I have. References Bowens, A., (Ed.), 2008. Underwater Archaeology: The NAS Guide to Principles and Practice. Wiley-Blackwell and the Nautical Archaeology Society, Portsmouth. ICOMOS., 2008. Eger-Xi’an Principles for the International Scientific Committees of ICOMOS. ICOMOS, Paris. Jeffery, W., 2006. Federated States of Micronesia. In S. Dromgoole (Ed.), The Protection of the Underwater Cultural heritage: National Perspectives in light of the UNESCO Convention 2001. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden: 145-59. Kimura, J., Staniforth, M., Lien, L. T., and Sasaki, R., 2014. Naval Battlefield Archaeology of the Lost Kublai Khan Fleets. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, Vol. 43 (1): 76-87. Lê, Thị Liên., Nguyễn,Thị Mai Hương., Pham, C., Staniforth, M., Delgado, J. P., Kimura, J., and Sasaki, R., 2011. Understanding the Bach Dang battlefield from recent research results. In M. Staniforth, Jennifer Craig, Sheldon Clyde Jago-on, Bobby Orillaneda, Ligaya Lacsina (Eds.), Proceedings on the Asia-Pacific Regional 12 �Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage. Asian Academy for Heritage Management. Manila: 77-90. Maarleveld, T. J., Guerin, U., and Egger, B., (Eds.), 2013. Manual for Activities directed at Underwater Cultural Heritage: Guidelines to the Annex of the 2001 UNESCO Convention. UNESCO, Paris. Manders, M. J., 2010. Dutch involvement in Asian Underwater Cultural Heritage management: building upon old connections. Journal of Maritime Archaeology, Vol. 5 (2): 117-127. Manders, M. R., and Underwood, C. J., (Eds.), 2012. Training Manual for the UNESCO Foundation Course on the Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural heritage in Asia and the Pacific. UNESCO Bangkok, Bangkok. Moran, V., and Staniforth, M., 1998.The AIMA/NAS Part 1 Training Program. The Bulletin of the Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, Vol. 22: 137-138. Parthesius, R., and Jeffery, W. F., 2012. Building country-relevant programmes in the context of the implementation of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage. In S. J. van der Linde, M. H. van den Dries, N. Schlanger and C. G. Slappendel (Eds.), European Archaeology Abroad: global settings, comparative perspectives. Sidestone Press, Leiden: 267-286. Prott, L. V., 2006. Finishing the Interrupted Voyage: Papers of the UNESCO AsiaPacific Workshop on the 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. Institute of Art and Law, Leicester. Shuguang, L., (Ed.), 2011. 2010 International Meeting on Protection, Presentation and Valorisation of Underwater Cultural Heritage. Chongqing, China: Proceedings. Cultural Relics Press, Beijing: 433-4. Staniforth, M., 2008a. Strategies for teaching Maritime Archaeology in the 21st century. Journal of Maritime Archaeology, Vol. 3: 93-102. Staniforth, M., 2008b. Collaboration is the key: Developing field and work skills in collaboration with government, museum and commercial underwater cultural heritage organizations. In R. Radic Rossi, A. Gaspari and A. Pydyn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists (Zadar, Croatia, 18-23 September 2007. Session: Underwater Archaeology), Hrvatskoarheoloskodrustvo – Profil, Zagreb: 111-120. 13 �Staniforth, M., 2009. Work-Integrated Learning in Maritime Archaeology: An Australian Approach. The International Journal of Learning, Vol. 16 (8) Publisher Site: http://www.Learning-Journal.com Staniforth, M., 2010. Issues in Education in Maritime Archaeology. In R. Amoeda, S. Lira and C. Pinheiro (Eds.), Heritage 2010: Heritage and Sustainable Development. Greenlines Institute for Sustainable Development, Evora, Portugal: 315-322. Staniforth, M., 2011. The Flinders University Intensive Program in Underwater Cultural Heritage Management. In M. Staniforth, Jennifer Craig, Sheldon Clyde Jago-on, Bobby Orillaneda, Ligaya Lacsina (Eds.), Proceedings on the Asia-Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage. Asian Academy for Heritage Management, Manila: 613-623. Mark Staniforth is an Adjunct Senior Research Fellow in the School of Geography and Environmental Science at Monash University and an Adjunct Associate Professor at Flinders University in Australia. He has been an ICOMOS member for two decades and he is an expert member of two ICOMOS International Scientific Committees - ICOMOS - ICUCH (International Committee on the Underwater Cultural Heritage) and ICOMOS - ICAHM (International Committee on Archaeological Heritage Management). Mark is also the NAS Senior Tutor for Vietnam. Mark was the Convener of the Maritime Archaeology Program (MAP) in the Department of Archaeology at Flinders University for 14 years (1997-2010) where he taught topics in undergraduate and postgraduate maritime archaeology and underwater cultural heritage management. 14 � 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 Session 1: UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage and International Cooperation Description An account of the resource The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is a specialized agency of the UN. It has 195 Member States. The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage adopted in 2001 is the international community’s response to the destruction of submerged archaeological sites by treasure hunters and industrial activities. It reflects the growing recognition of the need to ensure the same protection to underwater 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 on underwater cultural heritage. The Convention and its Annex have been officially endorsed by most professional associations of underwater archaeologists. The 2001 Convention entered into force on 2 January 2009. Today it has been ratified by 44 States. The objectives of the UNESCO session are to: * Enhance understanding of the 2001 Convention in terms of its background, its benefits, its ethics and its potentials for contributing to sustainable development, * Identify a strategy for enhancing capacity in the protection and research of underwater cultural heritage, * Identify a way forward for increasing ratifications of the 2001 Convention by the countries in the region. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Etienne Clement 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 Role of ICOMOS, ICUCH and NAS in Underwater Cultural Heritage Protection in the Pacific Description An account of the resource This paper outlines the role played by ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites), which is an international non-governmental organization (NGO) dedicated to the conservation of the world's cultural monuments and sites and specifically in awareness raising and training related to underwater cultural heritage protection. ICOMOS membership requires an individual to be a practicing cultural heritage professional or have professional qualifications in the fields of conservation or preservation such as architect, archaeologist, town planner, and engineer, administrator of heritage, art historian or archivist. ICOMOS International Scientific Committees (ISCs) (such as ICUCH) are the vehicles through which ICOMOS brings together, develops and serves its worldwide membership according to their fields of specialized interest. ICOMOS expects the ISCs to be at the heart of scientific inquiry and exchange in their domains and to share knowledge among them to foster multi-disciplinary approaches to heritage protection and management. ICUCH (International Committee on Underwater Cultural Heritage) was founded in 1991 by ICOMOS Australia to promote international cooperation in the protection and management of underwater cultural heritage and to advise ICOMOS on issues related to underwater cultural heritage around the world. ICUCH currently has ten members from the Asia and the Pacific region and this paper will discuss the role of ICUCH in the region. Furthermore ICUCH’s mission will only be achieved in conjunction with other stakeholders, such as the Nautical Archaeology Society (NAS). NAS training aims to increase public awareness at local, provincial and national levels about the extent and nature of underwater and maritime cultural heritage as well as about underwater and maritime archaeology. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mark Staniforth, in Van Tilburg, H., Tripati, S., Walker Vadillo, V., Fahy, B., and Kimura, J. (eds.) Zotero Editor Van Tilburg, H. Tripati, S. Walker Vadillo, V. Fahy, B. Kimura, J. Asia-Pac Session 1 2014 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/01c79df7409295e1de52845419f7cf91.pdf 17990c60b95e39d99310cc2f00401ab5 PDF Text Text UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage and the Pacific Small Island Developing States (SIDS) Akatsuki Takahashi UNESCO Office for the Pacific States Apia Samoa Email: a.takahashi@unesco.org Abstract This paper will begin by introducing the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage adopted by UNESCO in 2001 in terms of background, guiding principles, international cooperation mechanisms, Annex, as well as benefits and implications of ratification by countries. It will provide progress in its implementation at the global level. It will then provide progress in the Pacific Small Islands Developing States (SIDS), addressing their particular challenges and opportunities. The paper will suggest a possible inter-Convention cooperation for the UCH protection and management in the Pacific by analyzing the recent progress in the World Heritage Convention and the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention in Pacific SIDS. The paper will conclude by summarizing the significance of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (henceforth UCH) protection and the UCH Convention not only in terms of its contribution to the advancement of knowledge of the history of humanity but also from the perspectives of the environmental protection, sustainable development and ocean governance. Key words: UNESCO, 2001 UCH Convention, Pacific, World Heritage Sites, International Cooperation Introduction UNESCO is one of the specialized agencies of the UN. UNESCO’s mission is to promote peace and the well-being of peoples in the world through international cooperation in education, science, culture and communication. Normative action is one of the core functions of UNESCO. Over the years, UNESCO adopted numerous international instruments. Among them, there are seven important Conventions in culture. These Conventions are: The Universal Copyright Convention (1952, 1971), The Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflicts 1 �(1954) and its two Protocols (1954 and 1999), The Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property Illicit (1970), The Convention for the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972), The Convention for the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001), The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003), The Convention for the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (2005). The ultimate goal of UNESCO’s normative action is to safeguard the cultural heritage and cultural diversity as the heritage of humanity. As the Preamble of the 1954 Hague Convention states that “damage to cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind, since each people makes its contribution to the culture of the world”, UNESCO played a pioneering role in promoting the concept of the heritage of mankind that is also the important principle of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). All together, these Conventions provide a comprehensive coverage of the culture sector. International NGOs such as the International Council of Museums (ICOM) and the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) have been playing important roles in their elaboration and implementation. The ambassador of Malta to the UN, Arvid Pardo, in his speech to the UN General Assembly in 1967, raised the question of the sea bed and the ocean floor, which launched a process that led to the third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea during which UNCLOS was adopted in 1982. UNCLOS sets forth the rights and obligations of states regarding the use of the oceans, their resources, and the protection of the marine and coastal environment, while seeking to establish a balance between “Freedom of the Ocean” and “Management of the Ocean”. It also provides a definition of maritime zones. Part XI of UNCLOS established the International Seabed Authorities (ISA) to allow States Parties to organize, control and administer activities and resources in ocean areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, commonly referred to as “the Area”, through the common heritage of mankind principle. It entered into force in 1994 and is supplemented by the 1994 Deep Seabed Mining Agreement and the 1995 Agreement regarding Fish Stocks. UNCLOS obliges States Parties to protect UCH under the term “archaeological and historical objects”. UNCLOS includes two provisions concerning 2 �UCH; i) Article 149 that stipulates the UCH protection in the Area and ii) Article 303 that sets out a general obligation for States to protect their UCH. These articles, however, were felt by cultural experts to be unsatisfactory and incomplete without providing details of the measures to be taken especially in the space beyond the Contiguous Zone, the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the Continental Shelf. Moreover, Article 303 paragraph 3 leaves room for the commercial destruction of UCH and creates a legal vacuum concerning the protection of UCH. With this as background, the UNESCO Convention for the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (herein after the UCH Convention) was prepared and adopted with the main goals to complement the provisions in UNCLOS for strengthening UCH protection. Acknowledging that “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” in its Preamble, the UCH Convention provides the working definition of UCH as “all traces of human existence having a cultural, historical or archaeological character, which have been partially or totally under water, periodically or continuously, for at least 100 years”. Generally speaking, UCH, undisturbed in situ, is better preserved as compared to land-based cultural heritage. This is the reason why UCH is often called as a time capsule holding invaluable information for historians, archaeologists and scientists to reconstruct past cultures. The UCH Convention protects UCH from being commercially exploited for trade or speculation. The UCH Convention provides the linkages to the 1970 Convention on the actions related to illicit trafficking in cultural objects recovered from the sea. In order to resolve the conflict between ownership claims, salvage claims and cultural heritage interest, Article 4 of the UCH Convention states that “Any activity relating to UCH to which this Convention applies shall not be subject to the law of salvage or law of finds1, unless it; (a) is authorized by the competent authorities, and (b) is in full conformity with this Convention, and (c) ensures that any recovery of the UCH achieves its maximum protection”. The UCH Convention establishes a protection regime for UCH by maritime zones determined by UNCLOS. States parties have the exclusive right to regulate activities in their internal and archipelagic waters and their territorial sea. Within their Contiguous 3 �Zone, States Parties may regulate and authorize activities directed at UCH within their Contiguous Zone. The UCH Convention recognizes the right of the coastal states to prohibit or permit activities directed to UCH in their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the Continental Shelf. Where there is a discovery of UCH or activities directed at UCH in these areas, Article 10 gives priority to the coastal states to act as a “Coordinating State” to coordinate consultations with all other States Parties which have declared an interest. Within the Area, a “Coordinating State” will be designated by the DirectorGeneral of UNESCO after inviting all the countries that declared an interest. The Director-General shall also invite International Seabeds Authorities (ISA) to consultations. In this way, the UCH Convention provides a comprehensive coverage of UCH regardless of its locations, greatly extending the legal protection of UCH. It must be noted that the UCH Convention does not regulate the ownership of UCH. Being aware of the responsibility entrusted to the coastal states especially in the developing world, the UCH Convention emphasizes the importance of UCH training and capacity building, technology transfer and information sharing, as well as awareness raising of the significance of UCH. The UCH Convention provides in its Annex the important principle of the preference for the preservation in situ as well as practical rules for the UCH treatment and research based on internationally recognized best practice and the ICOMOS Charter for the Protection and Management of UCH in 1996. Joining the UCH Conventions, countries can ; i) achieve UCH protection at the same level as land-based cultural heritage, ii) protect UCH from looting and commercial exploitation, iii) ensure comprehensive protection of UCH regardless of their locations through state cooperation system. On the other hand, by joining the UCH Convention, States Parties shall pledge to protect UCH against lootings and commercial exploitations and apply the provisions of the UCH Convention and the Rules in its Annex. There is no financial implication involved in joining the UCH Convention. The UCH Convention entered into force in January 2009. UNESCO provides a forum for the adoption of a common approach of all States Parties towards UCH protection through the Meetings of States Parties and its Scientific Advisory Body (SAB). SAB is composed of twelve expert members nominated by States Parties. They have a 4 �scientific, professional and ethical background in the field of underwater archaeology, international law, materials science or UCH conservation. SAB assists States Parties in the implementation of the Convention and its Annex and the elaboration of the Operational Guidelines, while consulting with International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) through its International Committee for the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage (ICPUCH) and other accredited NGOs in its deliberations. UCH in Oceania The Pacific region covers about one-third of total surface area of the Earth, and comprises over one thousand islands and atolls. Reflecting on the long history of human settlements and interactions with other regions, the Pacific Ocean contains a wealth of UCH that spans human history from the Stone Age to the Atomic Age (UNESCO, 2010). For instance, the Oceania region was populated by the Austranesians, or Lapita people, and traces of their culture remain both above and under water. The Pacific islanders developed fishing infrastructures such as fish traps and fish ponds, unique indigenous UCH. Among the vessels built by the Pacific islanders, the Fijian Duras were double-hull sailing canoes of a length of up to 30 m. In the 17th and 18th century, the Pacific region was explored and “discovered” by navigators such as Magellan, Torres, Tasman, D’Urville, Drake, Cook and La Perouse. The Spanish dominated early Pacific colonizations and there are many shipwrecks related to the Spanish Manila galleon trade. Shipwrecks on the labor trade in the 19th century such as the Fijian sugar and Peruvian guano industries were found in the Pacific, while whalers, missionaries and traders have also left behind a legacy of underwater sites. More recently, the Pacific was among the major theatres of the Second World War. The Pacific holds numerous submerged ships, submarines and aircraft, some of them are war graves still containing human remains that must be approached with respect. The Pacific region has taken a progressive approach to applying the principles and the guidelines in the UCH Convention to the region’s UCH. The First Regional Workshop on the Pacific UCH took place in 2009 in Honiara, Solomon Islands. The Workshop brought together representatives of the cultural authorities in the Pacific SIDS in order to share information on the current status of UCH protection and management in each country. 5 �The Workshop participants identified priority areas for cooperation that included developing systematic recording and maintenance of a database of submerged and underwater sites, exploring licensing activities directed at underwater sites, and developing a training and education program for UCH archaeologists and managers. The papers presented at the Workshop were compiled, edited and published as UNESCO publication "Underwater Cultural Heritage in Oceania" in 2010. As a follow up, a feasibility study on the Pacific capacity building programme was prepared by Flinders University with UNESCO assistance. This study found the advantages of partnering with regional intergovernmental bodies such as the University of the South Pacific (USP) for this task. Palau was the first Pacific island state that organized the UCH Training Course in Koror in 2013 with UNESCO assistance. Progress in UCH protection in the Pacific is being made within the framework of not only the UCH Program but also the World Heritage Program and the Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) program. The World Heritage Convention ratified by 190 countries reflects the global recognition of the intrinsic value of our heritage. As of today, 12 out of 14 Pacific member states are parties to the World Heritage Convention 2, which has allowed Pacific countries to formulate a regional action plan and take a coordinated approach. ICOMOS Pacifika and Pacific Island Museum Association (henceforth PIMA) have been formed to provide Pacific perspective for the program implementation. Although the Pacific still remains the least represented region on the World Heritage List, over ten sites in the Pacific Small Island Developing States (henceforth SIDS) and territories are inscribed on the World Heritage List. Already enjoying the high visibility and increase in visitors and revenue from tourism, these World Heritage sites, some of which contain UCH elements, can be ideal places for the actual maritime survey and field work. With regard to the ICH program, the Pacific SIDS out of which 8 countries are now parties to the ICH Convention3 have been developing related cultural policies. The safeguarding of the traditional ship building technologies and navigation systems as part of the Pacific ICH are intimately related to the understanding of UCH. followings are some of the examples. 6 The �Yapese Stone Money Bank (Palau and the Yap State, Federated States of Micronesia) Before and during European contact, Yapese people travelled across the 400 km of open water to the Rock Islands in Palau where they quarried their stone disk money. They were transported back to the Yap Island by canoe. Some of them arrived safely in Yap, while, according to the oral histories transmitted among local communities, the biggest stone disk fell onto the seabed during its transport and remains on the ocean floor between Yap and Palau. Palau and FSM nominated “Yapese Stone Disk” as a trans-border site for inscription on the World Heritage List in 2011. This joint nomination, although deferred, has contributed to revitalizing the collaboration between the two countries, resulting in the establishment of a joint management committee for the heritage sites. On the other hand, “the Rock Islands and Southern Lagoon” that includes some archaeological elements became the first World Heritage Site in Palau in 2012. The government of Palau puts in place an added departure tax to finance local community efforts under the Protected Areas Network in the country. This has been attracting attention as a potential model for a sustainable financing mechanism for protected areas in other Pacific SIDS (UNESCO, 2012). Levuka Historical Port Town (Fiji) Fiji shipwrecks, ranging from sailing ships to steamships, are mainly located around the Lomaiviti Island Group, where Levuka is located. Levuka is the first colonial capital of Fiji ceded to the British in 1874. “Levuka Historical Port Town” became the first World Heritage site in Fiji in June 2013. Levuka developed from the early 19th century as a center of commercial activity by Americans and Europeans who built a colonial port town was influenced in its development by the indigenous community. The buffer zone of Levuka World Heritage site includes offshore waters under which the important UCH are submerged according to the Levuka Maritime Archaeological Survey conducted by the Australian National Maritime Museum in 1998. Bikini Atoll Nuclear Test Site (Marshall Islands) From 1946 to 1958, after the displacement of the local inhabitants, 67 nuclear tests were carried out in the Marshall archipelago by USA, including the explosion of the first H-bomb (1952). Bikini Atoll has conserved direct tangible evidence that is highly 7 �significant in conveying the power of the nuclear tests, including a unique collection of shipwrecks at the bottom of the lagoon. These vessels sunk in 1946 by two separate nuclear detonations were a group of warships from the US Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy that were assembled for Operation Crossroads. Dr J. Delgado, Institute of Nautical Archaeology, USA, states “The sunken test ships, as well as associated aircraft, test vehicles, and test equipment, cables, test bunkers, and the atomic craters (the gigantic Bravo crater) on the sea floor inside the lagoon are a museum of the beginnings of the atomic age, and as such, have been inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List in 2010” (UNESCO, 2010). The property is protected by the Historic and Cultural Preservation Act (1991). The main threats to the property are the effects of climate change and the presence of stocks of bombs and fuel in the underwater part of the property. Empowering Pacific SIDS for UCH protection Under UNCLOS, Pacific SIDS have sovereign rights over the management of the natural resources, marine scientific research, the protection and preservation of the marine environment in their territorial waters and EEZ that is almost 100 times larger than their total island area. From this perspective, Pacific SIDS are not small but large maritime states and communities. These resources include not only mineral resources, fishery stocks, biological diversity, but also cultural, historical and archaeological resources such as UCH. Unfortunately the current level of attentions and considerations given to UCH in the Pacific is not adequate. This makes Pacific UCH particularly vulnerable to the risks, including commercial fishing, construction of offshore and onshore maritime infrastructure, environmental changes and the rise in marine tourism that may make an adverse impact on UCH protection. Special attention needs to be given to a growing interest in a Deep Sea Mining (henceforth DSM) in the Pacific. Several SIDS have private sector interests actively engaged in their EEZ and in the Area over which ISA has responsibility for approving programs of work. There are 13 programs of work approved for exploration for polymetallic manganese nodules in the Area in the Pacific, including 3 programs of work in “Reserve Areas” for developing countries to sponsor programs of work with private entities. New applications for contracts for exploration for Cobalt-Rich Crusts were 8 �approved by ISA in 2013. The impacts of DSM activities on the marine environment are unknown. Like the land-based mining projects, DSM projects must be carried out after the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) including archaeological and UCH components has been completed. Several projects have been launched notably by the Council of Regional Organisations in the Pacific (CROP) in order to assist Pacific SIDS in safeguarding its resources against commercial interests by establishing appropriate measures. With regard to legal protection, EU-funded Deep Sea Minerals (DSM) project implemented by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (henceforth SPC) (2012) through the Applied Geoscience and Technology Division (henceforth SOPAC) advises Pacific SIDS to improve legal frameworks, increase technical capacity and to develop effective monitoring systems. As for UCH, the guidelines advise them to include wording along the following lines: i) Any object of an archaeological or historical nature found by any Title Holder or person conducting Marine Scientific Research within the jurisdiction or control of the [country] shall be reported to the [regulating body] and treated in accordance with its instructions, and shall be safeguarded pending receipt of those instructions and ii) The instructions given by the [regulating body] shall take into account Article 149 and/or 303 of UNCLOS. UNESCO has been in touch with SOPACSPC in order to strengthen the above guidelines and provide technical assistance for countries from the perspective of UCH protection. UNESCO has extended its assistance to a range of activities to enhance SIDS capacities in UCH protection. Besides, as part of its advocacy activity, UNESCO will organize a workshop on UCH and SIDS before the UN 3rd International Conference on Small Island Developing States (Samoa, 1 - 4 September 2014). Following the Conferences held in Barbados (1994) and Mauritius (2005), the 3rd SIDS Conference in Samoa will be held to renew the international community’s commitment to the sustainable future of SIDS and forge a genuine and durable partnership for this endeavor. UNESCO workshop on UCH and SIDS will bring together eminent experts in UCH from SIDS States Parties to the UCH Convention in the Caribbean region and international experts with the aims of enhancing the awareness of the importance of the UCH Convention. It is hoped that this workshop will provide an opportunity for mutual 9 �learning and networking among SIDS, let alone the increased ratification of the UCH Convention by SIDS. Conclusion The Ocean Declaration adopted at the Pacific World Heritage Workshop in Maupiti, French Polynesia, in 2009, emphasizes the cultural link amongst the peoples of the Pacific that extends beyond the artificial boundaries of the current geopolitical system and reinforces the ocean as being intrinsic to the identity, ways of life, values, knowledge and practices of Pacific peoples (UNESCO, 2012). The recent positive progress in the heritage safeguarding in the Pacific as shown in the increased number of the Pacific States Parties to the World Heritage Convention and ICH Convention represents an opportunity for inter-Convention cooperation in UCH protection and management in the Pacific. At the same time, much more efforts are needed to promote the UCH Convention in the Pacific, since to this day among forty-five States Parties there has been no signatory to he UCH Convention from the Pacific4. This situation makes the Pacific region particularly under-represented in the activities related to the UCH Convention. Ratification of the UCH Convention by the Pacific countries would increase the representation of the region as well as bolster the Convention’s universality. It must be noted that, guided by the principles embodied in the UCH Convention as well as its State Cooperation System, the UCH Convention will empower Pacific SIDS by promoting the sharing of duties and obligations among the coastal states and the broader international community. The UCH Convention will also assist them in strengthening its ocean governance by establishing necessary legal frameworks and building capacities. The diversity of UCH linking Pacific SIDS with other countries within and outside the region will also foster cultural exchange, cooperation, mutual understanding and peace. The significance of the UCH Convention and the importance of the participation of Pacific SIDS in its implementation must be understood from this perspective. Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the advice and support from Mr. Etienne Clement, Director of the UNESCO Office for the Pacific States, and Dr. Ulrike Guerin, Secretary for the UCH Convention at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris. 10 �Endnote 1The law of salvage is a concept in maritime law which states that a person who saves another person’s ship or cargo from peril or loss at sea is entitled to a reward commensurate with the value of the property so saved. The law of salvage never grants ownership, but grants compensation or the right to retain the objects by way of a maritime link, as long as the salvage award has not been paid. The law of finds has been applied to sunken and abondaned vessels and the finder is granted ownership of the objects. 2Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Marshall islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Vanuatu. 3Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Nauru, Palau, PNG, Samoa, Tonga, Vanuatu. 4Albania; Antigua & Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Bulgaria, Cambodia, Croatia, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, France, Gabon, Grenada, Haiti, Honduras, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Lithuania, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria, Panama, Palestine, Paraguay, Portugal, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Trinidad and Tobago,Tunisia, Ukraine. References UNESCO., 2010. Underwater Cultural Heritage in Oceania, UNESCO, Paris. UNESCO., 2012. World Heritage Papers 34, World Heritage in a Sea of Islands, Pacific 2009 Programme, UNESCO, Paris. SPC, 2012. Annual Report of SPC-EU EDF 10 Deep Sea Minerals (DSM) Project, SPC, Suva. Biography Akatsuki Takahashi (高橋 暁), BA in international relations (Tsuda College, Tokyo), Diploma in education (International Christian University, Tokyo), PhD in cultural heritage risk management (Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto) has been the Programme Specialist for Culture at the UNESCO Office for the Pacific States in Apia, Samoa, since January 2010. Previously, she was at the Executive Office of the Culture Sector at UNESCO in Paris (2001-2009), UNESCO Office in Venice (1998-2001) and at the Culture Sector of UNESCO in Paris (1989-1998). Before joining UNESCO in 1989, she worked at the Asia/Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU) (1986-1989) in Tokyo. 11 � 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 Session 1: UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage and International Cooperation Description An account of the resource The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is a specialized agency of the UN. It has 195 Member States. The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage adopted in 2001 is the international community’s response to the destruction of submerged archaeological sites by treasure hunters and industrial activities. It reflects the growing recognition of the need to ensure the same protection to underwater 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 on underwater cultural heritage. The Convention and its Annex have been officially endorsed by most professional associations of underwater archaeologists. The 2001 Convention entered into force on 2 January 2009. Today it has been ratified by 44 States. The objectives of the UNESCO session are to: * Enhance understanding of the 2001 Convention in terms of its background, its benefits, its ethics and its potentials for contributing to sustainable development, * Identify a strategy for enhancing capacity in the protection and research of underwater cultural heritage, * Identify a way forward for increasing ratifications of the 2001 Convention by the countries in the region. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Etienne Clement 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 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage and the Pacific Small Island Developing States (SIDS) Description An account of the resource This paper will begin by introducing the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage adopted by UNESCO in 2001 in terms of background, guiding principles, international cooperation mechanisms, Annex, as well as benefits and implications of ratification by countries. It will provide progress in its implementation at the global level. It will then provide progress in the Pacific Small Islands Developing States (SIDS), addressing their particular challenges and opportunities. The paper will suggest a possible inter-Convention cooperation for the UCH protection and management in the Pacific by analyzing the recent progress in the World Heritage Convention and the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention in Pacific SIDS. The paper will conclude by summarizing the significance of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (henceforth UCH) protection and the UCH Convention not only in terms of its contribution to the advancement of knowledge of the history of humanity but also from the perspectives of the environmental protection, sustainable development and ocean governance. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Akatsuki Takahashi, in Van Tilburg, H., Tripati, S., Walker Vadillo, V., Fahy, B., and Kimura, J. (eds.) Asia-Pac Session 1 2014 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/34b414ba51dcc2fe4f0f2a29849ddeeb.pdf 6375b0a513e7a93fb6b439a9b197a13f PDF Text Text Feasibility study on capacity building in Underwater Cultural Heritage in the Pacific Jennifer F. McKinnon East Carolina University Program in Maritime Studies Greenville, 27858 USA Email: mckinnonje@ecu.edu Abstract The first UNESCO regional workshop on Pacific underwater cultural heritage (UCH) took place in December 2009 in Honiara, Solomon Islands. As possible steps towards building capacity for managing UCH, participants at the workshop identified the following needs: systematic recording and maintenance of a database of submerged and underwater sites; exploring licensing activities directed at underwater sites; and developing a training and education programme for managers. Based on the recommendations made at the Honiara workshop, a Feasibility Study on a Pacific Underwater Cultural Heritage Capacity Building Program was prepared by Flinders University with UNESCO support. The study recommends a possible capacity building programme to be hosted by the University of the South Pacific (USP) in Fiji. Key words: UNESCO, Capacity Building, UCH, Training Programme, Pacific Introduction Experts from Pacific Island nations and underwater cultural heritage (UCH) practitioners identified the need for UCH capacity building during the December 2009 workshop “Towards the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage in the Pacific” held in Honiara, Solomon Islands and sponsored by the UNESCO, Apia. During this meeting it was identified that, although there are limited resources available, most Pacific nations recognize the need to develop a program of UCH management and have staff trained in recording, managing and protecting this heritage. As possible steps towards building capacity for managing UCH, participants at the meeting specifically identified the following needs: systematic recording and maintenance of a database of submerged and underwater sites; exploring licensing activities directed at underwater sites; strengthening assessment and mitigation techniques for negative impacts to underwater sites; and developing a training and education program for managers. These views were expressed in light of increasing threats 1 �posed by lack of legislation, tourism, development, natural disasters and climate change. The UNESCO Apia Office contracted Flinders University’s Program in Maritime Archaeology to conduct and write a feasibility study for developing capacity in UCH management in the Pacific (McKinnon and Kimura, 2011). The Program has a history of participation in UNESCO sponsored programs and an ongoing research agenda on UCH within the Pacific region and was suited to conduct such a project. Selected Existing and Planned Capacity: Programs, Projects and Activities The development of a capacity building program rests on knowledge of what capacity already exists and any future planned capacity. Thus a review of existing programs, projects and activities including UNESCO Pacific member, associate member and non-member nations located in the Pacific was conducted. This included the following nations: Australia, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (non-member), Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Guam (non-member), Hawaii, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau (Associate member), Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. A review of the existing programs included thorough Internet searches, library searches and targeted emails to relevant practitioners to identify activities related to UCH. Each program, project and activity was then reviewed and information was collected to assess their capacity. Data collated included: institution name, geographic area, previous and current research/work/projects related to UCH, available facilities, contact information, associated websites and publications/texts/references. This information was compiled into a database and each nation was assessed for their potential to contribute to or host a capacity building program. For the purposes of identifying capacity building potential, the definition of “capacity” in the feasibility study involved two key criteria: framework and sustainability. In order for a project, program or activity to be viable and capable of supporting long-term capacity it should provide a general framework that may include, but not be limited to expertise, administration and funding. As well, that project, program or activity must be sustainable over time, that is, not a one-off effort. Thus the existing and planned capacity projects, programs and activities outlined in the feasibility study fulfilled both these criteria. The following nations were outlined for their potential to contribute capacity building programs for UCH in the Pacific: Australia, Commonwealth of the 2 �Northern Mariana Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Guam, Hawaii, New Zealand and Palau. The programs, projects and activities of these nations were investigated further and subdivided into the following categories: government organisations, university programs, non-government (NGOs) and not-for-profit (NFPs) organisations, museums and private organisations and businesses. The best location for hosting a UCH capacity building program was identified as Fiji, discussed further below. A new Pacific Underwater Cultural Heritage Capacity Building Program During the December 2009 workshop in Honiara, participants discussed the possibilities for building capacity in the Pacific region and decided that it was too early to attempt establishing a Regional Centre of Excellence Field Training Facility as had been done in the Asia region at Chanthaburi, Thailand. Thus, the capacity building program in the Pacific would need to take an approach suited to the Pacific. As a result, the capacity building program focused less on the need for certification in SCUBA and diver training and more on knowledge building and knowledge transfer. Most practitioners and agencies would agree that knowledge is at the core of sustainable capacity development. By increasing knowledge, the capacity building program would develop a framework for training future practitioners to have actual UCH working capacity. The UNESCO Apia Office outlined the following requirements for a capacity building program (UNESCO, 2010a):  combine classroom/online lectures with field training for diving at UCH sites, including those in Pacific island countries  use ICT as a tool for knowledge sharing and networking  be based on public-private partnership, involving tourism diving industry, in order to ensure sustainable funding These three requirements were incorporated into the design of a program that met the needs identified by Pacific nations during the workshop (UNESCO, 2010b) including:  systematic recording and maintenance of a database of submerged and underwater sites  exploring licensing activities directed at underwater sites 3 � strengthening assessment and mitigation techniques for negative impacts to underwater sites  developing a training and education program for managers as possible steps towards building a capacity for managing UCH Training Based on the above needs identified by Pacific nations, a capacity building program would include an intensive, regional training in one of the Pacific nations involving relevant representatives from each nations’ management authorities and experts in the field of UCH and heritage management. The training would focus on basic knowledge and capacity building. It could be offered during one long training session (i.e. three-four weeks) or divided into two, three, or four sessions over an extended period. The following was a proposed outline for the training separated into sessions, modules and subject matter: Session 1: Underwater Cultural Heritage: Identification, Recording and Database Management Module 1: Defining UCH using a Pacific approach: Introduction to UNESCO and ICOMOS; What is intangible and tangible heritage? Regional priorities in Pacific UCH management Module 2: Requirements for systematic recording of UCH: site identification, recording and delimitation: What types of sites are UCH? Cultural maritime landscape and seascape approaches; Recording techniques for UCH; Defining site boundaries Module 3: Understanding site significance: The Burra Charter process; What is significance? Writing a significance statement; Thematic frameworks and approaches Module 4: Building and maintaining a database of UCH: What is a heritage database? What is included in a database? What software to use? Maintenance of databases; Successful uses of databases Module 5: Practice in recording sites: Conduct an actual archaeological survey of a UCH site 4 �Session 2: Underwater Cultural Heritage: Management Module 1: Identifying risks to intangible and tangible heritage: What are the risks to Pacific UCH? Preventative approaches; Case studies Module 2: In situ conservation and preservation: What is in situ conservation and preservation? Developing and conducting conservation surveys; Developing a conservation management plan Module 3: Disaster risk management and developing a plan: What are natural disasters? Vulnerability of various types of UCH; Planning for disasters; Writing a disaster risk management plan Module 4: Assessment and mitigation of impacts to UCH: Damage assessment investigation and surveys; Violation investigations; Damage assessment report preparation; Case studies Module 5: Developing a network of support: local and regional capacity: Strengthening inter- and intra-island communication and collaboration; Identifying regulatory agencies for partnerships; Trainings for law enforcement on UCH protection; Public outreach programs; Developing local heritage interest groups Session 3: Underwater Cultural Heritage: Interpretation and Heritage Tourism Module 1: Methods in public interpretation: in situ and museum approaches: What is public interpretation and what forms does it take? In situ interpretation and museums; Traditional approaches to museum interpretation Module 2: Respecting Indigenous UCH places and values: What is an Indigenous heritage place? Identifying traditional owners’ rights and interests; Consulting with traditional owners; Dealing with disputes Module 3: Restricting access to UCH by the public: licensing, permitting and regulation: Legal implications of restricting access; Licensing and permitting schemes using case studies; Regulation of access restriction; Dealing with breaches of access restriction Module 4: Heritage tourism strategies: What is heritage tourism? Regional issues and how can it be sustainable; Working with and training local tour companies and dive shops; Developing a plan for monitoring heavily visited sites; Developing site stewards programs; Heritage Awareness Diving Seminar Trainings Module 5: Successful heritage tourism approaches: UCH parks, trails and preserves; Case studies 5 �Location The preferred location chosen was Fiji. Fiji is an accessible island nation and is serviced by three international airlines including Air New Zealand (Star Alliance member), Air Pacific (Fiji’s national airline) and Pacific Blue (Virgin) as well as several smaller regional airlines. This makes getting to and from Fiji easy for both Pacific nation representatives and experts. Fiji was chosen as the location because the government and the Fiji Museum have previous experience with hosting UNESCO capacity building training programs (Smith and O’Keefe, 2004). The previous capacity building training was run with the permission and support of the Ministry of Fijian Affairs; the Department of Culture and Heritage; the Fiji National Commission for UNESCO; and the National Trust for Fiji. Fiji also was chosen due to the location of the University of South Pacific and the possibility of a partnership between the University’s School of Marine Sciences (SMS) and the Fiji Museum. This would increase capacity for the use of infrastructure such as classrooms, wet and dry labs, boats and ICT tools. According to USP, “SMS is situated in a modern, state-of-the-art facility on the shore of Laucala Bay in Suva, not far from the main Laucala Campus. Its buildings were purpose-built through a grant from Japan, and include offices, science and computer laboratories, lecture theatres, aquaria, a comprehensive library (PIMRIS), a modern fish processing laboratory, collection, SCUBA and boat service facilities”. SMS has a fully equipped and self-contained dive shop with lockers, showers and change-rooms and equipment hire is available. Additionally, there is continual availability of small and medium boats with capacities of 6-20 persons. All are equipped with navigational and safety equipment and operated by trained personnel. Once the training is completed there exists the opportunity to continue taking advantage of USP resources through their online ICT services. USP has campuses located in Suva, Labasa and Lautoka, Fiji; Apia, Samoa; Port Vila, Vanuatu; Rarotonga, Cook Islands; Tarawa, Kiribati; Majuro, Marshall Islands; Nauru; Alofi, Niue; Honiara, Solomon Islands; Tokelau; Nuku'alofa, Tonga; and Funafuti, Tuvalu. The town of Levuka on the island of Ovalau, Fiji, was chosen as the dive training site because Levuka offers a diverse array of prehistoric, colonial and post-colonial heritage in the form of built and archaeological heritage and more specifically shipwrecks. Three historic shipwrecks in Levuka Harbour have already been 6 �archaeologically surveyed (Hosty and Hundley, 1998). These sites are easily accessible and lie in 5m, 12m and 20m of water. Shallow sites such as these with good visibility are excellent sites to use for training purposes. Alternatively, for those participants with no SCUBA qualification, there are inter-tidal and terrestrial “maritime-related” sites that could be chosen for the practical component. Delivery The delivery mode of the training modules was designed to be face-to-face and involves experts in the field of UCH and heritage management in the Pacific delivering module lectures, practical and discussions. This approach was preferred due to the difficulty of content and the need to demonstrate during practical sessions and discussions. It is understood that for this capacity building exercise to be sustainable and to build a stronger network of practitioners who interact on a regular basis, several follow-up developments should be put in place. The first development would be the production of a CD for distribution to participants that includes all of the readings, training modules, PowerPoint slideshows, lectures and other materials developed for the program. This CD could be used by participants to review materials and develop programs based on some of the examples and case studies presented. Another development would be two Webinars whereby the participants and experts participate in an online web-based seminar to discuss any issues that developed out of the program, relate any advances made in the recording and management of UCH sites, and ask questions of the experts about specific queries or directions for future work. The Webinars could be conducted through an online program such as GoToMeeting™ (http://www.gotomeeting.com.au/fec/). Another development would be the creation of a listserv for practicing professionals and experts in the field of UCH in the Pacific. Such a listserv would provide a useful communication vector for discussing ideas, issues and developments in UCH in the Pacific. Finally, another option would be the creation of a blog through WordPress.org on the topic of UCH in the Pacific. A blog would facilitate discussion and interaction in a slightly more creative and interactive way. The blog could be a place to post photographs, stories, developments, questions, etc. The development of the blog could begin with a short training session during the program so that all participants are able to utilise the software. Access could be restricted to only those who 7 �participated in the program. Restricting access would allow potentially sensitive information from being distributed widely. Steering Committee The steering committee was designed to include a range of practicing professionals and experts in the field of UCH and cultural heritage management. It would consist of individuals from a variety of institutions and countries with a focus in research and management within the Pacific region. Timeframe The development of such a capacity building program would take 9-12 months of planning so that the maximum amount of participation can be achieved. Below was an estimated timeframe: Planning (9-12 months) Develop steering committee Send out invitations to training Develop curriculum Organise logistics such as airfare, lodging, transportation, boats, diving needs, training classrooms, site survey areas, etc. Training (1 month) Run training over one month period or split into two or three sessions of a week or two each Follow up Developments (6 months) Organise and run Webinar at 3 months and 6 months after training Organise and run Listserv Organise and run blog Create CD of course materials Total timeframe (16-19 months) Table 1. Timeframe for developing a capacity building program Budget An estimated budget for the costs of running a capacity building program was created. It included costs related to travel, accommodation and equipment for up to 25 participants. The 25 participants would include between three to five trainers and the remainder would be trainees. The budget did not include the costs of organising the training or curriculum development, nor did it include the follow-up organisation of Webinars, a list serve or blog. It is expected that some of the training content and curriculum development might exist in some capacity within organisations identified 8 �in the list of capacity building programs reviewed in the study. For example, Flinders University offers courses and curriculum in the subject of maritime archaeology and has run similar trainings in the past (i.e. ALA Fellowships). If partnerships or arrangements were made with such organisations, these training components and curriculum could be made accessible. However, it was recommended that a specific curriculum that is catered to the Pacific region that deals with Pacific issues be developed for this program. This would require financial support that could be negotiated through a one-off contract with an organisation already equipped with the capacity to develop such a program (i.e. existing framework, specialists, administration support, etc.). This program curriculum could then be used in the future in other locations or successive years. An estimated budget for the development of the curriculum and the delivery of curriculum (for one person/organisation) was provided separate from the main budget for operating the program. The budget assumed the trainers would participate as volunteers and present content relevant to their own experiences/projects/programs and did not include preparation time or salaries. Conclusion In concluding it is pertinent to re-state that the Pacific region has its own unique set of challenges and issues that are quite different to adjacent regions. Thus it is important when designing a UCH capacity building program that other “models” for capacity building, training, and management are not applied wholesale to this region. A careful approach that considers the challenges and difficulties the Pacific is facing should be taken, and a program that is suited to deal with these challenges and resolve them into the future should be outlined for a successful program of capacity building. As Anita Smith has stated in Contested Heritages in the Pacific, “Communities and governments in the region are keen to engage with international conservation programs not only because they are interested in protecting their heritage and resources but also as they provide a source of income, training and avenue for communication with the global community. The challenge is for processes of heritage protection and national legislation to govern and enforce this protection to be based in and evolve from traditional systems of governance and cultural practices rather than imposed from the outside”. 9 �Acknowledgements The author would like to acknowledge and thank Jun Kimura and Ross Anderson who provided input on the original UNESCO feasibility study. References Hosty, K., and Hundley, P., 1998. Maritime Archaeological Investigation off the Port of Levuka, Island of Ovalau, Fiji. Australian National Maritime Museum, Sydney: 151. McKinnon, J. F., and Kimura, J., 2011. Feasibility Study on a Pacific Underwater Cultural Heritage Capacity Building Program. Flinders University, Maritime Archaeology Program, Adelaide, South Australia: 1-32. Smith, A., and O’Keefe, D., 2004. Training Workshops in Cultural Heritage Management in the Pacific Island Nations: Interim Report, Workshop 1. Report prepared for UNESCO Division of Cultural Heritage, Paris: 1-63. UNESCO., 2010a. Financing Activities Contract between UNESCO and Flinders University. On file at UNESCO, Apia Office: 1-2. UNESCO., 2010b. Report on Workshop: Towards the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage in the Pacific, Honiara, Solomon Islands, 16-18 December 2009. On file at UNESCO, Apia Office: 1-53. Jennifer McKinnon is an Assistant Professor at East Carolina University in the Program in Maritime Studies. Prior to teaching at ECU, she was a Senior Lecturer at Flinders University, South Australia for seven years. Jennifer is a Research Associate of the non-profit organization Ships of Exploration and Discovery Research, Corpus Christi. She has conducted a number of archaeological research projects on terrestrial and UCH sites in the Pacific. Jennifer’s research focuses on public and community engagement and collaborations with coastal and heritage agencies. 10 � 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 Session 1: UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage and International Cooperation Description An account of the resource The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is a specialized agency of the UN. It has 195 Member States. The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage adopted in 2001 is the international community’s response to the destruction of submerged archaeological sites by treasure hunters and industrial activities. It reflects the growing recognition of the need to ensure the same protection to underwater 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 on underwater cultural heritage. The Convention and its Annex have been officially endorsed by most professional associations of underwater archaeologists. The 2001 Convention entered into force on 2 January 2009. Today it has been ratified by 44 States. The objectives of the UNESCO session are to: * Enhance understanding of the 2001 Convention in terms of its background, its benefits, its ethics and its potentials for contributing to sustainable development, * Identify a strategy for enhancing capacity in the protection and research of underwater cultural heritage, * Identify a way forward for increasing ratifications of the 2001 Convention by the countries in the region. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Etienne Clement 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 Feasibility study on capacity building in Underwater Cultural Heritage in the Pacific Description An account of the resource The first UNESCO regional workshop on Pacific underwater cultural heritage (UCH) took place in December 2009 in Honiara, Solomon Islands. As possible steps towards building capacity for managing UCH, participants at the workshop identified the following needs: systematic recording and maintenance of a database of submerged and underwater sites; exploring licensing activities directed at underwater sites; and developing a training and education programme for managers. Based on the recommendations made at the Honiara workshop, a Feasibility Study on a Pacific Underwater Cultural Heritage Capacity Building Program was prepared by Flinders University with UNESCO support. The study recommends a possible capacity building programme to be hosted by the University of the South Pacific (USP) in Fiji. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Jennifer F. McKinnon, in Van Tilburg, H., Tripati, S., Walker Vadillo, V., Fahy, B., and Kimura, J. (eds.) Asia-Pac Session 1 2014 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/26ac59ff7503fcb9c6bd4d7ee84d336d.pdf 2653f9513523ff5df8dbfbe9e1d6b632 PDF Text Text Human remains on underwater cultural heritage: Ethics, values and law Elena Perez-Alvaro Ironbridge International Institute for Cultural Heritage College of Arts and Law University of Birmingham UK Email: exp140@bham.ac.uk Abstract All of the factors and complexities of the issues regarding the management of underwater cultural heritage reveal the narrow dependence between its management and the historical, sociological, cultural and traditional particularities of every country. Catastrophes creating shipwrecks frequently also cause deaths, ranging from single fatalities to disasters claiming hundreds of lives. However there is not a specific legislation dealing with the treatment of the human remains on shipwrecks. Nevertheless, the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage includes in its definition the term human remains, which means that the same guidelines for the protection of the underwater cultural heritage preservation in situ for the public benefit - are also applicable to human remains. In this regards, this paper will justify that declaring shipwrecks as funerary monuments or underwater cemeteries in most cases attracts tourism, apart from the own meaning of these sacred places, and also complies with the 2001 UNESCO Convention principles. In addition, the possibility of the treatment of human remains as intangible heritage can lead to a new whole vision for its protection and management. Underwater cultural heritage can be not only monuments to the great journey or heroic combat, but also a tool to shape the collective memory. Underwater cultural heritage can act as a trigger for a set of emotions and memory narrative. Key words: Human remains, UCH, Submerged cemeteries, Watery graves, 2001 UNESCO Convention Introduction The management and protection of human remains as part of the underwater cultural heritage is a complex ethical issue – as it is in land archaeology - entangled with technical considerations for being underwater. And although human remains can be found at sites that are several hundred years old (Dromgoole, 2013), its preservation depends on different factors and environmental conditions. Different issues arise from the issue, which requires a lot of unpacking before offering possibilities. The establishment of the respect for the deceased or the development and education for the future faces complicated moral questions. One of the 1 �justifications of archaeologist and museum managers for the recovery and/or exhibition of human remains is the appeal to science and education, which raises other ethical issues. In addition, the definition of respectful treatment is different in different cultures. Problems with those who believe on live after death are also a complicated aspect on the management of human remains. The international community must establish clear rules about how to protect shipwrecks containing human remains. Different attitudes to underwater cultural heritage The current tendencies on the protection of underwater cultural heritage show differences in the protection between countries determined by aspects of culture, such as tradition, mentality or habit. States may also manage and protect their underwater cultural heritage to shape public memory through the memorial forms, sites, references and public rituals (Nora, 1996). As a result, the different countries develop their protection policies according to their system of collective values, which work as guides to decide what deserves to be preserved and how it has to be managed. As part of this heritage, shipwrecks can also represent different meanings for different people in different cultures, so their actions to enable preservation show a real complexity because of these differences. The complexity of the issue has led to similar complexities on the procedures to preserve. Since most of the Earth is covered with water, burial at sea has long been the accepted norm for mariners all over the world. Most of those burials are accidental as a consequence of a casualty. Says Delgado (2011): Despite years of shipwreck exploration as a maritime archaeologist and a decade as director of a maritime museum, Titanic was never high on my list of lost ships to visit. I'd never considered it an archaeological site, but rather an underwater museum and memorial. However, some authors are opposed to the treatment of shipwrecks as cemeteries (Bryant, 2001). This school of thought support its theories by three main assertions: It is argued that neither history nor the law treats shipwrecks, historic or otherwise, as protected underwater cemeteries, stating that the historic, social, scientific, and monetary value of historic shipwrecks dictates that they should not be treated as underwater cemeteries protected from salvage or recovery. This fact is well documented: neither history nor the law treats shipwrecks as protected underwater cemeteries. However, if as we will claim, human remains are underwater cultural heritage, they are protected and managed by the 2001 UNESCO Convention 2 �(Convention hereinafter), meaning that they have to be preserved in situ. According to the Convention, the use of these shipwrecks as underwater cemetery will make the history for future generations. It is also suggested (Bryant, 2001) that since underwater shipwrecks are unnatural and do not belong on the bottom of the sea -they belong at their home ports and intended destinations - neither do human remains belong on the bottom of the seas there. As a consequence, recovery is acceptable where circumstances permit: the reason being that while cemeteries are the intended resting places for the dead, shipwrecks are not, and because shipwrecks have other diverse values, they should not glibly be labelled as cemeteries and kept off-limits to salvors and others. Historic shipwrecks containing human remains deserve respect, although not so far as to treat them as underwater cemeteries that cannot be salvaged, Bryant concludes (2001). In this regard, it is open to debate that, while cemeteries are the intended resting place for the dead, shipwrecks are not. Throughout history, cemeteries have changed their context according to the circumstances: from churches - which are not meant to be cemeteries - to main squares in the village when there are mass deaths. Therefore, fatalities and deaths on board - of the now shipwrecks - has converted them into submerged cemeteries. Finally and more importantly, it seems that declaring shipwrecks as underwater cemeteries is generally the result of a need to enhance the cultural identity of a nation, region or group, something not well accepted in some circles, since it is highly selective in terms of what is portrayed as worthy of being remembered. In this sense, the topic of heritage as a tool to shape the collective memory has been well studied (Nora, 1996; Viejo-Rose, 2011). It seems true that heritage can become an evocative national symbol, acting as a trigger for a set of emotions and memory narrative. During a period of deciding what to preserve, efforts are made to shape public memory through memorial forms, sites, references and public rituals (ViejoRose, 2011). As a consequence, the heritage can be manipulated by the rulers to remember history in a different way. In the case of the shipwrecks, it is the idea of those who died for us, for their country. Legal approach The Convention defines underwater cultural heritage as: all traces of human existence having a cultural, historical or archaeological character which have been partially or totally under water, periodically or continuously, for at 3 �least 100 years such as: (i) sites, structures, buildings, artefacts and human remains, together with their archaeological and natural context; (ii) vessels, aircraft, other vehicles or any part thereof, their cargo or other contents, together with their archaeological and natural context; and (iii) objects of prehistoric character. This definition appears to represent that human remains are underwater cultural heritage, regardless of whether they are contained on a shipwreck or just lying at the bottom of the sea. In other words, human remains under water for at least 100 years are objects according to the Convention. As a consequence, every article and every rule of the Convention is applicable to human remains. Any direct citation to human remains in the rest of the text is redundant and expresses differences with the rest of the cultural heritage discriminating against - or emphasizing - human remains with respect to sites, structures, buildings, artefacts, vessels or other vehicles lying at the bottom of the sea. The term is used in two more articles. Human remains are also explicitly named in Article 2.9: States Parties shall ensure that proper respect is given to all human remains located in maritime waters. This article suggests a respect in any case or activity when dealing with human remains. The last mention of human remains is found in the Annex, Rule 5, where it is specified that activities directed at underwater cultural heritage shall avoid the unnecessary disturbance of human remains or venerated sites. This last reference deals with human remains contained within the other underwater cultural heritage, for instance a shipwreck. However, none of these articles directly states the best conditions to manage human remains, for instance in cases where the shipwreck is going to be excavated and/or raised. The Convention does not describe whether the bodies should be recovered with the ship and reburied, or should remain at the bottom of the sea. It is also not stated if the human remains should repatriated to their country of origin if the shipwreck is, for instance, salvaged by a private company. The Convention mainstays are: 1. Preservation of underwater cultural heritage for the benefit of humanity; 2. In situ preservation of underwater cultural heritage; 3. Prohibition of commercial exploitation of the underwater cultural heritage; 4. International cooperation in the preservation of underwater cultural heritage. 4 �In this regard, if we finally agree that human remains are in fact underwater cultural heritage, the same terms are applied. As a consequence, human remains have to be preserved for the benefit of humanity, they cannot be commercially exploited and an international cooperation must occur in order to preserve them. The Convention also establishes what to do with the underwater cultural heritage – and therefore with human remains - once it has been discovered (Article 18. 4): A State Party which has seized underwater cultural heritage shall ensure that its disposition be for the public benefit, taking into account the need for conservation and research [...] the need for public access, exhibition and education [...] in respect of the underwater cultural heritage concerned. Leaving aside the economic definition of public benefit, it is worth to remember that families may need a place to pray, to honour the victims of the shipwrecks. This demand is part of the public benefit. Article 18.4 is complemented in the Annex of the Convention consisting on Rules concerning activities directed at underwater cultural heritage: Rule 1. The protection of underwater cultural heritage through in situ preservation shall be considered as the first option […]. Rule 4. Activities directed at underwater cultural heritage must use non-destructive techniques and survey methods in preference to recovery of objects. If excavation or recovery is necessary for the purpose of scientific studies or for the ultimate protection of the underwater cultural heritage, the methods and techniques used must be as non-destructive as possible and contribute to the preservation of the remains. As a consequence, none of the instruments dealing with the protection of underwater cultural heritage deal specifically with human remains and how to manage them, but since human remains are underwater cultural heritage, the same rules are applicable; the most important direction is the preservation in situ for the benefit of the public. However, since the two articles refer to human remains in specific terms, the Convention sows doubts about its specific distinction and consequently, about the specific treatment. Other instruments, like the Vermillion Accord on Human Remains (1989) that remarks respectful treatment and consideration of indigenous communities and the Tamaki Makau-rau Accord on the Display of Human Remains and Sacred Objects (2005) that establishes ethics on the display of human remains are not specific to human remains on shipwrecks, although they can be combined. 5 �Watery graves The community is relaying its history, its past and in some way its future in the hands of archaeologists. How those elements are going to be managed and manipulated will build the history of an individual, a community or a nation Archaeologists have also to respond to an ethic of cultural dignity, which may include obtaining permission from the descendants of the human remains. The biologically and culturally related groups must have a substantial role in the decisions and the treatment of their ascendants. In this sense, there has been an apparent growth of the notion of shipwrecks as graveyards and memorials, some with traditional notions of burial at sea, and requiring recognition and respect beyond the protection of the archaeological remains (human and otherwise) contained within. Among the reasons of such interest, it is necessary to consider both the controversial aspect of this option and the effectiveness showed in some countries. In the first of these two aspects, the controversial one, a group of elements are combined: from the purely technical to those of ethical or human nature. In this sense, the recovery of human remains (sometimes with a high number of civil or military victims) is a source of controversy on the way that both the bodies and the shipwrecks containing them should be managed. With these controversies, there are conflicts without a clear solution, where some opinions are opposed to the treatment of human remains while other ones are related to the need of the historians and public opinion to understand the facts, and through these gain knowledge of history. Bryant (2001) remarks that it is widely acknowledged that gaining knowledge about the past requires examining ruins of earlier cultures, including human skeletal remains. On the other side to those technical matters, the ethical background includes some other facts of a particular complexity which determines the actions of the management and the protection of certain countries. Wight (2009) observes that the issue of remembering tragedy and oppression in heritage sites is at the centre of an academic debate surrounding “truth” or “authentic” narratives. Truth, he continues, depends on a number of ethical codes codified through cultural background, and religious or secular beliefs. Among these matters, the cultural ones dominate the picture: The consideration of death, where there are usually superstitious perceptions, and a general attitude to the “respect to the dead” and their remains. 6 �- The religious considerations with transcendental character, and its impetus in life after death. - The consideration of memories as an instrument to continue life after death. - The consideration of the past as an example (positive or negative) for the present and for the future, associated with the collective memory of the human being. One particular way of this consideration is the one who use the memories as a tool for the benefit of the social cohesion, to create or strength a national, regional, local… identity, as explained before. The concepts of monument and hero acquire, in those contexts, an emotive capacity which can strengthen the goals and the actions for the protection of the heritage (Nora, 1996). Shipwrecks as cemeteries It is necessary for the international community to leave an open option to preserve shipwrecks with human remains as watery graves. That option will depend both on the collective interest to remember the tragedy, and the weight of the attitude to consider the shipwrecks as a sanctuary for the dead people. Anyway, the diversity of countries of origin and the nationalities of the victims on some shipwrecks reduces the consideration of an emotional answer to an attack or national identity, although there is still an attitude of collective awareness of the realities of our times. War graves have a different consideration (Williams, 2005). They have a particular legal status which establishes a degree of protection from disturbance: it is a mixture of salvage principles and legislation relating to military remains. The difficulty comes when those human remains are something that some want to forget, rather than remember. Watery graves as memorials Part of our identity is based in our cultural property identity. This is the feeling of a group of people, or of an individual which are influenced by their culture. As Renfrew and Bahn (2008: 546) remembered, ethnicity today is a living force, and heritage is an important tool in the definition of national identity. Declaring a shipwreck as a cemetery can be considered as part of this enhancement of the national identity. Memorials are highly selective in terms of what they portray as worthy of being remembered. 7 �Watery graves attracting black tourism Management of shipwrecks as watery graves can lead to dark tourism, attracting tourists to a place with special meaning to the friends and relatives of the people who lost their lives in the disaster. Tragedies can be then exploited, not only to convey political messages, but also for commercial gain (Sharpley, 2009). Dark tourism is defined as a different type of tourist attraction. It is the act of travel and visitation to sites of death, disaster and the seemingly macabre (Stone, 2009). It has to be analyzed if declaring shipwrecks as watery graves will attract this kind of tourism. Conclusion All the factors and the complexities of the issues on the management of the underwater cultural heritage reveal the narrow dependence between its management and the historical, sociological, cultural and traditional particularities of every country. The 2001 UNESCO Convention includes the term human remains within its definition of underwater cultural heritage. As a consequence, the same principles applicable to the underwater cultural heritage – no commercial exploitation, preservation in situ, preservation for the benefit of the mankind and international cooperation- are also valid for human remains. Preservation in situ of human remains means the treatment of shipwrecks as underwater cemeteries. The recovery of those remains would contravene the Convention. On the other hand, benefits from the study of human remains would come to an end if some of those human remains are not recovered and/or studied. The complexity arises from the choice of those remains that will be disturbed. Declaring shipwrecks as funerary monuments or underwater cemeteries can be attractive not only because of the controversy, but also for the effectiveness of preservation. Delgado confirmed (2004: 56) that “the best and largest museum of all lies in the bottom of the sea”. It can also be the largest cemetery of the world. Acknowledgements The present work benefited from the input of J. Carman, C. Forrest, M. AznarGomez, and M. Manders, who provided valuable comments to the writing of the research summarised here. 8 �References Bryant, C. R., 2001. The archaeological duty of care: the legal, professional, and cultural struggle over salvaging historic shipwrecks. Albany Law Review, Fall 2001: 97-145. Delgado, J., 2004. Adventures of a Sea Hunter: In Search of Famous Shipwrecks. Douglas and McIntyre, Vancouver. Delgado, J., 2011. Diving on the Titanic. Archaeology, Vol. 54 (1) (January/February): 34-41. Dromgoole, S., 2013. Underwater cultural heritage and international law. Cambridge University Press, New York. Nora, P., 1996. Realms of Memory. (English Translation: L. Kritzman), Columbia University Press, New York. Renfrew, C., and Bahn, P., 2008. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice. Thames & Hudson, London. Sharpley, R., 2009. Dark Tourism and Political Ideology: Towards a Governance Model. In R. Sharpley and P. R. Stone (Eds.), The darker side of travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark Tourism, Channel View Publications, Bristol: 145-163. Stone, P. R., 2009. Dark Tourism: Morality and New Moral Spaces. In R. Sharpley and P. R. Stone (Eds.), The darker side of travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark Tourism, Channel View Publications, Bristol: 56-72. Tamaki Makau-rau Accord on the Display of Human Remains and Sacred Objects, 2005. From http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org/site/about_ethi.php. Vermillion Accord on Human Remains, from http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org/site/about_ethi.php. Viejo-Rose, D., 2011. Reconstructing Spain: cultural heritage and memory after civil war. Sussex Academic Press, Sussex. Wight, C., 2009. Contested National Tragedies: An Ethical Dimension. In R. Sharpley and P. R. Stone (Eds.), The darker side of travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark Tourism, Channel View Publications, Bristol: 129-144. UNESCO., 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural- heritage/2001-convention/official-text/ Williams, M., 2005. “War graves” and Salvage: Murky Waters? International Maritime Law, June/July 2000, Vol. 7 (5): 151-158. 9 �Biography Elena Perez-Alvaro is a PhD candidate in Underwater Cultural Heritage at University of Birmingham, UK. She holds an undergraduate degree in History of Art and MSc in Heritage and Museum Studies at University of Portsmouth and LLM in Maritime Law at University of London. She has studied a Masters Research Degree at University of Cambridge, being the title of her dissertation ‘Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage in Spain’. Her work on ‘Unconsidered Threats to Underwater Cultural Heritage: Laying Submarine Cables or Experiments on Particle Physics using underwater cultural heritage: the dilemma’ has been published in Rosetta Journal. 10 � 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 Session 1: UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage and International Cooperation Description An account of the resource The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is a specialized agency of the UN. It has 195 Member States. The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage adopted in 2001 is the international community’s response to the destruction of submerged archaeological sites by treasure hunters and industrial activities. It reflects the growing recognition of the need to ensure the same protection to underwater 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 on underwater cultural heritage. The Convention and its Annex have been officially endorsed by most professional associations of underwater archaeologists. The 2001 Convention entered into force on 2 January 2009. Today it has been ratified by 44 States. The objectives of the UNESCO session are to: * Enhance understanding of the 2001 Convention in terms of its background, its benefits, its ethics and its potentials for contributing to sustainable development, * Identify a strategy for enhancing capacity in the protection and research of underwater cultural heritage, * Identify a way forward for increasing ratifications of the 2001 Convention by the countries in the region. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Etienne Clement 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 Human remains on underwater cultural heritage: Ethics, values and law Description An account of the resource All of the factors and complexities of the issues regarding the management of underwater cultural heritage reveal the narrow dependence between its management and the historical, sociological, cultural and traditional particularities of every country. Catastrophes creating shipwrecks frequently also cause deaths, ranging from single fatalities to disasters claiming hundreds of lives. However there is not a specific legislation dealing with the treatment of the human remains on shipwrecks. Nevertheless, the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage includes in its definition the term human remains, which means that the same guidelines for the protection of the underwater cultural heritage preservation in situ for the public benefit are also applicable to human remains. In this regards, this paper will justify that declaring shipwrecks as funerary monuments or underwater cemeteries in most cases attracts tourism, apart from the own meaning of these sacred places, and also complies with the 2001 UNESCO Convention principles. In addition, the possibility of the treatment of human remains as intangible heritage can lead to a new whole vision for its protection and management. Underwater cultural heritage can be not only monuments to the great journey or heroic combat, but also a tool to shape the collective memory. Underwater cultural heritage can act as a trigger for a set of emotions and memory narrative. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Elena Perez-Alvaro, in Van Tilburg, H., Tripati, S., Walker Vadillo, V., Fahy, B., and Kimura, J. (eds.) Asia-Pac Session 1 2014 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/c7defd7427a3e7b5fd8d0df9a290cafa.mp4 047c7d466cbd0c91ef647b34b55a2924 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 Session 1: UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage and International Cooperation Description An account of the resource The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is a specialized agency of the UN. It has 195 Member States. The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage adopted in 2001 is the international community’s response to the destruction of submerged archaeological sites by treasure hunters and industrial activities. It reflects the growing recognition of the need to ensure the same protection to underwater 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 on underwater cultural heritage. The Convention and its Annex have been officially endorsed by most professional associations of underwater archaeologists. The 2001 Convention entered into force on 2 January 2009. Today it has been ratified by 44 States. The objectives of the UNESCO session are to: * Enhance understanding of the 2001 Convention in terms of its background, its benefits, its ethics and its potentials for contributing to sustainable development, * Identify a strategy for enhancing capacity in the protection and research of underwater cultural heritage, * Identify a way forward for increasing ratifications of the 2001 Convention by the countries in the region. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Etienne Clement Moving Image A series of visual representations that, when shown in succession, impart an impression of motion. 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 Video interview with Session 1 chair Etienne Clément. Description An account of the resource The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is a specialized agency of the UN. It has 195 Member States. The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage adopted in 2001 is the international community’s response to the destruction of submerged archaeological sites by treasure hunters and industrial activities. It reflects the growing recognition of the need to ensure the same protection to underwater 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 on underwater cultural heritage. The Convention and its Annex have been officially endorsed by most professional associations of underwater archaeologists. The 2001 Convention entered into force on 2 January 2009. Today it has been ratified by 44 States. The objectives of the UNESCO session are to: * Enhance understanding of the 2001 Convention in terms of its background, its benefits, its ethics and its potentials for contributing to sustainable development, * Identify a strategy for enhancing capacity in the protection and research of underwater cultural heritage, * Identify a way forward for increasing ratifications of the 2001 Convention by the countries in the region. To view the papers presented in this session please use the Asia-Pac Session 1 2014 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mr. Etienne Clément Asia-Pac Session 1 2014