This one-day symposium, sponsored by the National Maritime Museum and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) (UK), was designed as an opportunity for interested parties in the UK to gather together to examine the UNESCO Draft Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. This draft had been discussed at a meeting of government experts in Paris on 29 June-2 July 1998, which revealed that there was a consensus of opinion that a convention to provide protection for the underwater cultural heritage in international waters was urgently needed in light of the rapid advances in technology taking place, which were making accessible even the deepest parts of the seabed.

The invited participants at the Greenwich Symposium included representatives of: archaeological, diving and salvage interests; the Department for Culture, Media and Sport; the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; the Ministry of Defence; the heritage executive agencies and the Royal Commissions on Historic Monuments; and international organisations including the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and, of course, UNESCO. A number of academics with an interest in the field were also present. Key issues raised by the draft Convention were debated in four sessions. Each session was introduced by a short paper, with an expert panel taking up some of the issues, followed by discussion from the floor. The expert panel was chaired by Professor Alastair Couper of the Department of Maritime Studies at the University of Wales, Cardiff, and included Dr. Lyndel Prott of UNESCO.

The first session was introduced with a paper by Alan Aberg of ICOMOS (UK), which outlined the background to the Convention, its purpose and scope. It explained the relationship between the Convention and the ICOMOS Charter on the Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage 1996, which will be annexed to the Convention, and pointed out that the Convention is primarily designed to provide mechanisms whereby activities affecting the underwater cultural heritage in international waters can be made subject to the archaeological standards set out in the Charter. It explained that the ‘underwater cultural heritage’ as defined by the draft encompassed ‘all traces of human existence’ which had been underwater for at least 100 years (article 1(a)), although the provisions of the draft only applied to underwater cultural heritage which had been ‘abandoned’ by its owners (article 2(1)). In the discussion which followed, the 100 year cut-off point for cultural material that would receive protection under the Convention was a particular focus of attention. Archaeologists argued that it meant that much material of historical interest, especially wartime remains, would not be protected by the Convention. Those representing the interests of owners, salvors and insurers argued equally vociferously that wrecks that had been underwater over 100 years may well still be of commercial interest. Concerns were also expressed regarding the precise definition of underwater cultural heritage, which appeared to exclude palaeontological and other similar remains and also historic landscapes (see article 1(a)(i) and (ii)).

The second session was introduced with a paper by Professor Nicholas Gaskell, Director of the Institute of Maritime Law, University of Southampton, which discussed the relationship, and scope for conflict, between the UNESCO draft Convention, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 and the Salvage Convention 1989. In particular, it focussed on the question of to what extent the Convention was able to, or should, interfere with the rights of owners and salvors. In the discussion that followed, it became clear that two issues were particularly controversial. First of all, the provision in the draft for abandonment to be ‘deemed’ in certain cases (art. 1(2)) was generally felt likely to cause more problems than it solved because of its interference with ownership rights. The general view appeared to be that the provision might well be unnecessary and should probably be removed from the Convention. The second question that was the focus of much discussion was whether or not the Convention should exclude salvage law from applying to the underwater cultural heritage. It was noted that there was disagreement among States about whether an exclusion of salvage law in the UNESCO Convention would be inconsistent with the provisions of the 1989 Salvage Convention and the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention. To overcome this divergence of views, the present draft does not make a specific exclusion in this respect, but instead includes a provision that ‘States Parties shall provide for the non-application of any internal law...having the effect of providing commercial incentives for the excavation and removal of underwater cultural heritage’ (article 12(2)). It was felt by many at the Symposium that this amounted to much the same thing and concern was expressed that if salvage rewards were no longer payable to those who brought ashore cultural material, there would be no incentive to report finds and this would undermine, among other things, the provision in the draft relating to notification of discoveries (art. 5(1)). Salvors’ representatives also expressed concern about any interference with salvage law.

The third session was introduced with a paper by Dr. Sarah Dromgoole of the Faculty of Law, University of Leicester, which considered the reasons for the exclusion of warships and other State vessels and aircraft from the scope of application of the Convention (article 2(2)), and the potential impact that the exclusion would have on the effectiveness of the Convention in achieving its purpose of protecting the underwater cultural heritage. In the discussion that followed, considerable concern was expressed about the broad scope of the exclusion, which would encompass many of the most important historic shipwrecks, and it was generally agreed that some attempt must be made to bring such vessels and aircraft within the terms of the Convention. It was noted that removal of the provision for abandonment to be deemed in certain instances might help in this respect as many States would find the application of such a provision to State vessels unacceptable.

The fourth and final session was introduced with a paper by Michael Williams of the Faculty of Law, University of Wolverhampton, which focussed on the provisions in the draft regarding the bringing of cultural material into States party to the Convention (articles 8-12). It was clear from the paper and the discussion that there were some serious concerns about these provisions. In particular, concern was expressed about the potentially huge extra burden that would be imposed upon the organisations that would have to administer the provisions and also about the severity of the sanctions, which in some cases might well be disproportionate to the offence. The provisions regarding seizure (arts. 9-12) raised particular concerns.

The Symposium was successful in achieving its purpose of airing the draft Convention in a UK forum and identifying the issues which were likely to prove controversial. At the end of the Symposium it was agreed that the UK UNESCO Forum would co-ordinate the establishment of a small ‘contact group’ consisting of representatives of the main interest groups concerned. This would feed in views and representations to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the government department responsible for co-ordinating the formulation of the UK response to the draft. This response would need to be formulated prior to a six-day meeting of government experts which was due to take place in Paris in April 1999.

The April 1999 meeting of experts will report to the UNESCO General Conference, which will take place in October/November 1999. While it had originally been hoped that a draft would be ready for adoption at this Conference, this now no longer seems likely. Instead it may well be that a draft will not be adopted until the General Conference in 2001, at the earliest.