There are a variety of different groups that are directly or indirectly interested in the underwater cultural heritage. The ICOMOS Charter recognizes most of these multiple uses as being uses which are, or may be, in the public interest, provided they are managed consistent with the operative provisions. In referring to the interests of the general public, the introduction of the Charter states that "everybody is entitled to draw upon the past in informing their own lives, and every effort to curtail knowledge of the past is an infringement of personal autonomy."

The more specific examples of multiple uses which are generally recognized as compatible with the Charter are education, research and recreation which is non-intrusive. Some private commercial ventures which the Charter recognizes as being potentially compatible with the protection of the underwater cultural heritage include the "promotion of recreation and tourism." The Charter specifically states that "If managed sensitively, underwater cultural heritage can play a positive role in the promotion of recreation and tourism." These are also important examples of multiple uses which are compatible with the protection of the underwater cultural heritage.

Recreation and tourism may be accomplished with the UCH which is being preserved in situ, as well as the UCH which has been properly recovered, and being conserved in land based museums. The UCH being managed for the public interest in such museums may be the subject of recovery by the private sector resulting from commercial operations. If conducted consistent with the operative scientific provisions of the Charter, these would be multiple uses which are compatible with the protection of the UCH and consistent with the Convention.

Multiple uses consistent with the convention would include such commercial ventures that may even result in a profit being made from the recovery of the UCH. If the recovery of the UCH is conducted consistent with the professional scientific standards of the ICOMOS charter and artifacts are maintained in a collection for research and education for present and future generations, then such multiple uses would be permissible under the convention.

Some countries such as the United States, The United Kingdom, the Philippines and others that have mechanisms for entering into agreements for the recovery and archaeological excavation of UCH by commercial entities recognize the contributions that can be made to the archaeological record through commercial funding of excavations, conservation and educational programs. After appropriate study, recording and approval by archaeologists, cultural collections will typically be kept together, although some replicated items of minimal archaeological significance such as coins, bullion and raw materials may be able to re-enter the stream of commerce, especially if their sale can be used to enhance the historical and archaeological record for the benefit of mankind by financing legitimate excavations and public access.

US archaeologists agree with our French colleague that the RMS Titanic is not an archaeological resource, however, its private recovery and management provide an example of a multiple use which the United States suggests should be permissible. It is our understanding that the recovery of artifacts that are now in a museum collection was conducted consistent with professional scientific standards. Moreover, the commercial salvors have agreed to keep the collection together and seek to make money from public display. If the sale or trade of materials is limited to the coal from the RMS Titanic, this would seem to also be permissible.

It is our understanding that nearly all countries suffer from a lack of funding for proper management of the UCH. Public partnerships with the private sector for recovery of the UCH should be permissible, particularly where the UCH is no longer being preserved in situ but is being threatened by nature, projects or other human influences.

While the United States has suggested that the Charter be changed so it is enforceable with regard to the professional scientific standards, it suggests that such private commercial enterprises not be precluded but be permitted under a multiple use management system.

Under multiple use management, in situ preservation is, of course, still preferred. In addition, the State Parties will retain the discretionary authority to permit private commercial recovery that is determined to be in the public interest because the significant UCH is maintained in a collection for research, education, and public enjoyment for present and future generations.

The multiple use management principle also allows State Parties to consider uses that are not directly apparent with the Convention. The multiple use principles may also assist in addressing the multiple users of the marine environment that do not intend to directly harm the UCH but nonetheless may affect it. For example, shipwrecks also act as artificial reefs that are used for bottom fishing. As currently drafted, fishing interests may oppose the Convention if it is perceived as precluding fishing.

Finally, it may also be used to address the concerns of the interest and use of the UCH by indigenous peoples as raised by an issue identified by our colleague from Australia. In this regard, the United States permits the repatriation of cultural materials to Native Americans. In these cases, artifacts have been determined to be no longer of archaeological significance because of a larger public interest in repatriation as opposed to technical application of professional archaeological standards.

Under these multiple uses, there may arise circumstances where the sale of objects of little or no archaeological significance is permissible. For example, when timbers in the USS Constitution are replaced for preservation purposes, pieces that are removed have been sold and the proceeds used for funding protection and management of the vessel. Similarly, the sale of slivers of the Mary Rose at the Royal Naval Museum in Portsmouth, England, has also been permitted.

Many museums today are faced with choosing which artifacts they must deaccession in order to accommodate space and budgetary limitations. If a museum has thuousands of similar artifacts from a shipwreck, it would be difficult to understand the rationale of forcing them to keep this collection together rather than making space for new, unique pieces.

The idea of keeping large collections together in perpetuity is reasonable in an ideal world, but the sheer magnitude of the potential number of artifacts that may be retrieved from the millions of shipwrecks throughout the world makes it an impractical task which we would be forcing museums to undertake.

The United States recognizes that there are many nations that may decide to manage most, if not all, of their UCH for the limited purpose of in situ preservation. However, that is not done under current U.S. laws pertaining to the UCH. If the Convention does not allow the Parties some discretion to accommodate private sector interests consistent with the scientific principles in the Charter, it would make it extremely difficult for the United States to become a Party.