REPORT
UNESCO Sub-Regional Workshop
on
Underwater Cultural Heritage Protection Laws
for the Caribbean Small Island States
25th to 27th June 2013
Ocean Terrace Inn
St Kitts and Nevis
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The UNESCO Sub-Regional workshop was held in St. Kitts and Nevis on St. Kitts from 25th to
27th June, 2013. The workshop was aimed at the small island states of the Caribbean. Although
seven of the small island Caribbean states had signed the UNESCO 2001 Convention, most of
them had not ratified the Convention and still lacked legislation to ensure cultural heritage
protection including underwater cultural heritage. Their cultural heritage was therefore at the
mercy of pillaging and looting. The purpose of the workshop was to provide more information
on the UNESCO 2001 Convention and to assist these small states in creating legislation or
strengthening existing legislation to protect their heritage. UNESCO also wished to assist the
Caribbean small states who had not yet ratified the 2001 Convention with the capacity to reach
that goal.
The states that participated in the workshop were Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, British
Virgin Islands, St Lucia, St Maarten and St Kitts and Nevis. Participants including local
participants represented a wide cross-section of stakeholders involved in heritage conservation
or persons who could assist with such conservation and protection. These included legal
professionals, maritime officials, law enforcement agents, fishers, divers, tourism and culture
department officials, representatives of non-government organisations (NGOs) currently
engaged in cultural heritage conservation, marine and fisheries department agents and
representatives of UNESCO Country Commissions. The facilitators of the workshop were
UNESCO and international legal experts.
The opening exercises of the workshop on the 25th June included presentations by the
facilitators in order to take advantage of the presence of invited guests. The purpose was to
1
provide the public with information on the 2001 Convention and to sensitise persons to the
importance of underwater cultural heritage and the need for its protection.
One of the major aims of the workshop was to provide information on the objectives,
obligations and general content of the 2001 Convention. The facilitators accomplished this and
highlighted especially the various ways, including economic, in which underwater cultural
heritage could be of importance to individual states and to the sub-region. The workshop
helped to educate and inform participants on the various UNESCO and United Nations
Conventions which were relevant to the protection of cultural heritage. In particular the
relationship between the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the
UNESCO 2001 Convention was examined and analysed.
The states present gave information on the current state of underwater cultural heritage
protection in their individual jurisdictions. This revealed varying levels of protection which
included several bits of protective legislation or draft legislation. The general picture was that of
partial and inadequate protection for underwater cultural heritage and cultural heritage in
general.
In order to assist states with preparing legislation for the protection of cultural heritage
including underwater cultural heritage and with progression towards realising such protection,
UNESCO had produced model legislation. This was presented to the workshop participants.
Much of the work of the meeting involved intense explanation, examination and analysis of the
model legislation by both facilitators and participants. Participants were especially attentive to
the relevance and compatibility of the model with their existing legal and administrative
situations. The entire model legislation was examined including its two Annexes. Annex 2 in
particular was thoroughly examined and its importance was generally appreciated. The model
legislation was amended in response to the comments and needs of participating countries.
The workshop provided time and opportunities for participants to respond to the individual
presentations. Participants demonstrated a high level of interest and raised a wide range of
issues pertaining to their experiences. The discussions were instructive and revealing of the
acceptance of the importance of protection legislation. The knowledge and experience of the
facilitators was mined for appropriate responses to existing and potential situations regarding
protection efforts.
At the end of the workshop, participants prepared recommendations for guidance on the
activities to be pursued in the advancement of implementation of the 2001 Convention and the
preparation of new or additional legislation to protect cultural heritage in their respective
states.
2
3
REPORT
Day 1: Tuesday 25th June 2013
Opening Session.
The UNESCO Sub-Regional Workshop on Underwater Cultural Heritage Protection Laws for the
Caribbean Small Island States (The Workshop) commenced on Tuesday 25th June at 9:30 a.m.
with an opening ceremony. Attending the opening ceremony were the Attorney General,
Honourable Jason Hamilton, who gave brief remarks, and Minister of Culture, Honourable
Marcella Liburd. Among the invited guests were stakeholders and other members of the
general public.
The session was chaired by Mr Mc Clean Hobson, the Director of Maritime Affairs, St. Kitts. In
his opening remarks Mr Hobson indicated that when he was made aware of underwater pillage
at Whitehouse Bay in St. Kitts he realised the lack of national legislation to protect the
underwater cultural heritage of St. Kitts and Nevis. He identified section 9 of the National
Conservation Act as the only limited protection available and remarked that although in 2009 St
Kitts and Nevis had signed on to the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater
Cultural Heritage of 2001 there was the necessity to develop national legislation to protect
underwater cultural heritage. He regarded the workshop as an opportunity to create such laws.
Ms Himschuli Gurung Representative of the UNESCO Kingston Cluster Office for the Caribbean
gave welcome remarks in which she recognised the contribution of the Kingdom of Spain to the
funding for the workshop. Ms Gurung indicated that UNESCO’s interest is in the
implementation of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural
Heritage, 2001 (UCH 2001 Convention). She informed those present that since 2007 eight of 13
4
Caribbean States had signed the UCH Convention yet there was a lack of national laws in
Caribbean countries to protect underwater cultural heritage.
The Honourable Attorney General delivered brief remarks. The Attorney General felt that the
workshop was timely and provided information that legislation for protection of underwater
cultural heritage was part of the legislative agenda of St. Kitts and Nevis and gave the assurance
of the support of the Attorney General’s Chambers and the Ministry of Legal Affairs in
correcting the absence of such legislation.
During the opening ceremony presentations were made by Dr Ulrike Guerin, Director of the
Secretariat of 2001 Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage and Dr Craig
Forrest, Professor of Law, University of Queensland, Australia.
Dr Guerin in her presentation on ‘Underwater Cultural Heritage – A Chance for Education,
Tourism and Recreation’ defined the term “underwater cultural heritage and emphasised that
it comprises more than shipwrecks and includes sites such as sunken cities, caves, sunken
fishing installations. Dr Guerin referred to the rich cultural heritage of the Caribbean and
outlined the importance of the UNESCO 2001 convention to the region. She indicated that
protection was important for the purposes of scientific research, education, community
identification, urban development and tourism. In this regard she stressed the need to maintain
access to the heritage through facilities such as underwater museums or land based museums.
The presenter also revealed that cultural heritage sites generate considerable highly valuable
economic activity.
Some of the activities that pointed to the need for protection of underwater cultural heritage
were identified as pillaging, looting and commercial exploitation as well as development related
activities such as dredging, port development, pipeline laying and bridge building. The aim of
any legislation would be to help Caribbean countries protect underwater cultural heritage sites
and obtain the benefits of such sites.
5
Dr Guerin outlined some of the features of the UCH Convention. She explained that it gives
guidelines for the use of underwater heritage and allows recovery for particular reasons, for
example, scientific research. The convention however prohibited pillage, looting and
commercial exploitation. It also did not determine ownership or maritime zones.
Included in the presentation was information on the contribution of UNESCO to underwater
cultural heritage protection. Some examples identified were:

a database for comparison of heritage laws of other countries.

training and manuals on how to undertake underwater conservation.
Dr Guerin also informed the audience that UNESCO also encouraged sharing of information
about the underwater cultural heritage through websites, films, exhibitions and materials
appropriate for children.
Professor Craig Forrest. Professor of Law, University of Queensland, Australia.
Professor Forrest informed the participants and guests that he had helped to negotiate the UCH
2001 Convention and in that regard has a passion to see it implemented in member states. He
outlined the four types of protection offered by the convention as:

physical protection

contextual protection

protection of information e.g. geological

protection of economic value
Dr Forrest felt that the way to achieve those levels of protection was by becoming a party to
the UCH 2001 Convention and to create national protection laws which are simple, efficient and
enforceable.
6
Mr Antonio Maynard, Secretary General of the St. Kitts and Nevis National Commission for
UNESCO
Apologies were offered for the absence of the Honourable Nigel Carty, Minister of Education
with responsibility for UNESCO.
Mr Maynard emphasised the enormous potential for development residing in the underwater
cultural heritage of St. Kitts and Nevis and the economic importance to the country. He
indicated that UNESCO has been providing training and capacity building in these areas. The
Secretary General encouraged professionals legal and otherwise to take advantage of the
workshop. He welcomed the participation of sub-regional partners as in his opinion this
indicated the expected cooperation necessary for regional benefits. Mr Maynard declared the
workshop open.
A Vote of Thanks was given Mrs Diannille Taylor Williams, Assistant Secretary, Ministry of
Tourism and International Transport.
Plenary Session
Overview
The plenary session consisted of three presentations on the creation of underwater cultural heritage law
in St. Kitts and Nevis and the wider Caribbean. The session was chaired by Ms Himslchuli Gurung of the
UNESCO Kingston Cluster Office for the Caribbean and Dr Arthur Murphy Secretary General of the
National Commission for UNESCO Antigua and Barbuda. One of the major concerns raised in the
discussion is the urgent need for laws to protect underwater heritage in the twin island Federation. The
group demonstrated much enthusiasm regarding the protection of the underwater heritage.
Presentation 1
The importance of underwater cultural heritage and the UNESCO 2001 Convention for the region by
Dr. Ulrike Guerin, Director of the Secretariat of 2001 Convention on the Protection of Underwater
Cultural Heritage.
7
Dr. Guerin recognized that there was no law in the Federation of St Kitts and Nevis to protect
underwater cultural heritage thus advised that there was an urgent need to create such laws for
protection of the heritage. The lack of laws in the region to protect cultural heritage led to the
preparation of the model legislation by UNESCO. She emphasized that underwater cultural heritage
went beyond shipwrecks but included evidence of human activity that was lost to oceans, seas and lakes
and even heritage submerged by water in caves. This presentation outlined the values to be derived
from protection of the underwater cultural heritage such as:

education

scientific research

local pride and community identification

urban development

tourism

ability to reclaim pillaged heritage.
Dr Guerin provided a concrete example of how legislation could provide protection of UCH. She
indicated that due to legislation created by the Kingdom of Spain and its ratification of the 2001
Convention, treasure hunters had to return 17 tons of coins that were taken from Spain’s
waters.
Dr Guerin also discussed the disadvantages of a lack of protection legislation which could lead
to the loss of valuable heritage and the inability to prevent such losses.
The presenter advised the participant countries that they needed to determine what they
would like to address in the national legislation, that is what would be prohibited and what
would be allowed. She suggested that in addition to the law prohibiting certain activities such
as pillaging, the legislation should also consider mitigation of the effects of other activities such
as fishing, construction, development, dredging. Other suggestions for inclusion in the national
law were

prohibition of vandalism
8

prohibition of sale of artefacts

the duty of maritime vessels to protect underwater cultural heritage.
Participants were also advised to anticipate events that would need to be included in the law.
Dr Guerin referred to the discovery of over 80 wrecks during the laying of pipelines in Europe in
the Baltic Sea.
She then identified some stakeholders who could assist in the protection of underwater cultural
heritage such as

government authorities

major players in the cruise industry

schools

restaurants

local businesses
Participants were informed that the model law was based on the 2001 Convention as well as
the cultural protection laws of several countries. She pointed out that the model legislation
even included an example of an export certificate that could be used regarding the moving of
artefacts.
Dr Guerin then proceeded to discuss the importance of the 2001 Convention. She described the
Convention as an international mandate to care for underwater cultural heritage as well as a
valuable tool which provided guidelines for dealing with such heritage. Dr Guerin assured
participants that the Convention enhanced already existing maritime law.
Some of the advantages of ratification of the 2001 convention were identified as

providing a common approach to conservation of underwater cultural heritage

allowing cooperation and assistance among signatories
9
Dr Guerin outlined some of the limitations of the 2001 convention as the fact that the
convention does not bind nationals and further that it does not deal with the question of
ownership of underwater cultural heritage. Dr Guerin advised that as the convention does not
bind nationals it was important to create national laws for the protection of underwater
cultural heritage. It was further emphasised that enforcement of such laws would be necessary
and that local legislation would foster research and monitoring of UCH.
Presentation 2
The first step to achieve protection – Cultural Heritage Protection Laws and their principles by
Dr Craig Forrest, Professor of Law, University of Queensland, Australia.
The second presentation of the plenary session was given by Dr Forrest. He considered the
definition of cultural heritage as being relative to each country. He introduced the five
conventions which dealt with cultural heritage pointing out that they were all related. He
explained that while the precursors to the 2001 Convention supported some UCH protection
these conventions were inadequate for that purpose.
The related Conventions were described as

The Hague Convention1954 - UNESCO Convention for the Protection of cultural
property in the Event of Armed Conflict.
In this regard he referred to the high level of looting and selling of cultural artefacts that
took place during the conflict in Iraq. Despite the location of the looting Dr Forrest
reminded all that according to the Hague convention “the damage to cultural heritage
of one is damage to cultural heritage of all mankind.”

1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit
Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. According to Dr Forrest
10
this convention helped to control the import and export of cultural property. He felt
that the illicit trade in cultural property was an incentive for countries to implement
national legislation to protect cultural heritage. As illustration he used the example of
the Dodington coins which were taken by divers from South African wrecks. South Africa
only became aware of this when the artefacts came on the market. The country where
the coins were held was not a party to the 1970 Convention. The coins eventually were
sold in England which was not a party to the convention. Dr Forrest used the example to
show the importance of all countries becoming parties to the Convention as well as the
importance of adequate national legislation to protect cultural property.

1972 World Heritage Convention. This convention lists sites to be protected for all
humanity. This convention does not include many prohibitions.

2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. This
convention recognizes that cultural heritage goes beyond objects but recognizes that
objects are linked to people and customs.

2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage.
Dr Forrest indicated to participants that all the conventions were related. He outlined the three
principles of the 2001 convention as protection, preservation and cooperation. He stated that
several articles of the convention dealt with the three principles and these articles would
suggest what part of the convention should lead to legislation and what should lead to
government policy.
Professor Forrest advocated the drafting of national laws that were clear, simple, efficient to
implement using existing resources, and consistent across the region, the latter in order to
avoid exploitation of loopholes by third parties. He emphasised that laws should be
enforceable.
Question and Answer
A question and answer session followed the two presentations. This was moderated by Mr
McCLean Hobson, Director of Maritime Affairs, St Kitts
11
Dr Arthur Murphy, Secretary General, National Commission for UNESCO, Antigua and
Barbuda.
Dr Murphy asked if it was important to have national inventories (of underwater cultural heritage).
Dr Forrest responded that national inventories were important but not necessary for the
implementation of the 2001 convention.
Mr. M. Hobson St. Kitts
Mr Hobson asked Dr Forrest to share some of his experiences with the development of similar
national legislation by other states.
Dr Forrest indicated that it was difficult to describe the experience because some states had
laws which addressed underwater cultural heritage, for example Australia which had a similar
law (1976 Shipwreck Act) akin to the 2001 convention and though that law was inadequate it addressed
some of the issues regarding UCH protection. He added that Australia was not a signatory to the
2001 convention. Dr Forrest also explained that the different legal systems made it difficult to
compare the experiences as some jurisdictions followed a civil law tradition while others
followed a common law tradition. Dr Forrest revealed that some countries could put the
convention into law but Commonwealth countries are unable to do so because of their
common law practice.
Dr Guerin emphasized at this juncture that the Caribbean had a good opportunity to make laws
specific to the Caribbean situation because the region had no existing laws regarding UCH.
O. Spencer, St. Kitts
Mr Spencer wanted to know how the Great Houses on St Kitts could be regulated and
protected. He also said that he was aware that undersea artefacts were disappearing. He
wanted to know how persons like him could identify the location of these artefacts and how
the artefacts can be protected.
12
Dr Forrest responded that there was a difference between land based and water based
heritage.
He explained that the 2001 convention gave a blanket protection for all underwater cultural
heritage sites and emphasised that enforcement was important. He indicated that existing
mechanisms can be used to enforce protection where sea based heritage is concerned and gave
as an example of this the use of import- export control, fisheries, customs. Professor Forrest
also explained that enforcement can also be possible if artefacts were brought on the market.
Mr. O. Spencer further asked how to enforce the regulations and who was going to enforce
those regulations.
Dr Forrest reiterated that countries would need to use existing mechanisms that were in place
at the time.
C. Gill, Brimstone Hill Trust, St. Kitts
Mr Gill observed that the 2001 convention does not include coastal sites. He referred to the
examples of local forts that were falling into the sea and other terrestrial sites that were
becoming submerged. He wondered whether any consideration had been given for the 2001
convention to address such situations.
Dr Guerin advised that the proposed national law should be made comprehensive enough to
include all types of underwater heritage which could include lakes, rivers and heritage in caves.
She emphasised that the 2001 convention targeted specifically underwater heritage. She
reiterated that a law was the first step towards protection.
Dr Forrest also pointed out that the conventions are not perfect hence the 2001 convention
may not address all the possible situations that may arise regarding UCH protection.
K. Samuel St. Kitts, (Kenneth’s Dive Centre) asked whether some temporary legislation could
be drawn up to protect underwater heritage, since much of it is disappearing.
13
Mr. Samuel in posing his question spoke to witnessing the continuing disappearance of
underwater artefacts and was disappointed that the Coast Guard was not empowered to
apprehend offenders and retrieve the artefacts. He identified particular shipwrecks from which
he had observed that artefacts had been removed and indicated his personal efforts to prevent
the pillaging and to bring it to the attention of the Heritage Society and the Coast Guard. He
emphasised the urgent need for interim legislation.
Dr Forrest agreed that there was need for a law to be quickly created although he thought it
was not possible to have temporary legislation. He emphasised that legislation would give
authority to the Coast Guard to stop pillaging.
N. Dupre National Trust, St Kitts
Mr Dupre also raised the issue of a temporary law and also Inquired about the legal framework
for reporting finds. He suggested that the legislation should make it mandatory to report finds.
He also asked if protection laws could not be made on a case by case basis to protect UCH as
there were no existing laws.
Dr Forrest indicated that the authority must exist to give force to any regulation.
N. Williams, Coast Guard, St Kitts
Because of the discussion on disappearance of artefacts Mr. Williams of the Coast Guard asked
whether or not auction houses have to disclose the origins of artefacts that are brought for
auction.
Dr Forrest replied that this depended on the particular auction house and on what information
they had received from the seller.
14
Presentation 3
Presentation of the 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage
and the UNESCO Model Law by Dr Ulrike Guerin
This session was moderated by Dr Arthur Murphy, Secretary General of the National
Commission of UNESCO, Antigua and Barbuda.
Dr Guerin examined the areas of the 2001 convention that suggested the structure of the
model law. She explained that the convention was used to guide the design of the model law.
She further pointed out that the Annex was an integral part of the convention and emphasised
that the Annex was binding.
She then examined the important parts of the model legislation that was provided and
suggested areas which should be considered in domestic legislation. The example export
certificate and determination of a competent authority were two areas mentioned.
Colin Hodge, Antigua and Barbuda asked if there was any assistance for enforcement.
Dr Guerin suggested several sources and types of assistance including embassies, Interpol,
assistance for the return of artefacts, and training of Coast Guard.
K. Samuel, St Kitts and Nevis insisted that there was need for immediate legislation to address
the issue of pillaging.
Several participants agreed that a law to protect UCH was necessary. There was some
discussion on the need for political will to enforce legislation as well as observations that
regulations to the legislation would be necessary.
N. Dupre, St Kitts and Nevis asked whether an NGO can be empowered to regulate in the
absence of government.
Dr Guerin indicated that NGOs can be so empowered.
15
Marlene Phillips, Ministry of Culture, St. Kitts stated that there should be greater
communication between stake holders regarding UCH. She also felt that there was a need to
get citizens involved in the discussion regarding UCH.
Ms Phillips also had a concern regarding the resource constraints on small states to implement
legislation on UCH for example in holding confiscated material and in reclaiming artefacts.
Dr Forrest emphasised that a national law is needed to make illegal the removal of artefacts. He
proceeded to give the example of a country which pursued the reclamation of its artefacts in
spite of the expense. He also indicated that the particular country had used the media to keep
the issue in the spotlight and eventually half of the quantity of artefacts was returned.
Dr Guerin offered suggestions of the use of diplomatic channels in reclaiming artefacts. She
however warned that some countries could not prove ownership of artefacts. She explained
that this underscored the need for inventories. She however admitted that it may be difficult to
make an inventory of underwater cultural heritage.
Mr Audra Barrate, Nevis reported the suspicious activity of a boat which may be removing
artefacts.
Much discussion ensued regarding suspicious activities of boats in the waters of St. Kitts and
Nevis, underwater pillaging and the removal of land based artefacts. Mr. O. Spencer of St. Kitts
specifically wanted a local diver to be present on foreign boats undertaking diving activities in
the waters of St. Kitts and Nevis. He informed participants that this used to be a requirement in
the past. He strongly urged that such a requirement be included in any national legislation.
L. Arthurton, Fisheries, Nevis said that special permission should be required for tracking and
diving.
16
Presentation 4
The context of the Law of the Sea by Dr Craig Forrest.
In this presentation Dr Forrest looked at the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) and examined the relationship between UNCLOS and the UNESCO 2001 Convention
showing where they were compatible and where the UCH Convention strengthened the
UNCLOS.
He declared that the UNCLOS and the UCH can work together. He looked at various areas of the
two conventions to examine the consistency between them.
Dr Forrest explained that underwater heritage was not given much attention in the UNCLOS
convention in which only two articles, Art 149 and Art 303(4) are relevant. He indicated that
these articles used several terms to describe the States who would have interest in underwater
cultural heritage and because of the broadness of the articles in UNCLOS the 2001 Convention
provided the content. He emphasised that Article 303 .4 because it indicates that nothing in the
UNCLOS should prejudice any other convention seems to assume that other Conventions will
deal with the inadequacy of UNCLOS as regards underwater cultural heritage.
Dr Forrest explained that there are gaps in UNCLOS in Art 303. It was not clear whether Article
303 applied to the contiguous zone or to the Exclusive Economic Zone. The UCH Convention
addressed the need to correct that gap for example in Article 2 which highlighted strengthening
the protection of underwater cultural heritage. Dr Forrest emphasised that all states party to
the UCH convention were obliged to protect underwater cultural heritage. He showed how the
UCH Convention adopted the principles of UNCLOS and explained that the UCH Convention
must still be consistent with UNCLOS. He revealed that some concerns had been expressed
regarding the compatibility of Art 311 in UNCLOS with the 2001 Convention. However he
pointed out that Article 311 of UNCLOS said it would not alter rights compatible with rights in
other conventions.
Professor Forrest also explained that persons dealing with both conventions would raise the
issue of the powers of states for some felt that the 2001 Convention gave coastal states more
17
power than existed in UNCLOS. Dr Forrest however felt that this was not the case as Article311
of UNCLOS allowed states to form agreements which would change the stipulations as long as
they did not affect a third party. He said that according to UCH Convention coast states have
full jurisdiction in territorial waters including regulation of foreign vessels. He explained that as
regards underwater cultural heritage, coastal states can determine what activities are allowed
or prohibited on foreign vessels in their territorial waters. He advised that these decisions
would have to be communicated to the flag state of the vessel in the event that underwater
cultural heritage consists of vessels of another flag state.
Dr Forrest explained that states had similar powers as regards underwater cultural heritage in
their exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and continental shelf according to the UCH Convention. He
also informed participants of the reporting requirements for their nationals or flag vessels for
finds of underwater cultural heritage on their continental shelf or on the continental shelf of
other states as set out in Article 10 of the 2001 Convention. He explained that article 10
recognising the rights given in UNCLOS allowed states to allow or prohibit activities on
underwater cultural heritage in their EEZ or continental shelf.
Professor Forrest highlighted the level of cooperation possible or required under the UCH
Convention. Using the example of a Spanish vessel (underwater cultural heritage) found in the
EEZ of a Caribbean state to illustrate, he explained that the coastal state could ask Spain to
coordinate activities in relation to the vessel. He advised that coastal states did not have to be
the one acting as coordinating state of underwater cultural heritage.
Dr Forrest continued to highlight the rights and obligations of coastal states and flag states
regarding the Area.
He noted that Article 25 of the UCH Convention dealing with dispute settlement was similar to
provisions in the UNCLOS. Dr Forrest concluded that the UCH Convention was entirely
consistent with the UNCLOS. The UCH Convention he emphasised does not deal with the
matter of ownership of underwater cultural heritage.
18
Discussion
Discussion following the presentation centred on the ownership of wrecks and the rights and
obligations of coastal states.
In response to questions on the reporting of discovery of a military vessel in the territorial
waters of St Kitts and Nevis Dr Forrest confirmed that the find should -as opposed to ‘shall’ -be
reported to the flag state. However he advised that according to the UCH Convention have a
duty to cooperate. In response to a query on ownership of the wreck, he informed participants
that military vessels were never deemed abandoned and flag states consider that they continue
to have ownership. He however reiterated that as such wrecks are within the waters of the
particular coastal state then that state can regulate activities in relation to the wreck but with
the cooperation of the flag state. Dr Forrest emphasised that these rights to regulate did not
deny the need for national legislation.
Dr Guerin commented that in the circumstances as queried the flag state may wish to
cooperate. Dr Forrest declared that the flag state had a duty to cooperate.
Dr Guerin to further illustrate the level of cooperation possible referred to the cooperation
between Argentina and Britain with respect to a wreck found off Argentina. Although the
countries disagreed on the matter of ownership they cooperated in relation to regulation.
In response to an observation by P. Augustin, St. Lucia that the model legislation allowed for
states to determine the time period for an item to be considered cultural heritage, Dr Forrest
indicated that time did not equate ownership instead it defined what would be cultural
heritage.
Participants also queried the effect of ownership disputes on the value of the sites for tourism.
Dr Forrest felt that it would have minimal effect as the UCH Convention stipulated that the
found underwater cultural heritage should remain in situ so it would be available and further he
reminded that the coastal state had the right to regulate activities directed at underwater
cultural heritage.
19
A. Maynard, St Kitts wanted to know which states had not signed the UCH Convention and the
reasons for the decision not to sign. Dr. Guerin replied that the United States had not signed
the convention and had not ratified the UNCLOS. It was also revealed that the United Kingdom
had not signed the 2001 Convention. Dr Forrest felt that the decision by the United Kingdom
may be due to the fact that it allows commercialisation of cultural heritage. (The convention
does not allow this).
C.Gill, St. Kitts observed that there was an advantage in cooperation for flag states could assist
coastal states with documentation and research of underwater cultural heritage sites.
Round table presentations of country participants
The post lunch session continued with the participants outlining the legal and operational
situation in their countries with respect to protection of cultural heritage.
Anguilla
Shipwrecks of Anguilla
•
1628- Present
•
The earliest known shipwreck was in 1628: one of two Spanish merchantmen returning
from Puerto Rico (it has been called a "galleon" in some accounts) wrecked off the north
coast of Anguilla.
•
The most recent occurred on September 5th, 1995, involving the freighters M.V. Lady
Sea Horse and M.V. Pomead, the fishing boats M.V. Christobel and M.V. Anguillita, the
trading sloop Faithful Counseler, the catamarans Princess and Wildcat, and the sailing
yacht Flica (recently sailed to Anguilla from Europe by our island dentist Dr. Erlich).
Underwater Heritage Surveys
•
A cannon was located in Crocus Bay very close to shore. It is in water chest deep.
20
•
A single anchor was found on Seal Island Reef.
•
A site was discovered which consists of four anchors. The anchors’ position shows how
each failed in turn. We believe the wreck’s ballast and parts of the vessel may be
incorporated into the reef in a direct line from the anchors’ location. The site probably
dates to the early 19th century. More material is likely imbedded in the coral.
•
A fisherman showed us a site on Seal Island Reef. The site consists of nine cannon. The
ship looks to have jettisoned its cannon in an attempt to free itself from the reef.
Whether it succeeded is not known. Cannon are difficult to date but the ship which
jettisoned them is probably 18-19th century.
•
The Buen Consejo is the most popular of the shipwreck sites of Anguilla. An anchor and
cannon near the recorded site of the Buen Consejo (Anguilla’s only Underwater
Archaeological Preserve) were found, which extends our knowledge of the site and add
a significant element to understanding how the Buen Consejo wrecked.
Buen Consejo
•
On June 2, 2009, Mr. Samuel Bryant, the FBI’s Legal Attaché in Bridgetown, Barbados
returned more than 100 bronze medallions to Anguilla’s Chief Minister, the Hon.
Osbourne Fleming, on behalf of the Government of Anguilla. The medals produced
resulted from a series of investigations which led to their recovery. They are considered
to be originally the property of Franciscan friars who were travelling from Spain to
Mexico on the warship El Bueno Consejo which ran aground off the coast of Anguilla.
The wreckage site is considered to have international archaeological significance and
efforts have been made to establish it as part of the Anguilla Marine Parks System.
21
Legislation
•
The Biodiversity Heritage Conservation Act is the legislation that captures some of the
requirements set out by the Convention of Underwater Cultural Heritage. Other
environmental legislations also recently enacted are the Trade in Endangered Species
Act and the Anguilla National Trust Act which gives some conservation power to that
organisation.
Legislations Pending
The Bills for the Environmental Protection Act, the Physical Planning Act and the Biodiversity
Heritage Conservation Regulations are presently being drafted with the assistance of the CDB.
Antigua and Barbuda
Shipwrecks
There 146 shipwrecks in waters off Barbuda and 127 off Antigua.
Status of underwater cultural heritage
Antigua and Barbuda is in the process of documenting its underwater cultural heritage. It is
undertaking an assessment to determine which sites can be used for heritage tourism and
which have become part of the reef. It also considers all its harbours as part of its underwater
cultural heritage. They have a great deal of artefacts. They have completed much academic
level research. They have looked at the former naval dockyard during the restoration of the
seawall.
The site of the development of the seawall was monitored and a search was completed which
revealed weapons, medical equipment and bottles. It monitors any construction in and on the
22
harbour. These were returned to the sea. Personal items such as jars and plates from naval
vessels are currently being studied. Live World War II ordinance was also discovered.
Much research of cultural heritage is undertaken. The ongoing research provides support for
ratification of the UCH Convention and helps with public awareness as well as with motivation
of authorities towards getting ratification of convention to parliament.
Needs and projects
Antigua and Barbuda is planning to undertake a physical survey in order to compile inventory of
underwater cultural heritage. Most shipwrecks are unprotected.
It wants

a conservation laboratory.

to establish a National park

World Heritage Site status for Nelson’s Dockyard
Legislation
There is a National Parks Act of 1984.
The representative from the British Virgin Islands asked of Antigua and Barbuda if there was a
concern about safeguarding the heritage now that they have increased public awareness about
it.
Dr Murphy responded that as a result of public awareness citizens now report and self- monitor
their activities in relation to the underwater heritage. He was however concerned about the
damage to underwater sites by anchors of boats currently using their waters.
23
Aruba
Many organisations about nine, work on heritage preservation in Aruba but they are not
working together. Have two archaeologists working in the museum. There are nine major
shipwrecks and one aircraft from late 18th century to World War II in waters of Aruba. Legal
department no longer develops laws on cultural heritage. An ordinance (Monuments
Ordinance) since 1966 has one article on archaeological sites. In the meantime the country is
working on raising awareness, documentation and research. Aruba owns over 400 historic
buildings, there are parks and archaeological sites but there is no protective legislation on any
of these.
The National Archaeological Museum of Aruba is tasked

To document and study the Aruban Amerindian past in a scientific responsible
manner

To preserve and manage our archaeological cultural heritage

To educate our community of our Amerindian past

To comply with the standardized rules of the International Counsel of Museums
(ICOM)
(The presenter showed slides of bottles and jars, cannon, anchors, research work which
revealed human remains. Research is being undertaken by the Foundation for Marine
Archaeology of the Netherlands.)
The representative of Aruba indicated that there were no protected sites of underwater
cultural heritage in Aruba but there were several sites that could be eligible for protection. She
felt that in 2009 when the Legal Department ceased preparing laws for Aruba and this was a
setback for cultural heritage management on the island.
24
She listed several recommendations for the country’s Minister of Culture which included the
need for protection legislation, training, public awareness, networking with other islands,
pressure on Holland to ratify 2001 Convention.
British Virgin Islands (BVI)
The main legislation to protect underwater cultural heritage (UCH) in the British Virgin Islands
(BVI) is the National Parks Act of 2006. The Act provides for conservation. The UCH it protects
are shipwrecks. All shipwrecks older than 50 years in territorial waters are protected under this
Act. Shipwrecks can also fall under the protective ambit of Marine Parks.
The National Parks Act requires the surrender of any relics found to National Parks Director or
to Receiver of Wrecks. Failure to disclose would result in imposition of a fine. Regulations in the
act deal with management of shipwrecks, disposal and removal of artefacts. A licence is needed
in order to remove artefacts found in UCH sites. Disclosure of methods of recovery is required,
a research plan is required, care in excavation also, Commercialisation of sites is possible but a
licence is required. Licenses are required for surveys of areas around shipwrecks. Law requires
bonds for using the wrecks for commercial salvaging
St Lucia
There is no specific legislation for protection of UCH in St Lucia. There is draft legislation for
heritage protection but it does not include underwater heritage. The draft legislation addresses
the degree of protection to be offered and the prohibition of exportation of artefacts. The
proposed law also deals with protection and prohibition of sale of tangible and intangible
heritage.
St Lucia will use workshop and model law to complement the efforts already being made. St
Lucia lacks legal drafting personnel and requests resources in that regard.
25
Dr Guerin suggested that countries share draft legislation with UNESCO. She also pointed out
that the model law included more than underwater cultural heritage protection be
incorporated in the draft legislation.
St Maarten
Prior to 2007 St Maarten had no ordinances in place for UCH protection. The Monument
Legislation and island legislation does not protect underwater Archeology. It currently has a
Maritime General Ordinance 2007 Netherlands Antilles which protects maritime environment
and is compatible with law of the sea convention. The political status has changed and because
of this the laws of the former Netherlands Antilles conflict with newer laws. The Ordinance
prohibits, damaging and removal of artefacts. The two relevant ordinances have different
penalties for breaking the law.
St Maarten has no information on inventories of wrecks. There is little communication between
the Department of Culture and NGOs involved in heritage protection. Increase in cruise tourism
is affecting research and there is a problem of tourists diving without permits. There is a lack of
information on the number of registered divers and lack of human resources for enforcement
of laws.
The St Maarten representative also indicated that the Nature Park Foundation was also
involved in maritime environment protection but the Foundation had no registered database.
The process of creating a database has begun. Currently there is a salvage project on a wreck at
Simpson Bay. She had a concern about salvage sites and felt strongly that such activity should
require a permit.
The representative also referred to the fact that pollution was a danger to divers undertaking
research on UCH. She also explained that cruise tourism had led to the extraction and
destruction of artefacts. St Maarten has received assistance from Interpol in the recovery of
stolen artefacts.
26
Dr Guerin advised that as regards the salvage project, a project design is necessary. Information
must be given as regards plans for conservation before items are removed. If these were not
forthcoming permission should not be given.
St Kitts and Nevis
There are about 400 shipwrecks in the waters of St Kitts and Nevis. Some were caused by storm
and others by military conflict. These include the HMS Solebay sunk in the Battle of Frigate Bay.
The UCH includes important diagnostic artefacts such as bottles, cannon, ceramics and anchors.
Anchors indicate historical economic information.
Not enough is done to investigate and protect shipwrecks. More underwater archaeology is
necessary. Most investigations are illegal activities. An inventory of UCH is needed. Submerged
coastal and terrestrial sites should now be included in underwater cultural heritage e.g. Fort
Hamilton in Sandy Point.
The 1987 Historical Conservation and Environment Protection Act makes passing reference to
protection of cultural sites. An MOU exists between Leiden University and St Kitts and Nevis for
assistance in researching underwater heritage sites. The MOU has helped with the testing of
samples as this is quite costly. Emphasises that one cannot divorce the terrestrial from the
marine environment. Need for public awareness and this can be achieved by showing the
connection between sea and land.
Update of legislation required especially regulations. Training in diving and underwater
archaeological techniques is required. Bilateral agreements with other countries and NGOs
would also be helpful. Public awareness would help with enforcement. Youths need to be
targeted to become involved in cultural heritage preservation. Authorities need to work with
persons who have the local knowledge of underwater sites and other cultural sites.
Mr Williams, Coast Guard, St Kitts asked if the local fishermen were involved in the efforts and
projects because persons at the grassroots level must be involved not just the administrators in
27
fisheries departments. He admitted that the workshop had made him aware of the value of
undersea heritage.
After the country presentations Dr Guerin was aware of the issues of the various countries. She
noticed that countries had drafts or existing legislation. Facilitators wanted to know how
participants wanted to go forward as regards the model legislation. Dr Guerin speculated that
countries may want to take some of the model legislation and integrate into their present bits
of legislation. She asked participants to send information on their legislation to UNESCO.
Country representatives gave suggestions on how to proceed with workshop.
Antigua wanted to discuss the model law.
Coast Guard representative was anxious to have legislation to protect UCH and indicated that
they were ready to enforce.
St Lucia wanted to look at both the model law and their existing legislation and would decide
which parts of the model law to keep.
The BVI held a similar opinion as St Lucia
Dr Guerin asked participants to read the model law to begin discussion on it the following day.
The session concluded. The chair advised that the workshop would resume at 9:00 a.m. the
following day 26th June 2013. The day’s proceedings ended at 5:30 p.m.
Day Two: Wednesday 26th June 2013
The workshop resumed on Wednesday 26th June 2013 at 9.00a.m. The session was chaired by
Mr Antonio Maynard, Secretary General of the UNESCO Commission, St Kitts and Nevis.
28
Recap of previous day’s work by Rapporteur
The first item was a recap of the previous day’s work by the Rapporteur.
Discussion of the model law and possible national laws
The discussion was facilitated by Dr U. Guerin, Dr C. Forrest and Ms H. Gurung.
Dr Guerin and Dr Forrest explained each section of the model law and participants responded
as regards the suitability of the language, the applicability of the scope and intent of the section
or sub section to their individual national situations. This resulted in the revision of areas of the
model to allow for inclusions and deletions as desired by participants.
The discussion proceeded as follows:
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Territorial Scope
The discussion of territorial scope and definitions brought attention to the fact that the model
legislation was not confined to the protection of underwater cultural heritage but included all
cultural heritage. Dr Murphy raised the matter of the implications of the current practice of
foreign owned vessels flying flags of Caribbean nations. Dr Guerin replied that the law refers to
wrecks.
Definitions
Dr Guerin explained that the model law was very broad on the definition of cultural heritage
and the inclusion of “together with their archaeological and natural context” gave more scope
beyond immediate items and allowed the inclusion of things such as signs and the law could be
used to include environmental concerns for example reefs.
Some participants, St Lucia and Aruba wanted the inclusion of films, books and printed material
as examples of cultural heritage. St Lucia gave examples of old books which may be heritage
29
and donated to trust and museums. St Maarten gave examples of slavery related documents
privately owned. This suggestion was taken and since the law may not anticipate all examples
of such heritage the word ‘including’ was inserted to indicate that there are other examples of
heritage not necessarily listed in the law. As a result the phrase “such as” was removed from
2.1(a)
As regards time limits to be included in article 2.1(b) Dr Guerin suggested over 50 years and also
suggested the inclusion of language which gives exceptions to more recent sites of national
importance such as the M.V Christena wreck for St. Kitts and Nevis.
There was also some concern by St Lucia about a possible time limit of 50 years. She felt that
this might cause problems in the future.The facilitators took the suggestion of St Kitts and
Nevis to include ministerial discretion to declare as cultural heritage some sites not necessarily
meeting the time requirement.
COMPETENT NATIONAL AUTHORITY
Dr Guerin advised that countries had to identify a Competent National Authority responsible for
the protection of cultural heritage. In response several member states indicated that in their
national situations several bodies had authority over various aspects of heritage so they were
concerned about the designation of a single Competent National Authority. Dr Guerin explained
that identifying a single authority would give the advantage of control and the authority could
delegate duties to other bodies. There was much discussion on the use of committees, boards
and advisory councils to capture the cross cutting nature of heritage protection. The suggested
revision was to include provision for an advisory committee in the legislation.
DISCOVERY, REPORT AND DISPLACEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE OF AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL
CHARACTER
Report of Discoveries and intended Activities
Article 3.8 of the model legislation generated much discussion. For the most part the group felt
that military vessels should be bound by the law to report on UCH found or sited. Aruba agreed
30
with the model legislation because of their present security concerns. Facilitators suggested
that this section of the Act can be optional or the words “not obliged” can be changed to
“should be obliged” to ensure reporting of finds by military vessels. Dr Forrest however pointed
out the danger of omitting the paragraph as it would leave the military with no obligation to
report.
There was discussion on whether artefacts already in possession of persons would be
regulated.
Dr Guerin suggested that the law should be so designed that it is not intrusive but rather
encourage individuals to come forward where they had artifacts of historical value in their
possession. Representatives from Antigua, St Kitts and Nevis agreed with Dr Guerin.
Representative from Nevis felt that the Law regarding disclosure of any artifacts found should
not be retroactive. Representative from St. Kitts and Nevis suggested an examination of similar
legislation of Barbados to identify their deficiencies and avoid the same.
Representative of Antigua concluded that the issue was about control, taking proper inventory
and having accurate knowledge of what artifacts exist. He further added that it could be
expensive to preserve these artifacts as such it might be better if they were left with the
owners once they were properly documented.
After much discussion the term “of an archaeological character” was deleted from this section
to remove the limitation of that description of cultural heritage.
Other concerns in this section were the need for clarification or definition of the term EEZ in the
legislation. Inclusion of a definition was suggested. There was also discussion on the
delimitation of boundaries. Mr. Hobson indicated that this exercise was an opportunity to push
for the delimitation of the boundaries.
In response to a query from L Pemberton, Nevis Heritage Society, on the matter of who had
jurisdiction in multi-state countries like St Kitts and Nevis Mr. Hobson replied that the Federal
government would have authority.
Art. 3.9 of the model Act raised the issue of discovery in the EEZ. On this matter Antigua
indicated that reporting should be a must.
31
Preliminary Research
Art. 4 also generated much debate. This article requires that the necessary preliminary research
be done on cultural heritage of an archaeological character. The group recognized this as very
important to UCH protection. The discussion however proceeded to examine the relevance of
impact assessment to UCH. Agencies representing the state indicated that impact
assessments were conducted regularly but public participation was poor. Cultural
conservationists were of the view that it was the lack of publication of impact assessments
which led to their not being involved. Mr. Maynard who chaired this session indicated that
greater effort might be needed to ensure that all the stake holders interested in cultural
conservation undertake their responsibilities in that regard. Requirements regarding impact
assessment were included in Article 13, Activities incidentally affecting cultural heritage.
PERMISSION OF ACTIVITIES AND PERMITS
Permission of Activities
Discussion on this section focused on:

the transferability of permits

fees for expenses arising from archaeological activities

permits as regards changes to historical buildings
Dr Guerin indicated that persons exploring should not be issued permits unless they could
indicate how material would be stored.
Activities directed at the remains of state vessels and aircraft.
Dr Guerin advised that if the aircraft is underwater there was an international obligation to
report but for aircraft on land, there was no international obligation.
32
EXPORT CERTIFICATION
Export certificate
Suggestions were

provision for requiring payment of a bond to facilitate return of documents and
artefacts

provision for requiring information derived from research undertaken in the state.
(These two suggestions were included under the broad term of “setting conditions)

harmonizing the design of export certificates in the OECS
Dr. Guerin advised that export certificates should be similar in the OECS countries.
UNDERWATER CULTURAL HERITAGE BEYOND THE LIMITS OF NATIONAL JURISDICTION
Information and Notification to other States
Countries had no concerns about this section.
Immediate Danger
Representative Pemberton, Nevis asked whether immediate danger was defined. Dr Forrest
said the Competent Authority would decide on the immediate danger. Dr Guerin felt that a
definition of immediate danger could be included in the law. Several participants pointed out
the difficulty of defining immediate danger because of the many factors, including
development, which could lead to or be considered immediate danger.
33
ACTIVITIES INCIDENTALLY AFFECTING CULTURAL HERITAGE
Activities incidentally affecting cultural heritage
Additions were requested to the examples of cultural heritage in Article 13.1. A request was
made for the word “settlements” to be added to 13.1 (a) to make it “settlements and sites”.
Aruba asked for the addition of “trade routes” to 13.1 (c) Dr Guerin said that the list of
examples in 13.1 could be expanded.
Participants expressed a desire to have the requirement for impact assessments inserted in
Article 13.2. Impact assessment requirements were inserted and requirements regarding
permission for extraction of resources where cultural heritage may be present. Also inserted or
considered for insertion were the responsibilities of developers.
OWNERSHIP OF CULTURAL HERITAGE
Ownership of Cultural Heritage
Dr Guerin advised that Article 14.2 was an important inclusion and referred to the situation in
the United States where salvage laws are being stretched to include 100 year old ships despite
the fact that salvage laws refer to bringing help to ships. Dr. Guerin reminded States that
ownership also meant responsibility as for example if something owned falls on someone.
As regards Article 14.3. Antigua said that they gave a small financial reward for found objects.
Gill said that public education helped and could encourage bringing in found items but
considered that a financial reward might encourage looting. He suggested deleting the word
“financial” and leaving just the word “reward”.
Aruba found that Article 14.3 conflicted with its existing Ordinance which stipulated that the
minister could make persons return heritage items and the previous owner must be paid the
monetary value of object.
34
Public Acquisition
BVI felt that there was a need for distinction between treatment of sites and treatment of
items. It was apparent that all countries had an existing process for land acquisition.
Participants observed that as objects belonged to the state in any case there might be no need
for acquisition. Dr Guerin felt that where persons may own objects the State could not just
take without giving something appropriate to the value.
In response to the discussions on the difference between site and items, and on the existence
of land acquisition legislation, the phrase “in the case of objects” was included in Article 14.5. A
paragraph 8 was added which refers to the application of existing law.
Further it was suggested that individuals in possession of cultural heritage items on their
property may claim contextual significance and declare an intention to allow viewing by the
public. Dr Forrest felt that authorities should indicate that if such persons could not put in place
the logistics for such public exhibition then the items would be acquired.
CONTROL, SANCTIONS AND SEIZURE
Seizure and Disposition of Cultural Heritage
Access to Premises
As regards these Articles the facilitators were advised that jurisdictions had existing authorities,
procedures and legislation. Language was inserted to reflect this.
Prohibition of Use and Entry into State Territory, Dealing, Possession
Article 18.1 was revised to remove the word “maritime” as waters may be other than maritime.
The word “exclusive” was removed from Article 18.2
35
Infringements and Sanctions
Participants discussed matters such as the reality of various levels of infringement, the size of
fines and the possibility of imposing other types of sanctions such as community service. Dr
Guerin indicated that the legislation could not determine a fine for each type of infringement
and the law should give leeway to the judge. Antigua pointed out that the term “up to” gives
such discretion.
Return of Illegally Trafficked Cultural Heritage
In response to a query from St Kitts concerning the financial responsibility for the return of
stolen items Dr Guerin referred to the 1970 convention which said that expenses for return and
delivery of the cultural heritage would be borne by the recovering state. A paragraph was
added to Article 20 to indicate this.
Further regulations
Judicial review
Facilitators were aware that each State would have its own procedures for judicial review and
left it up to states to add those particular details.
Conclusion of day
Dr Guerin indicated that the review of the model act would continue the following day taking
into account the changes made. Facilitators reminded participants that the model legislation
was a recommendation to take back to their countries. They were reminded that they still had
to follow up to get laws done. Kingston office would follow up and it was looking for results
from the meeting.
36
Day 3: Wednesday 27th June 2013
The meeting resumed at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday 27th June 2013. Mr McClean Hobson,
Director of Maritime Affairs and UCH Focal Point chaired the session. Facilitators were Dr
Guerin, Dr Forrest and Ms Gurung.
The day’s proceedings began with a recap by the Rapporteur of the previous day’s work.
Dr Guerin then proceeded to continue the review of the amended model legislation. One
additional revision was made to include a stipulation that no permit should be given for any
commercial exploitation of archaeological culture heritage.
As there were no further suggestions forthcoming Dr Guerin turned to a discussion of the
Annexes of the model legislation. Annex 1 was the Export Certificate. She explained that the
Export certificate is as in the ECOVOS charter and Annex 2 is similar to the Annex of the UCH
Convention.
Dr Guerin proceeded to explain the rules of Annex 2. Minor revisions were suggested to Rule
1.2 replacing “as well as of” with including, Rule 2.1 replacing “They” with “it” and Rule 3.2
deleting “contribute to” and adding “should be ensured” at the end of the paragraph. In
relation to Rule 2 (Rejection of Commercial Exploitation) concern was expressed about the
possibility of commercial enterprises funding researchers with a view to receiving some
commercial benefit. The project design rules were identified as an area that could give some
control as regards funding sources. In explaining Rule 2.2(b) Dr Guerin indicated that it would
be necessary to return to the law and include wording that makes a project design a condition
of obtaining a permit. In relation to Rule 3 (Mitigation of Adverse Effects), to emphasise the
explanation of the importance of this rule Dr Murphy of Antigua informed his fellow
participants of the use of non-invasive techniques for analysing sites and warned participants
not to allow researchers to use methods which would destroy heritage sites. It was suggested
that this could be ensured through the rules on project design.
37
On Rule 4.2 (Human Remains and Venerated Sites) participants were advised that there was
much international discussion about the showing of human remains in museums. Rules 6 and 7
on project design generated much discussion especially as regards disclosure of funding source
by academics as well as means of ensuring that researchers have adequate funding to complete
projects. Dr Guerin emphasised that the project design should include all of the requirements
demanded by the rules. A project design should never be just a letter. The rules of the project
design also suggested the need for including publication as a condition for obtaining a permit
for the project. Countries were advised to look for long term sustainability in projects. This was
emphasised by Dr Murphy who warned against researches who lacked resources to complete
projects.
As regards Rule 7 Dr Guerin advised that researchers should not be allowed to change the
project design at will. She insisted that any changes had to be approved.
Rule 10 was considered important as countries may find that things may turn out to be more
important than they seem. In Rule 10.1 the word “damaged” was replaced with “impacted”.
Rule 13 on ensuring that research teams were qualified was highlighted as important. Dr Guerin
highlighted the importance of ensuring that archaeologists were qualified for the type of
research they wished to undertake. Attention was drawn to the fact that land based
archaeology was different from underwater archaeology.
Participants required amendment to Rule 18 to take into consideration land based sites. Dr
Guerin suggested the use of “flora and fauna.”
In Rule 19.2(d) the word “basic” was removed.
As regards Rule 20 participants and the facilitator discussed the difficulty of getting reports
from researchers. It was agreed that obtaining the report was important as some return for the
damage to research site. A time limit for publication of reports was advised.
38
As a result of the discussions on project design Dr Guerin returned to the model law looking at
the section on permits and included conditions of obtaining a permit based on a project design
in accordance with the rules of the Annex.
The revised model legislation is attached as Appendix 1
Recommendations
Upon conclusion of the review of the Annexes the participants were invited to prepare
resolutions or recommendations arising from the experience of the workshop to inform the
way forward. Colin Hodge (Antigua and Barbuda) and Tricia Cypral (St. Lucia) moderated the
session on Recommendations. Participants responded to the suggested recommendations
making changes and expansions.
Recommendations are attached as Appendix 2
Closing
At the closing stages of the workshop Dr Guerin encouraged participants to ensure that the
Caribbean is well represented at the Ministerial meeting in Lima in October 2013.
Participants shared their opinions about the issues raised in the workshop and their plans to
implement changes in their respective countries or institutions as regards protection of
underwater cultural heritage.
Closing remarks
Mr Antonio Maynard, Secretary General, UNESCO Commission, St Kitts and Nevis thanked the
participants and the facilitators. He invited the facilitators to give closing remarks.
Dr Forrest emphasised the importance of a national law. He felt that if the Caribbean were to
create national laws it could be a model for other island nations like the Pacific. He offered his
assistance.
39
Dr Guerin said that she was glad to see everyone taking the matter to heart. She reiterated that
without a law the region or nations would not get far with protection. She invited participants
to send questions and reminded them that UNESCO could provide training. She thanked the
Kingdom of Spain for its financial assistance for the workshop.
Ms Gurun asked for networking to be done to keep momentum of workshop alive.
The workshop closed at 1.00p.m.
40