Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
The following is a reply I made to an archaeologist on another list-serv who apparently does not understand why divers may be opposed to the UNESCO Convention on Underwater Cultural Heritage (UCH). For those of you unfamiliar with the UNESCO Convention on UCH, I strongly suggest you read it. You can find the .pdf file at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001232/123278e.pdf As you will see, it may have very important repercussions on technical diving. To date, I have not been worried about the government regulating technical diving activities. However, upon reading this Convention and noticing an innocent looking rule, I saw a potential open door for regulation. This troubles me greatly. Anyway, here is the reply which helps to describe the potential problems... >So please tell me, what's the big problem? I have read the document and, since you asked, here is a list of what troubles me: Rule 28. HUGE issue here that I felt needed to be mentioned first (from my perspective). Since they included safety as an issue, this alone could preclude my diving activities that include mixed gasses and inwater decompression to depths easily exceeding 200fsw. This really opens the door for increased regulation in technical diving by those that have no background or clue to those activities. They may simply prevent it "for the sake of safety." That is not acceptable. Article 2, Item 5. As stated earlier "in situ" preservation is not an effective management measure if, as stated in Item 3, your objectives are to conserve UCH for the "benefit of humanity." Article 2, Item 10. You are correct there is a provision to encourage non-intrusive access, however the final words are what is troubling. Who decides when non-intrusive access becomes incompatible with UCH protection and management? Call me a pessimist, but I have a feeling that in some (many) instances, prohibiting all access may be easier for managers than having to monitor diving activity. This has already happened in National Parks and elsewhere. *THAT* is what troubles me and fellow divers. Article 5. Potential repercussions from fishermen. Do they even know about this document??? I have witnessed how the prohibition of one group (e.g., fishermen, due to incidental damage to UCH) will impact other activities due to political pressure and perceived equity issues amongst user groups. When fishermen were recently prohibited from a marine protected area, they saw that their inclusion was not possible so they went after divers. Even though the impacts of non-consumptive divers were negligible, they were prohibited to appease the other user groups. So, while there are statements that encourages access on UCH (Article 2, item 10), the document also leaves an "escape clause" that can be utilized by other user groups that can easily prevent access. Article 9, Item 1. I enjoy researching, diving, and documenting new shipwrecks as I see fit. I don't want to have to be faced with red tape and bureacracy. Article 10, Items 2, 3, 4. I question who will be making these decisions and their rationale. Article 11, Item 1. Same as Article 9, Item 1. Article 12, Item 1. My diving activities are exclusively (with minor exceptions) directed at deepwater wreck sites from 200-400+fsw. Many times we have no idea what we are diving on and will be the first to document the site. It is possible that these activities may be preceived to run counter to this Convention and, at best, I may get static and be hassled, and at worst, my diving activities may be prohibited. Article 18, Item 1. The artifact police. This item does not indicate whether or not the artifacts collected before the implementation of thic Convention is included. I do not like the potential open-endedness of this Item. Article 18, Item 4. It is hard enough to get access to view and photograph artifacts (you know, for the "public benefit") recovered by archaelogists (in some instances). This reminds me of the last scene from "Raiders of the Lost Ark" Annex Rule 1. See above. Rule 6. Rule 7. See above. Rules 9-13. Rules 22-23. In short order, I plan to have a link on the main page of the AUE website with e-mail addresses so that you can contact those (U.S. representatives) involved with the UNESCO Convention to urge them not to ratify this treaty. Please check the AUE website Monday morning. Regards, Mike Michael C. Barnette Association of Underwater Explorers Because it's there...somewhere...maybe. http://www.mikey.net/aue _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]