DROWNED cities and sunken ships may seem the preserve of a few obsessed
divers, but in fact all these are now classed as part of our underwater cultural
heritage. What鈥檚 more, the UN is very keen to protect it, although two important
international high-level meetings of experts have passed virtually
unnoticed.
鈥淯nderwater cultural heritage鈥� includes all traces of human existence with a
cultural, historical or archaeological character, either partially or totally
under water for at least 100 years鈥攚hether periodically or continuously.
This includes buildings, artefacts, vessels, aircraft, cargo and objects of
prehistoric character鈥攂ut not pipelines or cables on the seabed which are
still in use.
The meetings in question both concerned the UNESCO Convention on the
Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, which was finally adopted on 7
July. Their draft text has been sent to the UNESCO General Conference for final
debate and adoption later this year.
Advertisement
Both meetings called for preservation of these remains in situ as the first
option. Archaeologists, however, want any recovered heritage to be deposited,
conserved and managed to ensure its long-term preservation. They say commercial
exploitation should be forbidden. States that are party to the convention should
ensure that all human remains located in maritime waters are treated
respectfully. Forty-nine of the experts voted in favour of these measures, four
voted against and eight, including Britain, abstained.
I would like Britain to resoundingly support the convention. But as ever,
there鈥檚 a snag: for the convention to be effective the navies of the world will
have to be asked to safeguard the heritage. Some countries are unlikely to
support such a move, as they already believe these underwater treasures are
safe. The problem is, they鈥檙e not.
THE WATERS are troubled off some of Africa鈥檚 coasts. When I attended a
conference in Lusaka, Zambia, on problems in southern Africa and West Africa
some years ago, delegates from Mauritania told me of the great damage that
foreign trawlers are causing to their fisheries. So I was interested to read
鈥淏reaking the Banc鈥�
(快猫短视频, 23 June, p 32),
which highlighted the extent of the problem in Mauritania鈥檚 waters.
Baroness Amos, the Foreign Office minister with responsibilities for
equatorial and southern Africa, tells me that Britain鈥檚 policy is to help
coastal states in the developing world exploit their fisheries while taking
account of environmental concerns and long-term sustainability. The government
supports fisheries agreements with 鈥渢hird countries鈥濃�攖hose that aren鈥檛
members of the European Union, such as Mauritania and Senegal. These agreements
give EU boats some rights to fish in traditional ways in distant waters. In
return, Britain and the EU provide various health and socio-economic benefits.
They also help third countries realise the value of the fisheries resources that
they do not require for their own consumption.
Britain is keen for these agreements to promote environmentally sustainable
fishing, and to tie in with EU policies. We successfully persuaded the European
Commission to keep these objectives in mind during recent negotiations with
Mauritania. A new protocol will help protect local fish resources and ensure the
state of their fish stocks is reviewed regularly, says Amos.
Illegal fishing remains a major problems in many waters, undermining
conservation agreements. The world鈥檚 navies could well be needed to keep matters
in check.