Marine salvage

Memorandum submitted by the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee

INTRODUCTION

1. The Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee acts as the only UK-wide forum on policy and legislation on the Underwater Cultural Heritage (UCH). Its membership (see below for list) spans archaeological bodies, state heritage agencies, diving organisations and other bodies with direct responsibilities for UCH, representing a wide range of perspectives and substantial amount of expertise.

2. JNAPC through its work promotes the wise stewardship of the UK's marine heritage, and has for many years been especially active in development of policy and guidance following the launch of Heritage at Sea in 1988. This has included work on reviewing legislation (eg policy discussion papers such as Heritage Law at Sea and the Interim Report on Marine Heritage Legislation and the Valletta Convention) and promoting guidelines for those who have an impact on the resource through development (JNAPC Code of Practice for Seabed Developers) or through recreational diving and other activities (Underwater Finds?Guidance to Divers, and Wreck Diving?Don't Get Scuttled). We welcome the opportunity to provide a submission to this Committee's inquiry, coming as it does at a time in which legislation for the protection of the marine cultural heritage is under review by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport as part of the widest-ranging reforms of heritage conservation legislation for a generation. We hope that the committee is mindful of the opportunity for their inquiry to influence positively such reforms in the way in which they will apply to the marine environment.

UNDERWATER CULTURAL HERITAGE: AN INTEGRAL PART OF MARINE SUSTAINABILITY

3. UK waters represent one of the world's richest marine historic environments, comprising drowned prehistoric terrestrial landscapes, the rich legacy of our maritime history comprising the remains of thousands of historic and ancient shipwrecks, numerous vessels and aircraft from the wars of the 20th century, as well as innumerable human remains of lost civilian and military personnel. The recent re-ignition of interest in the Mary Rose during this summer, which itself was a consequence of new exploration to assess threats from proposed works to deepen the navigation channel to Portsmouth dockyard, illustrates both the cultural value of this heritage, and the pressures it comes under. However, in spite of the constant threats of loss and degradation by both natural and manmade means, the UCH remains both the least managed aspect of the UK's historic environment and the least managed facet of the UK's marine environment. The increasing demands that the nation is making upon our seas serves to increase pressure upon this culturally important, but entirely non-renewable, asset. We believe it should be incumbent on all bodies responsible for the marine environment to ensure their policies and activities seek to secure the careful stewardship of the UCH alongside other environmental assets.

4. The Government's recent consultation "Seas of Change" put forward a broadly welcome vision of sustainable development of the marine environment. However, if this vision is to be fulfilled in relation to the underwater cultural heritage there is an urgent need to increase our understanding and ability to manage it. This cannot be done within a vacuum, but must be integrated within the overarching themes and strategies for protection of the whole marine environment. What we believe is urgently needed is the full implementation of the general standards for responsible management of the cultural heritage to which the UK is committed, acknowledging its exceptional international significance, and giving it equal weight with other environmental conservation issues. Wherever possible this should mean developing fully integrated and mutually reinforcing conservation strategies.

5. At the core of this we believe there needs to be an approach to stewardship across government that is predicated on the idea of informed conservation. By this we mean:

(i) Recognising the overall international importance of Britain's underwater cultural heritage as a maritime nation with a history of world-wide influence, and of its significance for people's history and cultural identity and managing it in accordance with this position.

(ii) Recognising the diversity and chronological time-depth of the UK's underwater cultural heritage and the varying significance of individual parts of it and the need to ensure that decisions are well informed.

(iii) Undertaking studies to increase strategic understanding of the underwater cultural heritage and its relationship to the natural marine environment.

(iv) Developing better sources of reliable baseline marine data stored in more accessible formats geared to user needs.

(v) Supporting research to analyse the physical and development threats to underwater cultural heritage to a level that underpins its proper management.

(vi) Providing adequate resources for the management of underwater cultural heritage, including sufficient people with the technical skills, knowledge and equipment needed to undertake the necessary tasks.

6. Our experience is that whilst there are "green shoots" of progress in regard to some of the above, such as brief mentions of protection of historic wrecks within the Government's "Seas of Change" document, the UCH is largely seen as a totally separate subject outside the main thrust of marine environmental policy. This sells our marine and maritime archaeological inheritance short, and at worst places it under threat. Below we offer further critique and recommendations, which we believe would greatly help in building an integrated approach to environmental assets of our seas.

OBJECTIVES, DUTIES AND SKILLS FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT FOR THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT

7. Whilst DCMS and the devolved governments have overall responsibility for protection of the UCH, delivered through expertise in English Heritage, Historic Scotland, Cadw and the Northern Ireland Environment & Heritage Service, and with management of the most important historic wrecks guided by the Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites, it is activities under the jurisdiction of bodies elsewhere in government which have the greatest impact. The various procedures, policies and controls on activities such as marine minerals and offshore energy and extractive development, ICZM, navigational dredging, control of pollution in the marine environment, management of fisheries and shipping all have impacts on the UCH, but are under the direct responsibility of other authorities than the heritage agencies.

8. The comparatively limited resources available to the state heritage agencies provides capacity in terms of a handful of personnel to provide policy guidance and advice to other government departments and agencies, supported by extremely limited resources for survey, recording and monitoring. This places the heritage agencies in a position to provide a lead in UCH policy development, albeit within a context of limited resources. Expertise and information also exists in local government in the form of local authority archaeologists, although resources for these are not on a statutory footing, and whilst they may often be keen to have an input, they are unable to do this because of the absence of a clear status for Local Planning Authorities in the marine management and consent procedures. We are not convinced that?with a few notable exceptions?policy makers across government are making full use of this available expertise.

9. We believe that remedies need to be found for this lack of joined up government. As a starting point there should be a clear statutory duty on all government bodies to protect the marine environment, which should be taken expressly to include the UCH, alongside human health and good stewardship of marine natural resources. This would help in sending the appropriate signals. For the environmental stewardship of the UCH, this would usefully follow the protocols established in section 17(1) of the Agriculture Act 1986 on Defra in relation to agriculture, and similar duties on the Environment Agency under the 1995 Environment Act to care for landscape and the heritage in the exercise of its duties. In our view the principle of a statutory duty towards environmental and cultural conservation should be extended to the marine environment and should to apply to all relevant departments with clear marine responsibilities, including Defra, DTI, DfT, MoD, DCMS and ODPM.

10. Experience with other such duties has been that they provide a useful focal point, but require clear objectives, targets, reporting requirements and above all adequate resourcing of multi-disciplinary teams of expert staff to make them "stick". The absence of these in both Defra and the Environment Agency has meant that cultural heritage issues have been under-played compared with other environmental issues. Similarly, the Sustainability Commission has so far largely ignored the historic environment. We believe therefore that the Government could greatly help by setting a handful of clear strategic goals in relation to the marine historic environment. JNAPC advocates the following:

? The use of the marine historic environment in a sustainable and archaeologically sensitive manner in order to maintain the underwater cultural heritage for the benefit of future generations.

? To have regard to fostering the educative and social benefits to be gained from the marine historic environment.

? To increase our understanding of the marine historic environment and the natural and human impacts on the marine historic environment.

? To support research and develop an integrated approach to addressing the pressures which affect conservation of the cultural and natural marine environment.

11. A requirement for departments to report back on their work towards these objectives within the Marine Stewardship Report (assuming this is to be produced with any frequency) might provide a useful means to promote and measure their delivery.

UCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF MARINE POLICY

12. The UK has recently signed up to the Valletta Convention thereby making certain undertakings for the preservation and conservation of the cultural heritage both on land and underwater. The Government has also accepted, although not signed up to, the main provisions of the UNESCO Convention for the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage particularly the Annex, which details appropriate methods for investigating the UCH. Further consideration should be given to signing up to the UNESCO convention.

13. The Valletta Convention requires the Government to ensure the proper protection, investigation and recording of the marine historic environment whilst also encouraging public access and involvement. Divers, particularly recreational divers, are unique custodians of the marine environment both natural and historic. In many cases only they are in a position to monitor the marine environment by virtue of their numbers both as individuals and through their organisations. This resource should be more fully utilised.

14. The study of the marine historic environment is a relatively new science and therefore our knowledge of the remains of historic wrecks and submerged ancient land sites on and under the seabed is not as developed as that on land where it is already a material part of the planning process. In order for future marine management to be effective there is an urgent requirement to carry out extensive underwater surveys in order to discover the extent of the UCH. All proposals for integrated marine mapping should therefore include the mapping of the marine historic environment.

15. Consent procedures for development of the marine environment is spread across a number of government departments on a sectoral basis. This leads to inadequate consideration of the historic environment. A seamless planning regime should be instituted for the marine environment out to the limit of the territorial sea.

16. The JNAPC would welcome the opportunity to give oral evidence to the Committee in relation to the marine historic environment.

MEMBERSHIP OF JNAPC

17. Members of the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee are:

Chairman: Robert Yorke

Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers

British Sub Aqua Club

Council for British Archaeology

Hampshire & Wight Trust for Maritime Archaeology

ICOMOS UK

Institute of Field Archaeologists (Maritime Affairs Group)

National Maritime Museum

National Museum and Galleries of Wales

National Trust

Nautical Archaeology Society

Professional Association of Diving Instructors

Shipwreck Heritage Centre

Society for Nautical Research

Sub Aqua Association

UK Institute for Conservation

Wessex Archaeology

Department of Law, University of Leicester

Department of Law, University of Wolverhampton

Observers:

Archaeological Diving Contractor

Cadw

English Heritage

Environment and Heritage Service Northern Ireland

Historic Scotland

Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Receiver of Wreck

Ministry of Defence

Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland

12 September 2003

History Hunters International