2001 UNESCO Convention on Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage: Arts Department briefing

Meeting report

2001 Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage: Department of Arts and Culture (DAC) Briefing
Mr Mbhazima Makhubele, Director for Heritage Policy, Department of Arts and Culture, apologised that Mr Themba Wakashe, Director-General, was unable to be present, briefed the Committee on the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage adopted on 02 November 2001 in Paris.

Mr Makhubele explained the definition of underwater cultural heritage, and how it related to the interaction of people and nations with the oceans. Most cases were concerned with the wrecks of ships that had been sailing between Europe and the east. Underwater cultural heritage included artefacts and human remains in and around wrecks. It excluded modern artefacts such as pipelines and cables laid on the seabed.

To date, 16 countries, including  Libya and Nigeria, had ratified the Convention. It was not expected that countries such as Botswana and Zimbabwe, who lacked a coastline, would ratify the Convention.

The Department of Arts and Culture had during May 2007 prepared a Memorandum to Cabinet seeking approval for ratification. The relevant social cluster committee had approved this, and noted that the DAC needed to prepare relevant legislation in line with Articles 9 and 17 of the Convention, to implement the Convention effectively.

The Convention provided signatory States with a common definition of underwater cultural heritage and established norms and standards for its protection. Looting, damage and destruction were on the increase due to technical developments. The Convention sought to promote, preferably in situ, the preservation of underwater cultural heritage for the benefit of humanity. South Africa’s unique coastline and marine environment had to be taken into account when endeavouring to conform to the Convention’s aims and objectives. It was indicated that South Africa’s territorial waters extended to the edge of the continental shelf, 200 kilometres away from the shore. South Africa’s own legislation provided blanket protection for underwater cultural heritage more than 60 years old.

Article 4 of the Convention provided for professional archaeological and salvage activities under prescribed guidelines, including a permit system, accountability, keeping of records and disclosures.  The Convention made provision to facilitate training in underwater archaeology, the transfer of technologies, information sharing, and public awareness of the value and significance of underwater cultural heritage.

The Convention stated that the commercial exploitation of underwater cultural heritage (UCH) was fundamentally incompatible with the protection and proper management of underwater cultural heritage. However this could be mitigated through regulated salvage activities under an effective permit system, if supported by a national policy on underwater cultural heritage that respected national sovereignty.

The Department had conducted a process of consultation. In 2006 meetings were held with the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA), South Africa’s UNESCO office, and the Departments of Foreign Affairs (DFA), Justice and Constitutional Development (DOJ),  Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), the South African National Defence Force (SANDF), and the South African Navy. It also consulted with maritime archaeologists, and salvage organisations. In October 2006 it held a national consultative workshop to obtain input from stakeholders. This had resolved to recommend ratification of the Convention. It was felt that this would contribute to the protection of South Africa’s underwater cultural heritage. There was a reservation expressed that salvage activities should be allowed under strict guidelines and supervision from the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA).

The Department was formulating a draft national policy for underwater cultural heritage in order to guide activities in the sector. This would have to take into account competing interests of salvage companies, archaeologists, national legislation, and the requirements of the constitution.

In situ preservation, though ideal, presented in practice many challenges. South Africa’s seas were notably rough and unpredictable. This meant that underwater cultural heritage around South Africa’s shores was gradually endangered by natural elements, in addition to predations from salvage companies who commercially exploited shipwrecks for valuable items such as gold, silver and porcelain. Most often these finds were not recorded.

Another serious challenge was the lack of capacity to monitor and enforce government policy. Recently SAHRA banned commercial salvage, but because of lack of capacity to enforce that policy, there were still excavations and sales going on.

Perhaps the greatest challenge was the shortage of archaeologists. South Africa had less than ten practising archaeologists for the entire coastline of more than 2 500 kilometres. These archaeologists were all nearing retirement age, and did not reflect the demographic profile of the country No young archaeologists were in training. There were no longer university programmes in marine archaeology at Stellenbosch and Cape Town, due to lack of demand.

Once the Convention had been ratified, the Department would establish a system for reporting nationally, and reporting to the Director-General of UNESCO as required by the Convention. The various Government departments needed to work closely together. There was also a need for continuing constructive engagement of salvage organisations, archaeologists and SAHRA. The Department was working on standalone legislation on underwater cultural heritage.

Discussion
The Chairperson and Ms D Ramodibe (ANC) asked what informed the rationale for 100 year old definition for objects of underwater cultural heritage.

Mr Makhubele replied that the Convention provided that if an artefact was underwater for a century or more it qualified to be protected. A recent shipwreck did not qualify. However, before many decades had elapsed, nothing might be left of an old shipwreck other than the structural remains of the ship. South African legislation provided for protection of items of underwater cultural heritage after a period of 60 years. The time frame was admittedly problematic. For example, the R M S Titanic, which sank in 1912, less than a century ago in 1912, had already been extensively plundered. 

Ms Ramodibe observed that heritage was very important. Government was to implement and put policies into effect. This had been a problem since coming to power in 1994, and had been highlighted in many speeches by the President.

Ms Ramodibe said also that heritage was a cross-cutting issue involving the Department of Education and the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, but she considered Education to be the more crucial. It was vital to involve the communities and to educate them to respect the importance of heritage.

Mr Makhubele replied that the Department recognised the challenge to educate the communities and was working in co-operation with other government departments. 

Ms P Tshwete (ANC) asked for more information about the various challenges that he had mentioned. She asked how the Department proposed to ensure that members of the South African Navy did not themselves remove items of underwater cultural heritage and exploit them commercially. Concerning the lack of capacity and shortage of skills, she asked, with particular reference to the Eastern Cape, if South Africa had students who were studying to become archaeologists, and if there were any bursaries available. Moreover, she asked if there were sufficient people, including blacks, prepared to study marine archaeology.

Mr Makhubele replied that the Department co-operated with the Department of Foreign Affairs and with the South African Navy, as well as with other government departments. Until six or seven years previously the Universities of Stellenbosch and Cape Town had offered courses in underwater archaeology, but had discontinued these as there had been insufficient demand. He noted again the challenge that South Africa had only ten practising marine archaeologists for the entire coastline of more than 2 500 kilometres. They were all nearing retirement age. No young archaeologists were in training. The present complement of archaeologists did not reflect the demographic profile of the country. It was of great concern that there was currently no transfer of skills.

Mr H Maluleka (ANC) asked who the salvage operators  were, and if the boundaries of what should be protected were known, since that would inform the degree of protection that could be given. If the sea bed beyond South African territorial waters was not South Africa’s concern, he asked who had the responsibility to guard it.

Mr Makhubele replied that the salvage operators were located mainly in Cape Town. There was a need to have regulation or a code of conduct to prevent removal of artefacts without SAHRA permits.

Mr M Bhengu (IFP) endorsed Ms Tshwete and Mr Maluleka’s commendation of Mr Makhubele’s presentation, and asked if the Department of Arts and Culture had compiled records and undertaken an audit of the underwater artefacts that it sought to protect. He asked what role the Department expected the Committee to take in the matter.

Mr Makhubele replied that an audit had been undertaken. There were thousands of shipwrecks.

Mr S Opperman (DA) asked if in situ preservation was really necessary, and if it would not be better to bring artefacts to the surface and exhibit them so that people could enjoy them. If unregulated salvage operators could remove artefacts and sell them, it was reasonable to ask why there was reluctance to bring such artefacts to the surface and preserve them in a maritime museum.

Mr Makhubele replied that if a shipwreck had, for example, been submerged for three centuries, artefacts would, in many cases, rapidly deteriorate if they were brought to the surface. On the other hand, the rough seas around South Africa contributed to the deterioration of underwater artefacts if left in situ. There was thus a valid case for bringing some artefacts to the surface.

The Chairperson asked if Madagascar, whose role was important because of its proximity to South Africa, had indicated its intention to ratify the Convention.

Mr G Lekgetho (ANC) said the challenges were indefinite. He commented on the insufficiency of capacity to protect underwater cultural heritage and asked how long it would take to complete the draft policy on that heritage.

Mr Makhubele said that he hoped the draft policy would be ready by the end of 2008.

Mr Maluleka observed that there were looters who pillaged wrecks as soon as the ship sank. He and Mr Opperman indicated the need for immediate protection of items of underwater cultural heritage.

Mr Makhubele said that the practice in other countries had been to allow citizens to go diving without disturbing underwater cultural heritage. However, he shared Mr Maluleka’s concern. There was need to provide protection, but provision for such protection might be found in already existing legislation or in the Constitution. 

Mr Bhengu said that it was important for the Committee to receive a briefing from SAHRA, and, moreover, for there to be a budget for the protection of underwater cultural heritage. It was hard for a parliamentary Committee to oversee what was presented as an apparently abstract concept.

Ms Ramodibe supported Mr Bhengu’s request for a briefing from SAHRA. The Chairperson also endorsed this request.

Mr Makhubele agreed with Mr Bhengu and Ms Ramodibe on the desirability of a presentation from SAHRA. The Department would reply in that regard within the next week.

Ms Ramodibe asked if any salvage operators had been arrested. She also asked if any contributions had been made to the families of those who had died in the shipwrecks that were considered part of the underwater cultural heritage.

Mr Makhubele replied that most of the wrecks had been of ships privately owned by the British East India Company and by the Dutch East India Company, with crews mainly from Europe. Few South Africans had been aboard.

Mr Lekgetho asked what had happened to the wreck of the SS Mendi with the loss of 600 African lives in the early 20^th century.

Mr Maluleka spoke of a memorial. He said that government had taken measures to commemorate the loss.

The Chairperson observed that it had been an ‘enriching’ presentation.

The meeting was adjourned.