Is the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection

of the Underwater Cultural Heritage effective?

Robert MacKintosh - PhD Candidate - University of Southampton - Email: R.F.MacKintosh@soton.ac.uk

INTRODUCTION
The 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural
Heritage came in to force in 2009. In the 5 years since then it has gathered
momentum, with 48 States having now ratified or accepted it.
However, to date there has been neither an overarching study of how the Convention
is being implemented by its States Parties, nor any indication of whether the
mechanisms created internationally or domestically as a result of the Convention
are succeeding in protecting underwater cultural heritage (UCH).
It is therefore necessary to ask, Is the Convention effective?, and to construct an
answer that both demonstrates how the Convention is being implemented, and
determines whether it is causing improved protection of UCH.

WHAT

DO

WE

MEAN

BY

EFFECTIVE?

To determine whether the Convention is effective, we need to be clear on what

exactly effective means. In fact three different concepts of effectiveness
will be used to help measure the impact the Convention is having. Each
concept serves as a starting point for analysing the succeeding one.

Legal

Approach

Are the Convention's obligations being met and relevant programs initiated?
This is a measure of the Conventions implementation and can be investigated by
looking for a number of indicators whose presence or absence will demonstrate the
level of compliance with the Convention in each State Party.
However, widespread compliance with the Convention's obligations does not mean
that the Convention is achieving its aims. Conversely even low compliance with the
Convention does not preclude the possibility that it has encouraged activities which
help solve the problems facing UCH. So we need to look further than just this rather
cursory legal method.

Behavioural

Approach

Is the Convention causing changes in the relevant behaviour of relevant actors?

If the Convention and its implementing measures succeed in changing the
behaviour of certain actors (maritime archaeologists, conservators, heritage
managers and commercial maritime archaeologists) it will be behaviourally
effective. This can be investigated through qualitative surveys and interviews of
these actors.
It is essential to determine whether any behaviour has changed, and to show
a causal connection between this change and the Convention. But even if the
Convention has caused changes in behaviour, we also need to know whether
these changes benefit UCH.

Purposive

Approach

Is the Convention eliminating or alleviating the problems that prompted its creation?
This is what this study must ultimately attempt to discern. It is difficult to do this directly
as it would be almost impossible to get the relevant data about the actual condition
of UCH, and it would also be difficult to ascribe any changes to the functioning of the
Convention, making this approach difficult to meaningfully apply.
But, through looking at the Conventions levels of compliance, and whether we think
any changes in behaviour it causes are positive or negative for UCH, we may be able
to begin to tell whether the Convention is solving the problems it was created to solve.
Figure 1: The Convention currently has 48 States Parties, shown here in red.

EXPECTED

OUTCOMES

At the end of the study we should be able to answer the following questions:
To what extent, and in what ways, is the Convention being implemented?
What parts of the Convention, and more specifically, which precise methods of
implementation are causing behavioural changes in relevant actors?
What behavioural changes are leading to better protection of the UCH?
From these it should be possible to suggest guidelines to implementation based on
the most effective implementation methods observed, helping new (and old) ratifying
States to better protect underwater cultural heritage.

HOW

CAN

YOU

HELP?

I would love to hear your thoughts on the Convention. Has it changed archaeological
practice in your State? How is it impacting your job? Is the underwater cultural heritage
now better protected? Please e-mail, tweet or talk to me!

R.F.Mackintosh@soton.ac.uk

@RFMackintosh