Memorandum submitted by the Council for
British Archaeology
INTRODUCTION
1. The Council for British Archaeology is
the principal UK-wide non-government organisation that promotes
knowledge, appreciation and care of the historic environment for
the benefit of present and future generations. It is a non-profit
making educational charity that has been nationally influential
for over half a century, with a growing membership base of over
550 affiliated organisations and over 10,000 individual subscribers
of all ages.
2. The Council for British Archaeology is
active in promoting conservation of the coastal and underwater
archaeological heritage. We convene and are members of the Joint
Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee (an umbrella body bringing
together governmental and non-governmental organisations with
an active role or interest in management of the UK's nautical
archaeological resource); are members of Wildlife and Countryside
Link's marine group; and have actively campaigned and lobbied
on the Government's approach to Underwater Cultural Heritage (UCH)
issues.
THE COMMITTEE'S
INQUIRY AND
THE DCMS REVIEW
OF HERITAGE
DESIGNATIONS
3. The Council welcomes the opportunity
to submit evidence to the committee's inquiry on the "Marine
Environment", which comes at a timely point in a major review
of the future protection under law of the marine cultural heritage
being undertaken as part of DCMS's wholesale "review of heritage
designations". We would wish to highlight the opportunity
that the Committee has through this inquiry to positively influence
the outcome of the DCMS review in the way it will affect the management
of the marine environment.
UK'S UNDERWATER
CULTURAL HERITAGE:
AN UNPARALLELED
RESOURCE
4. The UK, as a consequence of its long
history as a maritime power possesses an unparalleled UCH. This
legacy in England's territorial waters alone numbers over 40,000
sites recorded on the Maritime Archaeology Record for England[2]
making it perhaps one of the densest concentrations of marine
archaeology in the world[3].
Of the sites on the record for England 13,500 are known wreck
sites, seabed obstructions and isolated finds, and 26,500 are
losses known from historic records, although this in itself is
recognised as representing only a small percentage of the potential
number of sites.
5. It should also be noted that this underwater
archaeological record does not comprise wrecks alone. The seabed
around our coasts also contains archaeological evidence of what
were once occupied terrestrial landscapes in prehistory which
have now been inundated through sea-level and coastal changes.
Added to these are other kinds of historic asset, including historic
aircraft crashed in the sea, sea-bed installations of historic
interest in their own right, and other coastal features relating
to the exploitation or defence from the sea.
6. Submerged archaeological remains, whether
they comprise "drowned" landscapes and sites (such as
those known in the Solent or recently identified Mesolithic occupation
remains in the North Sea off Tynemouth), the remains of sunken
vessels (eg perhaps best known in the public mind would be the
wreck of the Mary Rose), or sites surviving in the inter-tidal
zone (such as "Seahenge"), as a consequence of waterlogging
have a propensity to be very well preserved. The range and quality
of archaeological information embodied within such sites therefore
makes them of special importance for unlocking our understanding
of the past.
7. Historic wrecks and other submerged
structures in some cases are rich in marine wildlife making them
both of historic and nature conservation significance.
THE UCH: A RESOURCE
UNDER PRESSURE
AND UNDER-PROTECTED
8. UK's UCH is increasingly under pressure
from a range of activities including marine minerals extraction,
the construction and operation of offshore installations, coastal
defence and realignment projects, coastal development, dredging
of navigations, and commercial salvage. It should be recognised
that underwater heritage assets are a non-renewable resource.
Once they are damaged or destroyed by such processes, they remain
so forever. However, in spite of the richness of the resource,
and the threats of loss and degradation by natural and manmade
means, the UCH remains the least protected and least managed aspect
of the UK's heritage. By way of illustration, of the thousands
of known historic wrecks just over 50 are designated as "protected
wrecks" under the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973, whilst only
the Scapa Flow wrecks of the scuttled WWI German High Fleet have
been afforded protection as "scheduled ancient monuments"
under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979.
9. Some additional protection—albeit
not for the basis of historic conservation—has been afforded
under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986. This give powers
for protection of vessels which were in military service when
they were wrecked and so far this has comprised the designation
of 16 wrecks in UK waters as "controlled sites" (with
a further five "protected places" in international waters)
and protection of c 1,000 military aircraft crashed in the sea.
10. However, in spite of the limited protection
afforded, the need to better protect this tremendously important
resource has, at least in part, been recognised through the UK's:
— ratification of the Council of Europe
Valletta Convention on Protection of the Archaeological Heritage;
— endorsement of the ICOMOS Charter
on the Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage;
— participation in negotiations and
endorsement of the principles of the Annexe of (although alas
not accession to) the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the
Underwater Cultural; and
— work through the Council of Europe
which has produced positive policy principles such as contained
most recently in CoE Recommendation 1486 (2000) on Maritime and
Fluvial Heritage.
11. Furthermore the Defra's recent consultation
on "Seas of Change" contained a welcome vision of sustainable
development of the marine environment which showed some progress
through including the maritime cultural heritage as part of one
of the strategic goals put forward in the document.
12. However, we do not believe that there
has been sufficient "buy-in" across government towards
conservation of the UCH. Moreover, whilst there has been laudable
high level recognition through accession or endorsement of some
international agreements and conventions, this has yet to result
in the adoption of the necessary domestic policy and practice. We
believe that this is largely a consequence of a dis-articulation
between, on the one hand, DCMS and the relevant heritage agencies
responsible for the underwater cultural heritage, and on the other
the array of other government bodies who have direct jurisdiction
over a panoply of activities (such as marine minerals, offshore
energy and other extractive industries, pollution, fisheries and
shipping) which have a tremendous influence over it.
13. This in itself does not represent a
lack of will on the part of heritage agencies charged with the
protection of the UCH (in particular English Heritage, Historic
Scotland, Cadw, and the Northern Ireland Environment and Heritage
Service, as well as the Advisory Committee on Historic Wrecks).
Rather, we believe it is a consequence of their severely limited
resources for delivery of their UCH responsibilities, and their
marginal status which runs from the absence of a sufficiently
deep integration of UCH issues within the broader thrust of other
departments policies, practices and strategic goals for the marine
environment. Further, the expertise available in the form of local
authority archaeologists, in our experience is not used to full
potential, in many cases because of a lack of locus or status
for local authorities in many marine consent or management procedures.
We conclude that the UK government is not making full use of the
available expertise.
14. We believe that remedies to this dis-articulation
need urgently to be found.
MAKING UCH INTEGRAL
TO MARINE
SUSTAINABILITY AND
REPORTING
15. The Council for British Archaeology
advocates that a first step should be the creation of a clear
statutory duty on all Government bodies, in particular Defra,
DTI, DfT, MoD, DCMS and ODPM and their respective agencies, to
care for the UCH. Such a duty has precedent on land in the form
of Section 17(1) of the Agriculture Act 1986 and under the Environment
Act 1995 and duties it describes for the Environment Agency.
16. To help bring effect to such a new statutory
duty we believe that the Government could greatly help by adopting
a broader range of strategic goals for the marine historic environment.
In our response to the "Seas of Change" consultation
we advocated that these could comprise the following:
(i)
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;
(ii)
to have regard to fostering the educational and social
benefits to be gained from the marine historic environment;
(iii)
to increase our understanding of the marine historic
environment and the natural and human impacts on the marine historic
environment; and
(iv)
to support research and develop an integrated approach
to addressing pressures which affect conservation of the cultural
and natural marine environment.
17. We also believe that the introduction
of a duty requiring relevant departments to report on their work
relating to the above strategic goals—possibly through the
aegis of the Marine Stewardship Report—would greatly help
in promoting and measuring the delivery of such goals.
MARINE SPATIAL
PLANNING
18. As a member of WCL the CBA has supported
a proposal that there should be a new approach to Marine Spatial
Planning—which in effect would involve creating a parallel
"strategic" system to Regional, Strategic and Local
Development Plans on land along with other measures. We believe
that such an approach contains a tremendous potential to foster
the wise stewardship of the UCH.
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
19. To accord with the requirements of the
EU Directive on strategic environmental assessment, which comes
into force in 2004, we believe that Defra, DTI, DoT and MoD must
ensure that the research on which they base their policy development
in relation to maritime matters is soundly reinforced by a clear
understanding of the likely impacts on the marine historic environment.
Too much research in the past—which has gone on to form
the basis of policy—has considered only ecological impacts
but labelled these as environmental impacts. This will not fulfil
the requirements of the SEA Directive.
CONCLUSIONS
20. The Council for British Archaeology
hopes that the committee through this enquiry can further cement
the integration of UCH matters within the UK's efforts for the
protection of the marine environment. We believe without such
integration that the future for the UK's very significant marine,
maritime and coastal archaeological heritage will be bleak.
12 September 2003
2 State of the Historic Environment Report 2002. Back
3
By way of comparison, Taking to the Water: English Heritage's
Initial Policy for The Management of Maritime Archaeology in England,
published in 2002, notes that Northern Ireland has 3,000 sites,
South Africa has 2,500, Australia has 6,000 and Canada has 9,000. Back
| 
