Subject:
. . . . Unesco Convention

Dear Mr.President,

Congratulations on your new post. I realize you are busy however I feel compelled to make sure you are up to speed on the following.

I attended a public meeting in the State Department Building in D.C. on March 14, 2001 to discuss the UNESCO convention. My industry is very upset and so is AT&T, PADI, the Maritime Law Assoc. and many others. You should also look closely at this plan because there are some issues of National Security that need to be addressed. I truly believe that if preservation of historic shipwrecks if for the public interest, the public should take active part in their preservation. I appreciate the time and effort the U.S. delegation has spent over the last several years on this issue. Admittedly, I was outraged when I read the recent "Single Negotiating Text proposed by the chairman" of UNESCO, as it appeared to me that all of the last 3 years of the U.S. delegations hard work at negotiating and rewording the text of the convention seemed to have been ignored and thrown out. There was even wording added in that was worse than the original.

In the present form, the U.S. Delegation must stand opposed to the convention at the Paris talks, I also urged the delegation to verbally urge other countries not become a party to this convention but to reconsider alternate, better thought out plans which truly have the resources at heart.

Just to let you know my background, my name is Taffi Fisher Abt and I am president of Mel Fisher Center, Inc., a commercial shipwreck salvage corporation which also houses a museum and a State approved artifact conservation laboratory located in Florida. This is a family corporation that has been in business since 1963. I serve on the board of directors of several commercial salvage companies and one non-profit museum. I am also a member of HSSPC (Historical Shipwreck Salvage Policy Council) who worked with NOAA on the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Submerged Cultural Resource Plan and currently helping to edit the text of the State of Florida's Submerged Cultural Resource Plan. I am also a cub scout leader and my company sponsors at least one little league baseball team a year.

I offer below some thoughts on the negotiating text for your consideration: (Bold face text is directly from the convention.)

When compared to the April 1998 text, it was added to the latest text in the preamble that:

"Deeply concerned by the activities aimed at the sale, acquisition or barter of underwater heritage, activities that increasingly jeopardize underwater cultural heritage,"..... "

This statement alone is an attempt to crush my entire industry and possibly the entire museum industry. If there is no profit motive for the industry who attempts to LOCATE and then salvage and conserve the artifacts, I can inform you that this country would be 38,000 artifacts shorter (from my last decade in Sebastian alone). Shorter on knowledge and education. Shorter on ambition and the American Dream. Even the museum fellow who was present admitted that there is no warehouse large enough to house all collections in their entirety, and if there were, there would not be enough funding to keep the artifacts conserved and cared for in perpetuity. Even the National Preservation Board admitted that it is "ok to deaccession artifacts to auction, if the funds are used to maintain the rest of the collection" I almost fell off my chair when he said that. "Aimed at" is a very vague term. "Increasingly jeopardize underwater cultural heritage", the UCH is already in jeopardy sitting on the bottom rotting away, we are trying to save it by selling redundant artifacts (coins mainly) so that we can go save some more unusual artifacts.

"Considering that exploration, excavation, and protections of ..................., all of which indicates a need for uniform governing criteria."

There are as many different governments as their are shipwrecks and they all have their own way of making laws and rules. i.e., Democrat, communist, socialists, etc. Uniform models would not be good for shipwrecks since they are all so individual i.e.. salt vs. fresh water, deep vs shallow, near shore vs. offshore. Uniform guidelines might be more acceptable.

"Committed to improving the effectiveness of measures at international, regional and national levels for the preservation in situ"

Most people with common sense know that "in situ" is not the best idea if you have other alternatives available. Other alternatives should be preferred, and in situ only considered when there is no funding available for the other alternatives. If the definition of "In Situ" is defined as suggested at the meeting, "only a temporary condition while a site plan is put together", then it should be stated just that way. Then you have also got to consider "Who will be in charge of approving or disapproving site plans?" As iterated by a few different folks at the meeting, even outside of the salvage realm, a partial removal just introduces new levels of corrosion, and in the vast majority of cases that we are aware of, Permanent "In situ" is definitely more detrimental than excavation.

Article 1 - Definitions

"1. (a) "Underwater cultural heritage" means all traces of human existence which have been partially or totally underwater, periodically or continuously, for at least 100 years including.........."

Could you imagine if this same rule was applied to land sites. Oh my, what a vast collection we will have, again, back to the budget, who will pay for the conservation and storage, in perpetuity, and what about all the trash, sludge, etc. It seems that this is much too vague and needs to include some wording about historical significance. And in adding insult to injury as if the magical "100 year" clause was not enough,

"2. Notwithstanding .........."a State party may designate certain traces of human existence within its jurisdiction as underwater cultural heritage, even though they have been underwater for less than 100 years."

It may as well say, the states can change their minds anytime and everything belongs to us no matter how old it is at any time that they feel like it for any reason at all. This rule is absolutely ludicrous.

"9. "Activity incidentally affecting underwater cultural heritage" means activity which, despite not having underwater cultural heritage as its object or as one of its objects, may physically disturb or otherwise damage underwater cultural heritage."

Many major industries, in addition to the general economics industries mentioned above, may feel strong adverse economic impacts because, "In other words, dock builders, recreational divers and fisherman, charter boat operators, commercial fisherman, sub marine cable layers, pipeline layers, Oil exploration corporations, Mineral Exploration corporations, etc.. will have to be educated, trained, and billions of dollars spent on changes, prevention techniques and measures.

Article 2 - Warships

"1. This convention shall apply..........."

In light of the recent Juno and La Galga issue off the shores of Virginia where the NPS invited Spain in to reclaim some shipwrecks, their is now a major need for very specific definition in this section. Is any ship with a cannon a warship?

"3. No action will be taken by the coastal State ..........."

As I stated at the meeting, in the vast majority of cases, most shipwrecks are unidentified at the initial stages of their investigation, and you said, they would not count because they were not identifiable as defined in Article 2 (1). Although you said this only applies to those that are identifiable as such, what if part way through an excavation it is then discovered that it is a warship, not "expressly abandoned", would work stop and involved parties just walk away. Would there be any reimbursement for the efforts of the salvor this far by either the territorial state or the flag state? Does this resource then just get left to the elements to rot?

Article 3 - Objectives and Principles

"5. The preservation in Situ......."

Same as above.

"6. Underwater shall not be commercially exploited"

It seems to me that exploitation could include documentaries for sale, scholarly books written about, etc. I believe that even the govt. and non profits would be breaking this rule. It should be removed.

Article 5 - Relationship to law of salvage and law of finds

"Underwater cultural heritage to which this Convention applies shall not be subject to the law of salvage or law of finds unless it is in full conformity with this convention."

You have to be kidding, I will let the MLA deal with this one. It is way too vague and unless the rest of this convention is changed, this must be removed.

Article 10 - Reporting of finds on the continental shelf

1. A Coastal state may require the finder of uch on its continental shelf to report it to the competent authorities of that State.

Hope you have a really big database and many staff to handle input. Additionally, this will cause an economic impact to all offshore industries.

Article 12 - Underwater Cultural Heritage in the Area

Any discovery of underwater cultural heritage in the area shall be reported by the finder to the Director General of the UNESCO .

Again, all offshore industries will be economically impacted.

Article 13 - Regulation of Import

1. A State Party shall make it an offense to import into its territory underwater cultural heritage which has not been excavated in accordance with the convention.

Say good-bye to the education, the knowledge and history and archaeology that could be learned during international tours of collections such as the Atocha, the Margarita, the Henriettta Marie, the 1715 Fleet, the 1733 Fleet, the USS Central America, the Brother Jonathan, the Widah, the Titanic, Blackbeards ships, etc.... Does this mean, an average U.S. citizen who bought a silver coin from a shipwreck at a store in Timbuktu can't wear their coin out of the country? I can not see that any museum would go for this rule.

Article 14 - Non-Use of area under the jurisdiction of the coastal State.....State parties..........

In the interest of National Security, does this mean that the U.S. has to ask UNESCO for permission to salvage anything from a U.S. navy ship that sank off some other nations coast. Yes, of course, as long as they have reported it first and filed a site plan to the proper UNESCO authorities, it MIGHT be ok.

Article 17 - Seizure and disposition of underwater cultural heritage

1. Each State Party shall take measures providing for the seizure of underwater cultural heritage brought into its territory and recovered from the seabed in the absence of a permit that has been properly issued by a competent authority in accordance with the convention or that has been excavated or recovered in a manner not in conformity with the Convention.

Many museum collections as well as private collections will be confiscated? Hundreds of Thousands of artifacts were found, salvaged, sold, and donated years before this convention was ever considered. This is nothing short of grand theft. Where are you going to put it all. Who will take care of it? Who will pay the bills for storage and conservation perpetually.

Article 18 - Collaboration and Information Sharing

"3. All information shared between States, Parties, or between UNESCO and States parties, regarding the discovery or location of underwater cultural heritage should be kept confidential and reserved to competent authorities of States Parties to the extent compatible with their nationally constitution as long as the disclosure of such information might endanger or otherwise put at risk the preservation of such underwater cultural heritage."

This smells of "Raiders of the Lost Arc". It sounds extremely selfish, unscientific, and unconstitutional and absolutely not in the best interest of the general public. Who will decide what endangerment is? Who defines "otherwise put at risk"? "It is of great importance that the general public be given the opportunity to experience, consciously and intelligently, the efforts and the results of scientific research. It is not sufficient that each result be taken up, elaborated, and applied by a few specialist in the field. Restricting the body of knowledge to a small group deadens the philosophical spirit of a people and leads to spiritual poverty." , I didn't make that up, they are the words of Albert Einstein.

Article 23 -

"1. Board of 18 (or 22) experts"

#2. The members of this board shall be experts........

Who defines experts and will my industry get representation?

Mr. President, I have additional problems with the ANNEX to the convention and if you think in any way shape or form that the U.S. Delegation may get anywhere close to getting the initial problems fixed on the "Single Negotiating Text", I would be happy to also forward you my comments on the ANNEX. Please let me know.

Another thing to consider that seems to be forgotten throughout this entire convention is the potential negative economic impact this convention will have on many diverse individuals and industries, possibly worldwide. In that consideration, I would like to illustrate my personal experience, but I am sure that this can be duplicated many times over.

On the East Coast of Florida is this tiny 60 square mile patch of ocean where eleven ships sank in a hurricane in 1715. These shipwrecks were discovered by private individuals and have been worked since the 1960's under contract with the State of Florida. The success of this teamwork cannot be measured in profit terms alone because there have also been great strides socially, educationally, and in resource management itself. I can evidence this by showing you the latest compliance chart and letter from the State of Florida dated February 28, 2001, which paints us as shining stars.

Economically speaking, there is a domino effect that touches many industries not usually associated with salvage such as cultural tourism (including airlines, hotels, rental car agencies, advertising, etc..) and the literary and film production fields and in turn many smaller industries are also affected. In the last decade, in the Sebastian, Florida area alone, my company has engaged employment for at least 1,500 people in fieldwork, systematically excavating the wrecks more than 8,000 days, recovering in excess of 38,500 artifacts with a monetary value in excess of $12,000,000 .00. From these artifacts, we donated more than 1,500 (most of the best) to the "People of the State of Florida" for their museums and collections valued in excess of $2,500,000. Tallahassee has a wonderful exhibit and the State sends exhibits all over the nation. We also have a traveling exhibition. We have also had hundreds documentaries, books, periodical articles, and even school texts written with this venture as their main subject. This in turn has generated substantial income to the industries of writers, news crews, TV and movie production companies, advertising agencies, moving companies, exhibit designers, etc. Copies of these books and videos such as Discovery Channel, National Geographic, A&E, etc. then get sold in bookstores, video stores, spreading not only economic gain but also knowledge and education of the general public.

In the last 8 years, we have enjoyed an attendance in excess of 105,000 visitors to our Sebastian museum alone (which showed demographically as an unsuccessful area for tourism) since opening in Dec. of 1992. More than $500,000.00 in attendance was generated back into commerce for expenses, employing another 80 people. Our museum/gift store has generated sales in excess of $2,600,000 over the last decade, and again, that money went back into the general mainstream of commerce. On this expedition alone in the past 8 years, our corporation has spent more than $2,600,000.00 in expenses at dive shops, marinas, fuel docks and grocery stores, welders, diesel engine mechanics, etc….again money that went back into the general mainstream of commerce.

Remember, ALL of the above facts are solely related to eleven shipwrecks in one small 60 square mile patch of earth. If you are trying to tell me there will be little or no negative economic impact if this convention is signed you are dead wrong.

As I stated earlier in my introduction, HSSPC is currently helping to edit the Florida Submerged Cultural Resource Plan. The ongoing cooperation and outreach between our corporation and the state of Florida officials, although strained at times, has and continues to improve and evolve. Many other states within the U.S. are looking at Florida's draft plan and considering similar plans. Good Plans, workable plans that were well thought out with the public and the submerged cultural resources in mind.

Mr. Presidentl, I can certainly understand the edginess of a government trying to protect their warships when they are concerned about modern technological or nuclear privileged devices and/or information; or pollution issues. I also believe that any pre 1900 ship would not qualify. I certainly respect the loss of life on shipwrecks and the reverence it deserves, (I have personal first hand experience with this). Any government claiming a pre 1900 warship because of technology or loss of life is just performing a grab. I understand the viewpoints of archaeologists and historians who want a to preserve and study a representative example/sample of any site for the knowledge, enjoyment, and scholars of future generations. I believe things can work out in a cooperative manner.

Taking the initiative, simply asking to be involved, and/or offering assistance (in any aspect of salvage, archaeology, conservation, storage facilities, or just plain funding, in exchange for donations would be a more fair approach than waiting until considerable time, money and effort has been invested in a project and then trying to just "Take it" away from the discoverer/inventor. Taking away the incentive and the opportunity (through over regulation, control, or prohibition) to investigate new possibilities will hurt us all (as well as the resources).

Thank you for taking the time to read this lengthy letter, I know you are quite busy. I'll leave you with this parting thought:

"The finding of a great treasure from the days of the Spanish Main is not the cherished dream of only the United States and Florida citizens; countless peoples from other lands have shared such thoughts. It would amaze and surprise most citizens of this country, when their dream, at the greatest of costs, was realized, the agents of respective governments would, on the most flimsy grounds, lay claim to the treasure."

P.S. The motto for the Tiger Cub Scouts is: "SEARCH, DISCOVER & SHARE!"

Good luck in your new post.

Taffi Fisher Abt