review of the international center for underwater ... · sharing state-of-the-art methods of...

REVIEW OF THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGY

FINAL REPORT

RADU FLOREA GHICA GHEORGHIU

Strategicus Consulting Bucharest, Romania February, 2015

Review of the International Centre for Underwater Archaeology (ICUA)

2

Table of Contents I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 3

II. FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................................................. 5

1. Conformity to the UNESCO / Croatian Government Agreement ................................................... 6

1.1. Achievement of the Centre's functions ........................................................................................... 6

1.2. Organizational and financial aspects ............................................................................................. 11

2. UNESCO and the International Centre for Underwater Archaeology ......................................... 16

2.1. Relevance of the Centre's activities for UNESCO ...................................................................... 16

2.2. Coordination and interaction with UNESCO ............................................................................... 19

3. Regional impact and quality of relations with UNESCO Member States from South-East Europe ................................................................................................................................................................. 21

3.1. Regional impact of the Centre .......................................................................................................... 21

3.2. Quality of the Centre's relations with UNESCO Member States .......................................... 21

4. Organization and management ................................................................................................................ 24

4.1. Management and personnel ............................................................................................................. 24

4.2. Board .......................................................................................................................................................... 26

4.3. Mobilizing other resources ................................................................................................................ 26

III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 27

1. General recommendation whether renewal of the Centre's status as a category 2 Centre is warranted and would conform to the Integrated Comprehensive Strategy (ICS) ................. 28

2. Specific recommendations to the Centre for improving the effectiveness of its operations ............................................................................................................................................................................... 29

2.1. Strengthening the regional dimension of ICUA......................................................................... 29

2.2. Institutional development .................................................................................................................. 30

2.3. Fundraising ............................................................................................................................................... 30

2.4. Governing Board .................................................................................................................................... 31

3. Specific recommendations to UNESCO for improving the effectiveness of its coordination and interaction with the Centre ................................................................................................................ 32

4. Specific recommendations for possible amendments to the Agreement ................................ 32

ANNEXES TO THE REPORT ........................................................................................................................................ 34

Annex 1: List of participants (ICUA courses and trainings) ...................................................................... 35

Annex 2: Terms of reference ................................................................................................................................ 42

Annex 3: ICUA cooperation events .................................................................................................................... 47

Annex 4: Research tools ........................................................................................................................................ 49

Annex 5: Key documents ....................................................................................................................................... 51

Annex 6: List of participants (interviews) ........................................................................................................ 52


3

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The main objectives of this review are to examine the performance of the International Centre for Underwater Archaeology in Zadar (“ICUA” or “the Centre”) with respect to its objectives and functions, as specified in the agreement between UNESCO and the Government of Croatia, and its contribution to UNESCO's strategic programme objectives and priorities. The findings of the review will serve as the basis for the Review Committee’s recommendation to the Director-General as to whether the Agreement should be renewed. Specific recommendations for the renewal of the Agreement are also provided. The review comes to the finding that while the Centre's functions have been generally fulfilled, important shortcomings are to be observed:

1. ICUA's overall mandate remains highly relevant to UNESCO's strategy and objectives, even if it does still need to play a greater role in the promotion of the 2001 Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage and in fostering regional cooperation. The Centre functions smoothly and addresses the tasks given to it, especially in what regards training, conservation work and research. It also contributes to improving public awareness, even if more can be done, and a project for the creation of a new area for presentation of the archeological findings, exhibitions and public events is under preparation.

2. A substantial issue is however the fact that ICUA is currently understaffed and underfinanced. The agreement between UNESCO and Croatia specifies that the Ministry of Culture was committed to provide annually from the State budget a minimum amount of $918,000 to ICUA. This figure has not been met. The limited financial resources provided have resulted in serious understaffing of ICUA and therefore in ICUA often being unable to fully comply with its regional and international role.

3. Another problematic issue is the lack of regional outreach and strong working relations with other UNESCO Member States. The Centre needs to expand its work by establishing a functional network of cooperation at both institutional and operational levels with the Member States within its regional mandate, building a continuous stream of debate, and playing a proactive role in the region and internationally.

4. A serious issue is moreover the relation between the Croatian Conservation Institute and the Centre. The Institute includes a Department for Underwater Archaeology located in Zagreb, having similar responsibilities than the Centre. In the current austerity context the two institutions compete for the same financial resources and have overlapping mandates/competences. This situation should be resolved, possibly by merging and/or by better clarifying the division of tasks and responsibilities between the two. Further conflicts of interest could also be avoided by excluding the Institute from the Centre’s Governing Board.

5. A challenge for the future is finally to be seen in improving programme development, increasing fundraising efforts, and focusing on the development of international projects. The Centre currently lacks a results-based internal management, with a monitoring and evaluation framework. Staff expertise, especially in the management positions, needs here to be strongly increased.

It is recommended to renew the agreement between UNESCO and the Government of Croatia, however after a review addressing the following issues:

1. The contractual obligations need to be realistic, especially as regards the financing of ICUA, however they also need to respond to the Centre's needs, as the Centre has to be


4

enabled to fulfill its role; this could be solved by establishing a MoU between the Centre and concerned Members States of UNESCO, which would regulate cooperation modalities.

2. The Centre needs to more efficiently promote the 2001 Convention and (with support from the Ministry of Culture and the Croatian National Commission for UNESCO) needs to intensify its efforts to involve Member States in its regional and international mission;

3. The Centre should be allowed a larger degree of financial and operational autonomy; 4. The Centre's management needs to be enhanced through stronger expertise in

programme development, international outreach and policy-making as well as know-how concerning fundraising;

5. Thorough and regular reviews need to monitor whether the above-mentioned contractual obligations are fulfilled.

In addition to the recommendations concerning the agreement between UNESCO and Croatia, it is recommended that:

1. The Centre develops a sustainable fundraising-outreach and partnership with the private sector as well as seeks financial returns from training activities and site-visit permits taking advantage of the touristic potential in the Zadar region;

2. The Centre encourages other SEE countries to support the Centre and becomes more pro-active in "recruiting" Member States in the endeavor to preserve and promote underwater heritage. Services offered by the Centre (conservation and restoration; capacity-development) should be offered and extended to other SEE countries and therewith involve international stakeholders;

3. The Centre creates a regional network of experts to support the promotion and implementation of the 2001 Convention and an 'intervention team' for concrete activities, followed by appropriate actions;

4. The Ministry of Culture makes sure the ICUA Management Team / Director is selected in order to ensure that more substantial responsibilities regarding fundraising, public outreach and strategic international development of ICUA are fulfilled, as well as a closer cooperation with the board achieved; and finally

5. According to the Agreement between UNESCO and Croatia, the Centre is referenced as a regional entity, whilst its registered name points to its international outreach (ICUA). Since the Centre used its registered name since its establishment, and developed all its cooperation activities under this identity, it is understandable that it should keep this designation for the future. Its international dimension is supported by the established cooperation with scientific institutions from other regions.


5

II. FINDINGS


6

1. Conformity to the UNESCO / Croatian Government Agreement This chapter presents findings which address the following parameters listed in the terms of reference:

Whether the activities effectively pursued by the Centre are in conformity with its functions as set out in the Agreement signed between UNESCO and the Government of the Republic of Croatia.

The fulfilment of contractual obligations as set out in the Agreement signed between the UNESCO and the Government of the Republic of Croatia.

The effectiveness of the Centre's programs and activities to achieving its stated objectives, as defined in the Agreement.

The International Centre for Underwater Archaeology (ICUA) in Zadar, Croatia started working in 2009 as a centre under the auspices of UNESCO (category 21), following the proposal of the Government of Croatia and the recommendation of the Executive Board at its 177th session. The decision to establish the Centre was based on the fact that Croatia was among the first countries to ratify the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. The Centre was opened formally in September 2007 as an organizational unit of the Croatian Conservation Institute. In January 2009 the Centre was legally recognized as an independent institution, although still closely linked to the Croatian Conservation Institute. The main purpose of the Centre is to carry out activities in the field of exploration, conservation and restoration of the underwater cultural heritage. It shall moreover promote the ratification and implementation of the UNESCO 2001 Convention by developing and sharing state-of-the-art methods of research in underwater archaeology, conservation and restoration, training and exchange of knowledge. Furthermore it shall contribute to building capacity in other countries in the region. The focus of the International Centre for Underwater Archaeology is on the countries from South-East Europe and wider Mediterranean region. ICUA is thus the entity that acts on behalf of the Republic of Croatia and implements the agreement between UNESCO and the Government of the Republic of Croatia - authorized by the General Conference, and signed on August 1st, 2008.

1.1. Achievement of the Centre's functions According to the above-mentioned agreement, the Centre was established with the following functions and objectives:

a) to train underwater archaeologists and conservation specialists, nationally and internationally, practically and theoretically (including professional diving training for archaeologists, historians, geologists, photographers and other specialists; scientific methodological education for the research of underwater archaeological sites and education in conservation and restoration);

b) to improve, in the framework of international cooperation, the scientific research of underwater cultural heritage sites, the analysis of finds and their presentation and the restoration of objects recovered from the sea;

c) to foster and facilitate the exchange of knowledge in underwater archaeology; d) to organize international conferences and workshops; and e) to educate the public in order to raise the awareness of the underwater heritage

among the public at large.

1 UNESCO category 2 institutes and centres are not part of the Organization, but associated with it through formal arrangements approved by the General Conference.


7

Training and education functions of the Centre One of the important premises while establishing the Centre was that it will act as a training facility with special focus on the region. Since 2011, the Centre conducted a series of trainings on the following topics: "Basic Course of Underwater Archaeology", "Advanced Course on Underwater Archaeology", "Advanced Training on the Restoration and Conservation of Underwater Archaeological Finds", "Advanced Course on Conservation and Restoration of Metal Finds from Underwater Environments", "Advanced Course on the Conservation and Restoration of Organic Finds from Underwater Environments", "Introductory Course on the Conservation and Restoration of Archaeological Finds from Underwater Environments", "Introduction to Foreshore & Underwater Archaeology", "Certificate in Foreshore and Underwater Archaeology, Underwater Sciences Field School and Scientific Diving Course". The duration of trainings varied between two weeks and three months. Overall, 112 participants2 were trained under ICUA's educational programs between 2011 and 2014: 64 participants from SEE countries3, 48 from other regions4. The number of trainees increased steadily over the 4 years of activity: 15 in 2011, 19 in 2012, 38 in 2013, and 40 in 2014. This was possible mainly with the support of UNESCO but also throughout the partnerships established with a number of important academic organizations from all over the world: Nautical Archaeological Society in Portsmouth (UK), Illyrian Coastal Exploration Program (ICEP), Transylvania University (Kentucky, USA), University of California at Berkeley (USA), Albanian Centre for Marine Research in Saranda (Albania), Centre for Conservation and Archaeology in Cetinje (Montenegro). Through the mentioned training programs many young specialists gained practical experience through internships / volunteering at ICUA during field excavations and also working on-site as restorers / conservators. Overall, the training and education functions of the Centre are fully compliant with ICUA's role to develop/enhance local, national regional and international capacities (as set out in the agreement) and follow the expectations stated in the original application to establish a Category 2 centre. Improving the scientific research of underwater cultural heritage sites Since its establishment, ICUA deployed a series of archaeological projects and conservation projects:

ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECTS CONSERVATION PROJECTS Deep water survey of the seabed of Konavle

Conservation-restoration work on an iron roman legionary's spearhead

Preliminary surveys of the seabed of Zadar County and Šibenik-Knin County

Conservation work on sixteenth century bronze cannons from the Sveti Pavao Shallows site

Systematic investigation of Roman period shipwrecks at Cape Uljeva

Conservation and restoration of underwater archaeological finds from the Murter-Mijoka site

Underwater archeological research at the Janice-Pakoštane site

Conservation and restoration work on the stock of a roman anchor

2 See annex 1 for a complete list of ICUA's trainees. 3 Countries generally referred as SEE countries: Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Kosovo* (references to Kosovo shall be understood to be in the context of UN Security Council Resolution 1244, dated 1999), Moldova, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, and Turkey. 4 UK, Germany, Spain, Mexico, Namibia, Czech Republic, USA, and Estonia.


8

ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECTS CONSERVATION PROJECTS Underwater archaeological research of Veštar harbor

Research of the remains of Suleiman's Bridge near Darda

The results of all archaeological projects and conservation works are published and disseminated:

on the Centre's web site5; on the Centre's bilingual hard copy publications6: "Submerged Heritage"

(Potopljena baština) (4 issues) and "Post-Medieval glass from the seabed of Istria and Dalmatia" (Novovjekovno staklo iz podmorja Istre i Dalmacije);

through University of Zagreb's publications; on web networks and presentations sites (slideshare.com, academia.edu etc.).

Another input that contributed to the scientific research in underwater archaeology is the publication of the manual on "Conservation of Underwater Archaeological Finds" (2 editions) - an important reference for conservation courses, and mentioned by some practitioners (former trainees) as a useful handy tool in daily work. The documentation activity of the Centre focuses also on creation of a digital database for the underwater heritage of the Adriatic Sea7 and the development of the GIS base. Currently, the database is not available to the public, due to the security reasons and need to protect the sites. ICUA has a well-organized, specialized scientific library with books, brochures, reports, DVDs, journals, newspapers etc., and hosts the "Harald Von Petrikovits Library" given as a permanent loan to the Centre and the Zadar University by RGK Frankfurt, a member of the German Archaeological Institute (DAI). The scientific research activity - while complying with the Centre's function - and international scientific cooperation is yet not fully developed. However, the Centre managed to cooperate with several institutions and organizations:

Bayerischen Gesellschaft für Unterwasserarchäologie e. V. (Germany): cooperation in the area of underwater archaeological sites Veštar and Piruzi (Croatia) and publication of the five-year excavation campaigns in Veštar bay;

RPM Nautical Foundation (USA): cooperation in deep sea underwater survey of the Croatian seabed;

Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage (Slovenia): cooperation for excavation activities in Uljeva (Croatia) and Ljubljianica river (Slovenia);

Danish Agency for Culture: cooperation agreement with Danish museums. In the same time, the Centre has not fully developed its potential for cooperation and scientific support, due to the following:

ICUA did not manage to bridge expertise from different countries in scientific activities, and relevant international partners and networks e.g. universities from the UNITWIN Network, museums, academic societies and departments etc. have been involved to a very limited extent;

similarly, regional projects did not involve at its full potential the scientific community from SEE countries;

5 http://www.icua.hr. 6 Available for download on ICUA's web site and other web locations. 7 http://www.machu.hr


9

no multiparty or cooperative regional/international projects, or fundraising applications were developed;

restoration and conservation activities were limited to collaboration with domestic partners or contractors (except those in which ICUA's trainees were involved).

ICUA improved the process of analysis of archaeological finds: its conservators were trained in Mainz, Grenoble and Tirana, an agreement with the Danish Agency for Culture was signed, and other contact channels have been opened. Facilitating exchange of knowledge in underwater archaeology The ICUA team had a significant participation and numerous presentations at different seminars, workshops and congresses (Croatia, Austria, Turkey, Germany, and Italy) and conferences (Czech Republic, Poland, Turkey, Germany, Slovenia, Spain, and Italy). It could have however sought more involvement in UNESCO activities. ICUA's publications were broadly disseminated: the "Submerged Heritage Yearbook" - promoting the Centre's work - was opened to contributions and included articles written by archaeologists from other countries (Slovenia, Montenegro, Cyprus, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom). Still, wider contributions would have been expected from archaeologists involved in underwater programmes in even more countries. The exchange of knowledge was supported through dissemination of the findings, knowledge and expertise, as well as participation in international events and involvement in some archaeological research programs: Croatia, Slovenia, and a project envisaged to be deployed in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, concerning the Macedonian part of Lake Ohrid. However, in order to achieve a leading role in underwater archaeology (and subscribe to the Centre's functions), these activities need to expand in number and consistency: establishing a functional network of research (at both regional and international levels), building a continuous stream of know-how, information and debate, and playing a proactive role in the region and internationally. Organizing regional and international events ICUA organized and/or hosted several seminars, congresses, presentations such as:

the Regional Seminar on Underwater Heritage (2009), dedicated to the establishment of the International Centre for Underwater Archaeology in Zadar as an independent institution responsible for the protection of underwater heritage in the Adriatic and Mediterranean;

a series of lectures in the field of underwater archaeology (2010), introducing lecturers from the Bayerischen Gesellschaft für Unterwasserarchäologie e. V. (BGfU);

a presentation of the Research Centre for Metal Industry in Istrian County (MET.R.IS.), addressing those involved in the conservation, restoration and research of cultural heritage as well as those interested in using the MET.R.IS. services for research on cultural heritage (2010);

the fourth International Congress on Underwater Archaeology IKUWA 4: "Managing the Underwater Cultural Heritage" (September - October, 2011);

"First Meeting of the Regional Centres for Cultural Heritage in South-Eastern Europe: Cooperation, Partnerships, Funding" (March, 2012);


10

the Regional Meeting on the Implementation of the Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage, organized in cooperation with UNESCO

(October, 2014): the objective of the meeting was to improve international cooperation between SEE countries, in terms of protection of the underwater finds and sites. The meeting was attended by representatives of Ministries of Culture from 12 countries and numerous experts.

Although these events and their respective topics subscribe to the functions of the Centre, some of them were organized only upon the initiative of UNESCO. Specific mechanisms that go beyond the usual trainings and workshops should have been created in order to engage more participants and institutions in capacity building activities, and to support follow-up actions directly related to their needs. Raising the awareness of the underwater heritage among the public ICUA has developed a series of actions dedicated to improve public awareness of the underwater heritage. Its Underwater Heritage Presentation Department - currently in the inception phase - has the role to display the underwater archaeological finds. These finds are currently hosted within the Centre's headquarters. This small exhibition area will move to a proper building once the Sveti Nikola (St. Nicholas) church8 will be rehabilitated and opened to the public. It is an ambitious project which would significantly increase the visibility and outreach capacity of the Centre, and would also benefit from its excellent location in the touristic and historical area of Zadar. In October 2014, ICUA in cooperation with Zadar Museum of Ancient Glass (MAS), opened the exhibition "Post-medieval glass from the seabed of Istria and Dalmatia", displaying finds from 16th to 20th century recovered during the underwater projects on coastal sites, and restored at ICUA's laboratories. The website of ICUA includes various media clips (produced by the Centre or courtesy of UNESCO), presentation of several archaeological sites (located on a map), along a list of licensed diving clubs and their site permissions. The site is visible, high on search engines, and contains useful information for the general public. However, it would be good to see also higher profile public awareness content, which could engage a wider audience of decision-makers and stakeholders. Meanwhile, ICUA - besides publishing a yearbook "submerged Heritage" - did not initiate extensive awareness campaigns targeting the general public, which would part of its mission. Since the new facilities for presentation of archaeological findings, exhibitions and public events (to be hosted by the St. Nicholas church) are not yet operational, the Centre cannot maximize the benefits of its work in relation to the general public - on one hand - and amateur and professional divers - on the other hand. Moreover, diving site permits are obtained by diving clubs directly from the Ministry of Culture. The Centre has therefore neither control nor leverage over the objective of a potential awareness campaign. An important objective of the Convention is "The preservation in situ of underwater cultural heritage shall be considered as the first option before allowing or engaging in any

8 The St. Nicholas church (located on the south wing of ICUA's headquarters) - one of Zadar's historical landmarks - is currently undergoing renovation works to serve, in the near future, for hosting presentations, exhibitions and public events related to underwater heritage (managed by the Centre). UNESCO has already supported the elaboration of the preliminary design, which is to be an integral part of the project to be submitted to the EU for possible financing from structural funds.


11

activities directed at this heritage" and this objective relates well to public awareness rising on the underwater cultural heritage. This is not being implemented to the appropriate scale by ICUA although it might be of exceptional value for enhancing its performance, due to the legal framework and to financial constraints. Currently, the law places the control of underwater sites under the Ministry of Culture and the taxes for touristic visit permits (paid by diving clubs) go to the state budget, without proper administration and control of the sites. In cooperation with the ministry, efforts are desirable to modify the law, to possibly involve the Centre in the control and management of the sites. This, in addition to an improved mechanism for in situ preservation would provide additional financial support to the Centre and allow a better linkage with the media, the local community and the civil society at large. Public lectures were organized, showcasing underwater archaeological works, as well as conservation and restoration efforts. Given the technical profile of these lectures, they had a very limited impact on the general public. Overall, the Centre has achieved a fair amount of activities covering its functions related to educating the general public. More initiatives in this area, combined with support (including financial resources) from the ministry and other agencies (especially with regard to the possibility of assigning to the Centre the authority to control and manage access to diving sites), would certainly help the Centre to develop its capacities, including with regard to public awareness.

1.2. Organizational and financial aspects ICUA is a public institution. Its organization, management and operation is governed by the law of the Republic of Croatia. The Centre functions under a Bylaw approved by the Ministry of Culture, has internal regulations9, approved by ICUA board, with provisions for internal organization, collaboration with the labour union, scope and activities, human resources, accountability and transparency. ICUA also has regulations on accounting and financial operations, and specific regulations on occupational safety and fire prevention, aligned with concerned legal acts of the Republic of Croatia (both very important and strict, considering their specific area of operation). Its activity, according to Croatian legislation, is reported to the Ministry of Culture and there are various services and departments for programing, monitoring and supervision of the activities such as the Directorate for the Protection of Cultural Heritage, the Conservation Department in Zadar etc. Financial operation is subject to reporting and control at central and local level and is exclusively governed by the Croatian Financial Reporting Standards. The financial statements are also subject to auditing by the Independent Auditing Service of the Ministry of Culture (internal control to mitigate mismanagement, promote cost-efficient and effective investment, and protect against unlawful or irregular activities) and by the State Audit Office. Acquisitions are subject to verification and control of the State Commission for Supervision of Public Procurement Procedure.

9 "Regulations on internal organizations & operations".


12

ICUA: total budget 2008-2014 (in US$, approximate figures)

SOURCE 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 TOTAL

State budget 0 19,564 15,427 110,714 141,143 199,448 306,367 792,663

UNESCO 0 0 0 7,469 8,742 22,888 47,616 182,756

Other sources 0 49,760 0 39,307 31,120 16,551 46,018 86,715

TOTAL 0 69,324 0 157,489 181,006 238,887 400,001 1,062,134

Note: these figures (as well as the ones in the following charts) are based on the official exchange rate of the Croatian National Bank (HNB) for foreign currency, January 9th, 2015: USD 1 = HRK 6.529331.

According to the agreement between UNESCO and the Government of the Republic of Croatia, the Ministry of Culture should provide the necessary funds for the running costs of the Centre, while the funds for accomplishing particular programmes should be provided from different sources, depending on the type of programme or project. However, the financial resource limitations and understaffing have resulted in ICUA not being able to fully comply with its regional and international role (as mentioned in the previous chapters of the report). In the present situation and organizational settings, as long as the financial support from the Croatian Government continues, the Centre is administratively sustainable, however at a very low level, near subsistence. Diversifying the sources of funding will certainly enhance sustainability and would offer the opportunity to better fulfill the Centre's mission.

ICUA: state budget funding by categories of costs (2011-2014 - in US$, approximate figures)


13

Usually, the annual budget of ICUA is composed four main funding sources: a) Direct funding from the Ministry of Culture, covering human resources and

administrative costs; b) Grants from the Ministry of Culture covering direct costs for the activities of the

Centre; c) Contributions received from UNESCO especially aimed at supporting specific

training activities and particular regional or international events organized by the Centre, and those promoting its role;

d) Other funds raised by ICUA from different sources. The agreement between UNESCO and Croatia specifies that the Ministry of Culture was supposed to provide annually from the state budget a minimum amount of $918,000 to the Centre, of which $228,000 for human resources, $177,000 for administration and maintenance and $513,000 for programs of underwater archaeology (which include research, restoration, and educational activities). As seen in the table above, these figures have not been met (the total budget of the Centre between 2008-2014 is around US$1,000,000) and this puts into question the capacity of the Croatian government to fulfill its obligations under the Agreement with UNESCO and, respectively, the Ministry of Culture to support the Centre at the level of development required for a regional/international body which was granted UNESCO's category 2 institutional status. Officials from the Croatian Ministry of Culture have explained that the country has been affected by the European economic crisis, along most of the other European countries, and this triggered austerity measures which heavily affected all budgetary institutions in Croatia. One of the most severely impacted ministries was the Ministry of Culture. Therefore, the government had to reduce the yearly agreed funding to a minimum, and mainly for covering salaries and basic running costs. According to the Croatian Central Bureau for Statistics, in 2009 the allocation of funding for culture decreased by 15% and with 3% more in 2010.

ICUA: Annual budget per category of costs: 2011


14

ICUA: annual budget per category of costs: 2014

The funding from the State budget is insufficient to cover all administrative costs. The initial large financial investments - which covered the necessary renovation of headquarters, installations and machinery required for conservation and restoration, office and operational equipment etc. - were not followed by the provision of sufficient funding for their maintenance. Also human resources needs were not covered by adequate funding (according to the scheme of personnel approved by the ICUA's board) and this hindered the restoration and conservation activities as the number of specialized personnel was constantly fluctuating. The funding from the State budget covering the research activities is also much reduced if compared to the actual needs to fulfil the Centre's mandate.

ICUA: Programs funded from other sources, 2008-2014 (in US$, approximate figures)

TYPE OF ACTIVITY 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Research activities 0 0 0 5,259 6,892 6,892 8,194

Restoration activities 0 0 0 0 0 8,760 14,658

Educational activities 0 0 0 2,210 1,585 3,630 14,121

TOTAL 0 0 0 7,469 8,477 19,282 36,973

Unfortunately, ICUA has not been able to mobilize funds from various bilateral, multilateral or private sources, and had to function mainly given the resources provided by the Croatian Ministry of Culture and the UNESCO Regional Office in Venice. The funds raised by ICUA from other10 sources were mostly matching funds or small contracts of restoration and have not produced any significant impact on the Centre's overall budget (around 8% of the total budget, 2011-2014). Although one of the provisions of the agreement specifies that the Ministry could contribute up to 30% of the total cost for each international project developed by the Centre, no such projects have been initiated or developed since the creation of ICUA in 2009 (neither regarding access to EU funding opportunities, nor other international programs). Besides the obvious management difficulties in fundraising a public institution, there was another reason for such low amounts of additional funding from other sources until

10 Other than state budget and UNESCO.


15

2014. The main challenge was connected to the particularity of the current legislation in Croatia (common to other SEE countries): according to the law, all extra-budgetary funding not spent at the end of the year were supposed to be reported and transferred to the state budget. According to officials in the Ministry of Culture, the law has been modified recently (2014) and from now on the remaining extra-budgetary funds may be used by public institutions in the next fiscal period. This positive change should raise the expectations on the Centre's fundraising policies.


16

2. UNESCO and the International Centre for Underwater Archaeology This chapter presents findings which address the following parameters listed in the terms of reference:

The relevance of the Centre's programs and activities to achieving UNESCO's strategic programme objectives and sectorial or intersectoral programme priorities and themes, as defined in the Organization's Medium-Term Strategy (C/4), and to attaining programme results at the Main Lines of Action (MLA) level, as defined in the Organization's Approved Programme and Budget (C/5).

The quality of coordination and interaction with UNESCO, both at Headquarters and in the Field, with regard to planning and implementation of programs, as well as with other thematically-related category 2 institutes or Centres, with regard to planning and implementation of programs.

2.1. Relevance of the Centre's activities for UNESCO As the agreement between UNESCO and the Government of the Republic of Croatia for the establishment of the International Centre for Underwater Archaeology was signed on August 1st, 2008, UNESCO's operating strategy was the Medium-Term Strategy for 2008-2013 - 34/C4. The strategy sets five overarching objectives (OO) for the entire organization, designed to respond to specific global challenges, and representing UNESCO's core competencies in the multilateral system:

OO1 Attaining quality education for all and lifelong learning.

OO2 Mobilizing scientific knowledge and policy for sustainable development.

OO3 Addressing emerging social and ethical challenges.

OO4 Promoting cultural diversity, intercultural dialogue and a culture of peace.

OO5 Building inclusive knowledge societies through information and communication.

The above-mentioned agreement does not explicitly refer to the UNESCO strategy, but its objectives and reference to the participation of member states are clear, subscribing to objective OO4 as well as to the Strategic Program Objective SO-11: "Sustainably protecting and enhancing cultural heritage". The highest contribution of the Centre to the Medium-Term Strategy comes from the achievements of training activities and workshops that had significant results, both in quantity (112 trained professionals) and quality (overall appreciation revealed from interviews with the Centre's trainees). The archaeological projects and presentation of finds, conservation and restoration activities are also of high relevance. However, these inputs were not supported by a more consistent level of involvement from the Member States. The Centre established working relations with a limited number of Member States, but their contribution to the above-mentioned activities did not reach the expectations i.e. to strengthen international/regional cooperation. Publications produced by the Centre, the elaboration of the manual on "Conservation of Underwater Archaeological Finds" (2 editions), presentations and workshops, as well as by participation of ICUA representatives at regional and international conferences, meetings and seminars are also consistent to Centre’s mandate and contribute to the


17

UNESCO Medium-Term Strategy. In the same time, the evaluation team could not identify any major international research project (initiated by the Centre in cooperation with Member States) which would observe article 13 of the agreement between UNESCO and the government of the Republic of Croatia, or reflect international / regional cooperation between states. Public education activities were performed at a minimum level. Several initiatives were developed but most of them addressed specialists rather than the public (with one notable exception: the ancient glass exhibition). Other tasks assumed by ICUA in the context of UNESCO's strategic programme objectives and overall international cooperation, as well as their present implementation stage are presented below:

TASKS STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION

To professionally unify the activity of underwater archaeology in the Republic of Croatia.

IN PROGRESS11

Currently, in Croatia currently there are two institutions (ICUA and the Department for Underwater Archaeology12 of the Croatian Conservation Institute) with practically similar responsibilities. In normal conditions, the two institutions might coexist and be professionally connected, yet they compete for the same financial resources. Also, according to the Agreement, a representative of the CCI is one of the board members of ICUA, thus a potential conflict of interest. A better concentration of resources would increase the capacity of the Centre and its activities at regional and international levels.

To organize high-quality training and specialization of national and international experts in underwater archaeology.

COMPLETED

Interview data backed-up by documentation and reports point to the conclusion that these activities were highly successful.

To promote capacity-building, the pursuit of excellence and scientific research.

IN PROGRESS

Capacity building activities have been developed as well as international cooperation in scientific research. The Centre still needs to be established as a more significant regional initiative and institutionalize its training and research facilities for Member States, thus creating sustainable connections with them.

11 The process has been initiated but is currently in stand-by and its completion is uncertain. 12 http://www.h-r-z.hr/en/index.php/zavod/ustroj/sluba-za-arheoloku-batinu/odjel-za-podvodnu-arheologiju


18

TASKS STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION

To improve scientific and expert research of underwater archaeological sites.

IN PROGRESS

The Centre created the premises for research and succeeded in some cases (as reported in several interviews). However, there is insufficient data to for an accurate estimation of outcomes. There are no large scale international projects implemented in cooperation with Member States.

To analyze finds and present them. COMPLETED

To carry out conservation of underwater archaeological finds.

IN PROGRESS

The conservation and restoration activities are still restricted to Croatia.

To promote the principles of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage and its Annex.

IN PROGRESS

ICUA conducted some limited activities related to the promotion of the 2001 Convention (general communication and specific promotion of underwater archaeology - important aspect and objective of the Convention). A main step was the organization of a Regional Meeting in 2014, initiated by UNESCO. It is too soon to estimate its impact, as follow-up activities are necessary to measure results. More such initiatives should however be undertaken, and also independent from UNESCO funding and UNESCO requests.

An important issue to be addressed by the Review of the International Center for Underwater Archaeology was to make a general a general recommendation whether the renewal of the Center's status as a category 2 center is warranted and would conform to the Integrated Comprehensive Strategy. To address this issue, the relevance of the Centre's programmes and activities was assessed for compliance with the UNESCO Medium-Term Strategy 2014-2021 (37 C/4) and the Approved Programme and Budget 2014-2017 (37 C/5). The Centre's programmes and activities subscribe to the Major Programme IV - Culture, Strategic Objective 7: Protecting, promoting and transmitting heritage, and the Main Line of Action 1 (MLA 1): Protecting, conserving, promoting and transmitting culture, heritage and history for dialogue and development. The expected result from the activities and programmes of the Centre is ER4: Global, strategic and forward-looking directions developed and applied through the effective implementation of the 2001 Convention and the multiplier effect achieved. In this context, ICUA’s overall mandate remains highly relevant to UNESCO's strategy and objectives but needs to play a greater role in the promotion of the 2001 Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage and in fostering regional


19

cooperation. Its capacity development activities, conservation work and research and awareness activities are highly significant to UNESCO’s Strategic objective (SO7) and MLA 1. Continuation and enhancement of the activity of the Centre might substantially contribute to the effective implementation of the 2001 Convention in the region (ER4). To do so, the Centre should increase its efforts of addressing regional cooperation by participation of Member States, address the decision level from Member States through capacity development, improve public awareness and secure its funding. The organization of the Regional Meeting on the Implementation of the Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage in October, 2014 created a space for cooperation in the region as well as for the protection of heritage, but it is of utmost importance to establish a continuity between this event and its following actions.

2.2. Coordination and interaction with UNESCO Most of the activities of ICUA were conducted in coordination with UNESCO, including both Headquarters in Paris (Culture Sector Secretariat of the 2001 Convention) and the UNESCO Regional Bureau for Science and Culture in Europe (Venice, Italy), including its Antenna in Sarajevo. UNESCO representatives from Paris, Venice and Sarajevo were closely involved since the establishment of ICUA as a Category 2 centre. In operational terms, the Venice Office was involved in the coordination of the Centre's activities, and was the closest partner for regional cooperation in SEE. UNESCO representatives from Paris, Venice and Sarajevo participated in Board meetings, exchanged information, and made significant contributions in the planning process. UNESCO was instrumental in the provision of financial support for the organization of training activities within the Centre. It was also the lead coordinator of all regional meetings with SEE Member States and stakeholders. The existing documentation received from ICUA proves that the regional meetings were of utmost importance to the mandate of the Centre to further contribute to the strategic goals of UNESCO and promote the Convention in the region. ICUA informed in a constant manner UNESCO on the status of its activities through direct reporting or within board meetings, and sought for assistance (such as scientific advice) whenever needed. However, not all recommendations received from UNESCO were followed by the subsequent actions due to the limited resources of the Centre and its scarcely proactive management. Some obstacles in communication efficiency were reported i.e. difficulties in organizing board meetings due to delayed availability of board representatives and of the Chairman (often a major obstacle). The above-mentioned was mainly caused by the fact that the meetings were always announced on a very short notice (approx. two weeks in advance which is not sufficient for organizing international missions, especially given UNESCO internal regulations in this regard). Considering the implications on the Centre's work (late programming of activities), board meetings should be scheduled with long term anticipation (and to be presented in the yearly Work Plan of the Centre being approved by its Board), with extensive use of communication technologies (Skype, conference calls etc.). ICUA was slow in developing working relations and interacting with other thematically-related Category 2 institutes or centres. Good working relationships with several Member States were established, but the Centre was not successful in finding other types of connections. Initiatives of cooperation with other Category 2 Centres were mostly driven by UNESCO.


20

The most significant event relating to the interaction with Category 2 institutes was the "First Meeting of the Regional Centres for Cultural Heritage in South-Eastern Europe: Cooperation, Partnerships, Funding". The meeting was organized in Zadar in March, 2012 by the Croatian Ministry of Culture and the UNESCO Venice Office, in cooperation with ICUA and the Croatian Commission for UNESCO. The event brought together representatives from the Regional Centre on Intangible Cultural Heritage (Sofia, Bulgaria) - operating under the auspices of UNESCO, the Regional Centre on Digitization of Cultural Heritage (Skopje, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), the Regional Centre on the Restoration of Cultural Heritage (Tirana, Albania), Montenegro, representatives from UNESCO, the European Commission, the World Bank, the Regional Cooperation Council, the International Research Centre on the Economics of Culture and World Heritage Studies, the European Fund for the Balkans and the Ministries of Culture in Croatia and Turkey. The overall objectives of this meeting were: "to exchange information on the status, current, and planned activities of the regional centres; to enhance coordination for the implementation and planning of activities; to share experiences and good practices concerning the status, management, and sustainability of the centres; to reinforce networking and cooperation, and promote the establishment of new partnerships; to better align the centres' activities with other relevant initiatives and programs at sub-regional or European level; to explore possibilities of cooperation and financing opportunities, with special reference to the EU framework13." The results of the above-mentioned meeting (and in general the interaction of ICUA with other Category 2 centres in terms of coordination and further cooperation) were important , but ICUA failed to use the opportunity to develop a strong professional network among such organizations. ICUA must learn from the experience of other centres (funding, relationship with Member States, fostering cooperation and subsequently developing multi-country projects and initiatives). Since the available data on the interaction of ICUA with other thematically-related category 2 institutes or centres was either scarce or incomplete, the whole picture cannot be drawn. Still, the consolidation of such relations (and its ensuing synergy) would greatly improve the effectiveness of the Centre and help its sustainability on long-term. It has been noticed that such interaction is to be established with the support of UNESCO, in order to avoid competition among the centers concerned.

13 From press release.


21

3. Regional impact and quality of relations with UNESCO Member States from South-East Europe This chapter presents findings which address the following parameters listed in the terms of reference:

The regional impact and usefulness of the Centre, with special focus on South-East Europe.

The quality of relations with concerned Member States, and with public/private partners and donors.

3.1. Regional impact of the Centre The implementation of the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage improved at regional level. Since the establishing of ICUA as a Category 2 centre, three Member States from the region ratified the Convention (Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina and Slovenia) and some states improved their policies and legislation. However, no direct connection could be made between the Centre's activity and the policy/legislation changes mentioned above. At this stage, long-term effects produced by ICUA's interventions cannot be evaluated as it is still too early to measure them. It is, therefore, not possible to assess, at present, whether the goals and objectives concerning the regional impact of ICUA - as set out in the agreement - have been met. Although the Centre does keep extensive records, the data collected over the years was not linked to established indicators of success nor was it linked to key evaluation questions. On the other hand, the activities most likely to produce an impact in the region are training and capacity building. The Centre provided capacity building at professional level with special focus on developing the capacities of underwater archaeologists, conservation and restoration of archaeological heritage for 64 specialists from SEE countries. A good example of successful impact at capacity building level is the cooperation between ICUA and the Illyrian Coastal Exploration Program (ICEP), which mobilized partners from the region (Albania, Montenegro). At institutional level, the regional impact of ICUA has proven to be less significant, as there is no evidence of producing positive outcomes from its activity. However, the First Meeting of Regional Centres for Cultural Heritage in SEE, organized by UNESCO and ICUA in 2014 in Zadar, set the premises for strengthening the regional cooperation likely to produce measurable impact and gaining recognition from other international partners.

3.2. Quality of the Centre's relations with UNESCO Member States As ICUA has been officially recognized and endorsed by the annual conferences of SEE ministers of culture, it has established cooperation with various institutions and professionals from the SEE Member States, among them: the Danish Agency for Culture, the Turkish Institute of Nautical Archaeology, Bayerischen Gesellschaft für Unterwasserarchäologie (BGfU) and Deutsche Archäologische Institut (Germany), University of Southampton and Nautical Archaeology Society (UK), Transylvania University and RPM Nautical Foundation (USA), the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage (Slovenia), the Austrian Society for Prehistory and Early History, Ca' Foscari University of Venice (Italy), the Regional Centre for Divers Training and Underwater Demining (Montenegro), the Albanian Centre for Marine Research etc. It is


22

connected to professionals in underwater archaeology and connected researchers from many countries e.g. Italy, Poland, Germany, Romania, Albania, Turkey, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, France etc. It also collects and disseminates information directly, by publications and through news feeds to the archaeological community. The Centre organizes and actively participates at seminars, workshops and conferences with broad participation from Member States, especially from the SEE region. Partnerships and cooperation are also established with Croatian institutions (Institute of Art History, University of Zadar, museums, tourism boards etc.). The Croatian Commission for UNESCO stands for the Ministry of Culture in ICUA's board. ICUA participated at the First UNESCO UNITWIN Meeting of the Network of Universities in the Field of Underwater Archaeology, held in Kemer (Antalya, Turkey) in 2013, organized by UNESCO and Selçuk Üniversitesi. ICUA is not a member or affiliate member to the network but undergoes efforts with support from UNESCO Venice Office to establish a working relation. Partnership with private bodies such as RPM Nautical Foundation, Transylvania University, Albanian Centre for Marine Research, or non-profits from Malta and USA allowed ICUA to conduct two important courses: an Underwater Field School and a Scientific Diving School. Cooperation with private actors are important assets for the Centre's activity and its perspectives in the near future. The Centre does not have a direct, working connection with National Commissions for UNESCO. Connections with the commissions are handled by UNESCO or the Croatian National Commission. Still, recommendations from the National Commissions count in selecting applicants for training courses. During the "First Meeting of the Regional Centres for Cultural Heritage in South-Eastern Europe: Cooperation, Partnerships, Funding" organized in 2012, ICUA had the opportunity to present its programs, inform on its activities in other countries and establish connections with other centres as well as with several UNESCO National Commissions and high rank representatives of the cultural area from various countries (Albania, Bulgaria, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Italy, Montenegro, Turkey). As regards the scientific line of work, ICUA has very good relationships with the above-mentioned Member States. In terms of capacity building, two aspects need to be emphasized: (1) training and (2) capacity development for implementation of the Convention. The Centre trained 112 professionals in underwater archaeology from the Member States (64 from SEE region and 48 from other regions). Considering all factors (available resources, duration of courses, quality of training sessions - from the interviewed trainees' point of view), ICUA performed well and met its proposed objectives, thus offering the necessary know-how to Member States. Regarding capacity building, all stakeholders interviewed agreed that the contribution was related mainly to increasing the professional level - by providing standards and reinforcing cooperation at a limited regional level (Slovenia, Albania and Montenegro). However, strengthening cooperation in the region and promoting the Convention was less successful, the major causes being:

in the SEE region there is low capacity for underwater archaeology, expertise is missing, as well as proper legal frameworks and policies, equipment and (often) specialized departments and authorities;


23

frequently, professionals do not have the opportunity to use the skills/expertise gained during their training stage at ICUA in their countries as underwater archaeologists;

the successful implementation of the Convention and cooperation between states depend on a high level of decision (at governmental/political level);

professionals trained by ICUA and other specialists in underwater archaeology can rarely influence decisions, mostly because there are no training modules which address decision-makers;

ICUA should have used its credentials - obtained since becoming a UNESCO Category 2 centre - to advocate or influence at the level of decision making and therefore efficiently promote the Convention and cooperate with the Member States. Thus, the creation of an international 'intervention team' was proposed by the Centre and should be followed by appropriate actions.

So far, the involvement of Member States in the Centre's regional cooperation activities has been occasional and mostly driven by UNESCO. No action has been taken by ICUA to officially approach national authorities in the SEE Member States in order to establish more effective and regular cooperation mechanisms. For the Centre to acquire a recognized regional status and role, it should itself address to the official authorities in the UNESCO Member States, inform them about ICUA, about its role, mandate, activity and inviting them to cooperate, highlighting the role and the added value of the Centre in the region (to support the conservation and the promotion of the underwater cultural heritage). In 2014, UNESCO opened a window of opportunity with its initiative to organize in Zadar the Regional Meeting on the Implementation of the 2001 Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage that brought together country representatives from the region (including National Commissions and ministries). This should be followed by official correspondence which could lead to establishing a liaison, cooperation objectives and/or systematic communication with Member States. It is crucial for ICUA to gain required recognition and have a regional dimension (acknowledged by the participation of Member States), as it is its primary and most significant function14. Support should be requested from the Ministry of Culture and the Croatian Commission for UNESCO.

14 The Article IV "Organization and Participation" of the Agreement states: (3) The Centre shall be at the service of Member States and Associate Members of UNESCO that, by their common interest in the objectives of the Centre, desire to cooperate with it; (4) Member States of UNESCO wishing to participate in the Centre's activities, as provided for under this Agreement, shall send the Director-General of UNESCO notification to this effect. The Director-General shall inform the Director of the Centre and the Member States mentioned above of the receipt of such notifications.


24

4. Organization and management This chapter presents findings which address the following parameters listed in the terms of reference:

The nature and quality of organizational arrangements, including management, governance and accountability mechanisms.

The human and financial resource base and the quality of mechanisms and capacities, as well as context-specific opportunities and risks for ensuring sustainable institutional capacity and viability:

The process of mobilizing extra budgetary resources and to what extent such extra budgetary funding is aligned to the strategic programme objectives of UNESCO.

4.1. Management and personnel The International Centre for Underwater Archaeology (ICUA) is functioning as an organizational unit of the Croatian Conservation Institute (part of the Ministry of Culture) yet legally recognized as an independent institution.

Overview of ICUA's institutional environment

According to the organizational chart (see next page), the International Centre for Underwater Archaeology in Zadar should have a staff of 18 people, divided into 4 departments. Whilst the chart seems to cover (at least the number of positions) the staffing needs, in reality - due to the shortage of professionals and fluctuation of personnel - the Centre is understaffed for its current stage of development and consists of 10 employees, of which 5 are contracted externally and for short periods of time. The director to a high degree delegates responsibility for day-to-day work on the different priority topics to heads of the four departments, an approach that is reported to work well by internal and external parties. Also, the general feedback from stakeholders is that the Centre is professional and effective, given the resources (human and financial) available. As a small organization, the Centre has short communication lines - which makes work more effective and saves time and efforts.


25

International Centre for Underwater Archaeology: organizational chart

Based on the available documentation and interviews, the following major factors have contributed to the successful achievement of the Centre's tasks: a very good knowledge and understanding of underwater archaeology and its technical aspects, competent staff with strong skills (namely in underwater research, conservation and restoration), a good understanding of the role of the Centre within the Croatian context and the priorities of UNESCO. Similarly, we have identified the following major factors behind the Centre's lack of achievement of certain goals: very limited financial and human resources (given the mandate of the Centre), lack of expertise and experience in organizational development, lack of fundraising skills combined with a challenging fundraising environment provided by the European financial crisis, and perhaps a too ambitious scope of work. Another challenge faced by ICUA is the inability to hire personnel or keep interns to become full-time employees due to the legal and financial provisions (the personnel scheme is frozen for public institutions in Croatia). This situation leads to personnel fluctuation and redundant investing in development of expertise and skills (mainly in the conservation and restoration activities). The organizational chart is missing a crucial division, which somehow explains the lack of European or private funding: project development, which would include specific tasks such as communication with stakeholders/peers, researching and raising funds, development of projects and programs at national/regional/international level etc. ICUA also lacks a results-based, internal management monitoring and evaluation framework that would support the Centre being able to articulate its accomplishments more clearly. With no appropriate personnel to support long-term development through relevant and special expertise there is an incomplete picture of ICUA. The Centre is also not using stakeholder or external expertise in order to develop a higher knowledge level of organizational growth, financial sustainability and institutional outreach. Therefore, the Centre does not have the capacity to contribute effectively to developing policies and


26

strategies with potential to influence national, regional or international decisions concerning underwater heritage and subsequent actions that are based on these.

4.2. Board According to the agreement, the Council (Board) of the Centre is composed of five people: 2 representatives of the Ministry of Culture, 2 representatives of the Director-General of UNESCO, and a representative of the Croatian Conservation Institute. Board meetings were organized regularly (the 10th meeting was held in December, 2014) but not always on site (face-to-face), their main purpose being the approval of work and financial plans. Since the setup of the Centre in 2008, the board has not changed its composition (neither as number, nor as diversity), although other similar research institutions have adapted their governance to their needs. The presence in the board of ICUA of a representative of the Croatian Conservation Institute (head of the Department for Underwater Archaeology) is perceived as a potential conflict of interest by most of the interviewed stakeholders. The Institute includes a Department for Underwater Archaeology of the Institute, with similar responsibilities to ICUA and - in the current austerity context - the two institutions competing for the same financial resources. The general opinion is that the Ministry of Culture should resolve this situation. The solution to this problematic issue has to be identified within the legal office of the Ministry of Culture: either merge the two institutions into one unique entity (which is the most efficient resolution, in our opinion), or separate them entirely, including dismissing the representative of the Conservation Institute from the Board. The separation would still keep the competition, but at least would eliminate the potential conflict of interests.

4.3. Mobilizing other resources Having no other organization to benchmark with, it is difficult to estimate whether the running of the Centre is cost-effective or not. From the documentation and discussions with the director and financial officer of the Centre, the conclusion is that ICUA has been struggling with the lack of funding and strict financial regulations currently under operation in the Croatian public sector. Another conclusion is that the annual budget is usually managed under pressure and this has reflected on the hiring policy (which was strongly affected by the austerity measures adopted in Croatia). As specified in the first part of the report, ICUA managed to raise from other sources a total of about US$ 87,000 (2011-2014) which were mostly matching funds or small contracts of restoration. These additional funds have not produced any significant impact on the Centre's overall budget and are far from its fundraising potential. Besides fundraising, a more important issue is the absence of any project funded through international financial assistance i.e. European funding schemes, other institutional donors, bilateral funding - although this issue was discussed during board meetings. This is probably due to the fact that the Centre did not have the necessary expertise to access external funding, and to the lack of strategic vision in this area. As suggested in the UNESCO's Mid-Term Strategy 2014-2021, the process of mobilizing extra-budgetary resources is particularly important, as it complements programme priorities and contributes to meeting expected results. So far, ICUA has not developed an appropriate policy to mobilize external resources and therefore must take action in this respect with due priority.


27

III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


28

1. General recommendation whether renewal of the Centre's status as a category 2 Centre is warranted and would conform to the Integrated Comprehensive Strategy (ICS) Through the implementation of specific actions that address the concerns raised in this report, ICUA should be enabled to better fulfil its mandate and specific regional and international objectives. The general recommendation which concludes this review is that the agreement between UNESCO and the Government of Croatia should be renewed, however after a review, ensuring that there is deeper and joint involvement of the board and stakeholders of the Centre and that the regional and international dimensions of ICUA are in strengthened. ICUA's comparative advantage for fostering the implementation of the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage in the region results from its uniqueness. It is the only centre specialized in underwater archaeology in the region, has developed its capacities to a large extent, and is established by a country which is active in promoting the 2001 Convention and has tradition in underwater archaeology. The majority of stakeholders' believe that continuation/renewal of the agreement is of outmost importance for both Croatia and UNESCO. The main priority for ICUA (with support from the Ministry of Culture and the Croatian National Commission for UNESCO) should be to intensify its efforts to actively involve Member States in its regional and international mission. Ensuring that ICUA is a regional/international entity rather than a national centre could be done through the stronger participation of representatives (specialists, officials etc.) of similar entities from Member States at the meetings of the governing body of the Centre. Such a step - which requires a process of institutional development accepted and supported by the Croatian Ministry of Culture - would further improve the Centre's regional / international status and network building and better serve the stakeholders in the region. ICUA should become more proactive and establish direct working relations with National Commissions for UNESCO and with relevant authorities for underwater archaeology in the Member States. In order to support the evolution of ICUA as a strong regional centre, it should lay a greater emphasis on capacity development and programme development for the region. Subsequently, an increased and coherent effort to exchange information, experience, and expertise in research and institution building needs to be developed having its focus on the regional status of ICUA. Regional support should be provided and sought from Member States (essentially, the Centre's main stakeholders) and ICUA's board should be actively involved in this process. ICUA should also increase its funding from other sources than the state budget in order to properly address the objectives and functions stated by the strategy especially concerning the regional / interregional / global scope of its activities, and to allow a more substantial contribution to UNESCO's programs. As over the years UNESCO representatives in ICUA's Board have frequently stressed that the Croatian authorities should meet the contractual obligations as well as the terms assumed in the feasibility study, the new agreement could be signed only if these commitments are revised and addressed diligently. The new agreement should foresee thorough and regular reviews (perhaps yearly - as recommended in the Integrated Comprehensive Strategy) in order to monitor whether these above-mentioned issues are being addressed and solved.


29

According to the Agreement between UNESCO and Croatia, the Centre is referenced as a regional entity, whilst its registered name points to its international outreach (ICUA). Since the Centre used its registered name since its establishment, and developed all its cooperation activities under this identity, it is understandable that it should keep this designation for the future. Its international dimension is supported by the established cooperation with scientific institutions from other regions.

2. Specific recommendations to the Centre for improving the effectiveness of its operations 2.1. Strengthening the regional dimension of ICUA

Following the review mission in Croatia and the interviews conducted with several stakeholders, corroborated with an overview of ICUA's activities/results/general impact, the evaluation team believes that the Centre's activities are generally well implemented and the staff performs well. However, results are not fully satisfactory in several areas (such as regional impact, relations with Member States). Our assumption is that such shortcomings are due to a lack of strategic approach by the management and the priority given to short-term results and programming. The management of ICUA should aim at producing sustainable outcomes, as a result of rational strategic thinking, result-based management, and ensuring the highest possible impact. More attention needs to be given towards improving capacity-development and educational programs (to also address other stakeholders such as decision-makers and general public) at the regional level in order to observe at a maximum the strategy for UNESCO category 2 centres and UNESCO's medium term strategy. ICUA can assume in the future an important regional role and one could therefore ask why other SEE countries (directly or through specialized agencies) should not contribute to funding the Centre. Most of the countries in the region (if not all) lack the structures which may be corresponding institutionally to the Centre. However, Member States have not been yet properly invited to cooperate and profit from the Centre. ICUA's mission, therefore, must be augmented by becoming pro-active in "recruiting" Member States in their endeavour - preserving and promoting underwater heritage. As another practical approach, we suggest the creation of a regional network of experts which would observe and report on the progress of implementation of the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. This would enhance the capacity of ICUA to meet the terms and objectives of the Agreement between UNESCO and the Croatian Government, and would also build the cooperation framework which relies on the main principles of the Convention. ICUA should use its credentials - obtained since becoming a UNESCO Category 2 centre - to advocate or influence at the level of decision making and therefore efficiently promote the Convention and cooperate with the Member States. Also, the creation of a regional/international 'intervention team' (which was proposed recently by the Centre) should be further explored. Services offered by ICUA (conservation and restoration) should be further extended to other countries and therewith involve international participation (expertise, workforce, exchanges etc.) in conservation and restoration activities besides organizing training sessions. Likewise, the conservation and restoration workshops should be organized during the months when diving is not possible (winter-spring) and should involve a wide range of experts and academics from other countries.


30

Professionals trained by ICUA and other specialists in underwater archaeology, restoration and conservation linked with the Centre's research activities should be trained in order to be able to contribute in policy issues or influence decision-makers. Additionally, training modules for decision-makers in the field could be provided in order to target this level of responsibility and therefore increase the success rate in promoting the 2001 Convention in the region (in conjunction with UNESCO) and make a positive difference.

2.2. Institutional development In terms of efficiency, the actual status of ICUA as a structure within the Croatian Ministry of Culture sets a series of drawbacks (but also certain benefits) that are quite difficult to quantify, but points to the alternative of placing its mandated tasks in a more appropriate organizational structure. Our opinion is that a larger degree of financial and operational autonomy would probably be a more efficient institutional setup for the Centre. The autonomous functioning relates to some flexibility regarding its internal management (organization, staffing, financing), as well as independence in decision-making. The process of institutional development should also look further into sustainable funding mechanisms through partnering with the private sector and financial returns from activities15 taking advantage of the touristic potential in the Zadar region, especially through the attribution of the oversight over dive permits for archaeological sites. Another possible option is the creation of a cooperating registered charity (NGO) or trust - using the classic "Friends of the Museum" model - whose primary task would be to increase public awareness, understanding and appreciation of underwater archaeology at regional and international levels by supporting the Centre's activities. Such a charity would certainly involve past trainees of ICUA, former employees, volunteers, Croatian archaeologists and divers, and mobilize the local community. This initiative could also assist in setting up fundraising events, obtain grants and various support in order to increase the number of visitors of the public sites administered by ICUA (the future exhibition/presentation premises within St. Nicholas complex), maintain higher visibility of their website and obtain many other benefits. Likewise, donations could be sought to support the operating costs for the preservation of underwater sites, conservation of archaeological finds and even maintenance and repairs of ICUA's valuable lab equipment. Such an approach could, therefore, substantially increase the annual financial reach of the Centre.

2.3. Fundraising Overall, at global and regional levels, underwater archaeology is largely underfinanced and ICUA's vision must acknowledge that the main way to attract more funding for its activities should be to develop adequate fundraising capacities. Public institutions can raise private funds to support their growth and accelerate improvement. Many institutions similar to ICUA undertake activities that generate income to support their aims and objectives. They trade with visitors through museums and attached small shops, or by charging for admission and educational activities; they

15 The centre's scientific and cultural mission may be supported by activities that are ethically consistent with it. The centre must also be clear about the way in which its trading and commercial activities contribute to its fundamental purpose.


31

also trade with businesses such as publishers and have commercial relationships with sponsors; in addition they may hire out their premises, or offer consultancy services to other organizations. The business community in Croatia is becoming more sensitive to social and community responsibility and opportunities are likely to increase for public-private partnerships or commercial contracts in the near future. Ministry of Culture representatives stated repeatedly that the Centre, in its actual institutional format, is able legally to receive donations or pursue fundraising activities - however, it is highly unlikely that individual or even corporate donors would support financially a governmental institution. As the Centre will increase its activities in the SEE region, it will need a strategic plan to support those activities. This should include seeking funds for specific projects from various agencies and international programs, with special focus on the EU, as well as the participating Member States. A strategy for reaching out to Member States should be developed as soon as possible, and be accompanied by a funding strategy that diversifies the Centre's sources of funding. Moreover, if ICUA will develop a specialized (projects and programs) department aimed at raising funds from bilateral, multilateral and private sources, it will require a specific array of competences i.e. fundraising skills, skills in managing and leading projects and programmes, as well as skills in communication and public relations. It is very clear that the present staffing and working structure of the Centre does not allow such activities, as all of the full-time or contract-based employees have other (time-consuming) assignments and no specific competences in this area. If ICUA wishes to implement professional fundraising, it would need at least one full-time employee with the above-mentioned types of skills and a track record, as well as strong insight into networking in general and culture and underwater archaeology in particular. This leads to the recommendation to hire at least two experts: a fundraiser (with abilities in both raising funds from private sources and international programs i.e. EU schemes) and a communication officer. If hiring a fundraiser is not possible, there are two other possible solutions: either contract a short-term consultant specialized in fundraising and proposal-writing, or use the appropriate expertise from partner institutions or other departments of the Ministry of Culture. Also, the tasks of the director should include more substantial responsibilities regarding the funding and optimal functioning of ICUA, as well as skills in international outreach and closer cooperation with the Board, including a more visionary and strategic approach to the Centre's development.

2.4. Governing Board The planning for Board meetings should be done at the beginning of each year so that sessions can be planned in the agendas of the Board members in due time. Topics should be communicated timely and recommendations made should be applied closely by the Centre's management, monitored, and reported about during subsequent sessions. The governing board has usually a fiduciary responsibility for the institution, and that includes - in this case - approving academic and institutional goals. But the board members should also care about the funding needs of the Centre, and should be, at least, part of the process of establishing a strategy in this regard.


32

In similar institutions dealing with similar situations, boards are restructuring and re-evaluating their role in order to increase their capacity to provide fundraising leadership. There are various options to include different stakeholder representatives among board members, yet it would be important that the municipality of Zadar and eventually a representative of the county authorities to be represented in the board, thus giving a sense of community ownership to the Centre and facilitating the integration of ICUA among the Zadar area landmarks. In any case, the fundraising strategy should be undertaken as a part of a coordinated plan, working with the director and the employees with such responsibilities, and other support structures i.e. the financial department of the Ministry of Culture etc.

3. Specific recommendations to UNESCO for improving the effectiveness of its coordination and interaction with the Centre Coordination between UNESCO and ICUA could be enhanced by establishing a simple benchmark system in order to keep track of the progress obtained in meeting the major regional objectives of the Centre, along with the other significant provisions from the renewed agreement. A number of key indicators and organizational development facts could be followed through a simple progress-reporting mechanism proactively followed by the Centre. Building university and academic networks, as well as encouraging inter-university cooperation through the transfer of knowledge on underwater archaeology and research across borders should also become an objective and the Centre should seek stronger to access the University Twinning and Networking Programme (UNITWIN) in order to accelerate the inclusion of the Centre's activities and reach within university networks and inter-university cooperation.

4. Specific recommendations for possible amendments to the Agreement As specified in chapter III.1, the conclusion of this review is that the agreement16 between UNESCO and the Government of Croatia concerning ICUA should be renewed. Another conclusion of the review is that the conditions for renewal of the agreement should observe the following recommendations:

a) Article IV of the agreement - which reflects the current state of ICUA as an independent entity within the framework of the Croatian Ministry of Culture - should be discussed with the Croatian counterparts and revised following the suggestions from this review, giving the Centre a larger degree of financial and operational autonomy, addressing the role of coordination with the Croatian Conservation Institute etc.);

b) The renewed agreement should be amended (article VI) by including specific (and measurable) objectives related to the promotion of the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage17. The bylaw of the Centre should also reflect this specific objective;

16 The new agreement should meet the terms of the Integrated Comprehensive Strategy for Category 2 Institutes and Centres under the auspices of UNESCO and use the new agreement template which is annexed to the strategy. All the following recommendations (and chapter numbers) are applicable to the above-mentioned template. 17 e.g. "Through international and regional cooperation - promote the principles of the 2001 Convention and its Annex."


33

c) Article IX of the agreement should include a specific provision which states that the funding will be ensured through the State Budget and alternative sources of funding. It should also clearly specify that the Croatian government will support18 ICUA in accessing extra-budgetary funding (such as bilateral, multilateral and private sources, as well as international projects and EU funding);

d) Having in mind the ambitious financial objectives settled in the first Agreement, the financial contribution of the Croatian government to funding the Centre should be revised and brought to realistic figures, while nonetheless addressing the actual needs of the Centre in order to enable it to fulfil its role. These revised figures should ensure the financial sustainability of the Centre's core functions, and allow for raising funds from other possible donors (EU funding, local authorities, private funding etc.) for specific projects;

e) Article IX of the agreement should also be updated as concerns the number of experts employed - according to the current needs of the Centre and its foreseen development, following the Board's recommendations and the conclusions of the present review19.

While struggling for financial resources, ICUA should actively continue to pay attention to its regional mandate and focus on the SEE, and train professionals from this region, with special focus on officials from relevant authorities. The provision of support in developing national and regional policies, as well as helping effectively Member Countries to set up Underwater or Maritime Archaeology authorities could be one of the important issues which may be specified as such in the next Agreement. As suggested above, ICUA should explore the possibility to raise contributions from other Member States in its activities (and, possibly, to include representatives from SEE Member States in the board). Perhaps the Agreement and/or bylaw of the Centre could at least allow the prospects for such changes in the governance and geographical mandate of the Centre by making reference to the relevant initiatives for cultural cooperation in SEE.

18 Through expertise (hired or contracted by the Centre) or technical assistance. 19 In our opinion: at least 7 experts (currently): director, financial officer, three heads of departments, librarian, administrator / maintenance.


34

ANNEXES TO THE REPORT


35

Annex 1: List of participants (ICUA courses and trainings)

List of participants: courses and trainings organized by ICUA, 2011-2014 NO NAME AND SURNAME INSTITUTION COUNTRY REGION YEAR COURSE

1 Maria Teresa Ramirez Miranda

Student Mexico Worldwide 2011 Advanced Training Course on Restoration and Conservation of Underwater Archaeological Finds

2 Faustinia Tuuyapeni Kambombo

National Museum Namibia Worldwide 2011 Advanced Training Course on Restoration and Conservation of Underwater Archaeological Finds

3 Omayra Gorostidi Eibar Student Spain Worldwide 2011 Advanced Training Course on Restoration and Conservation of Underwater Archaeological Finds

4 Antonia Vodanović Student Croatia SEE 2011 Advanced Training Course on Restoration and Conservation of Underwater Archaeological Finds

5 Marko Barišić Zadar University Bosnia & Herzegovina SEE 2011 Advanced Training Course on Restoration and Conservation of Underwater Archaeological Finds

6 Maja Živković Central Institute for Conservation, Belgrade

Serbia SEE 2011 Advanced Training Course on Restoration and Conservation of Underwater Archaeological Finds

7 Ana Dimcevska Museum of Macedonia FYROM SEE 2011 Advanced Training Course on Restoration and Conservation of Underwater Archaeological Finds

8 Petra Zdravković Kulturni Centar Bar Montenegro SEE 2011 Advanced Training Course on Restoration and Conservation of Underwater Archaeological Finds

9 Ionut Catalin Dobrinescu National Museum of History and Archeology

Romania SEE 2011 Basic Underwater Archaeology Course

10 David Badovinac Arhej d.o.o. Slovenia SEE 2011 Basic Underwater Archaeology Course 11 Nemanja Čavlović Ministry of Culture Montenegro SEE 2011 Basic Underwater Archaeology Course 12 Anton Donev Centre for Underwater

Archaeology, Sozopol Bulgaria SEE 2011 Basic Underwater Archaeology Course

13 Valentina Todoroska N/A FYROM SEE 2011 Basic Underwater Archaeology Course 14 Mariglen Meshini Archaeological Service

Agency Albania SEE 2011 Basic Underwater Archaeology Course

15 Anita Jelić Conservation Institute Croatia SEE 2011 Basic Underwater Archaeology Course


36

NO NAME AND SURNAME INSTITUTION COUNTRY REGION YEAR COURSE 16 Abby Minett Headland Archaeology,

Edinburgh United Kingdom Worldwide 2012 Basic Underwater Archaeology Course

17 Borjana Lyutzkanova PhD student Bulgaria SEE 2012 Advanced Underwater Archaeology Course 18 Nemanja Čavlović Ministry of Culture Montenegro SEE 2012 Advanced Underwater Archaeology Course 19 Mariglen Meshini Archaeological Service

Agency Albania SEE 2012 Advanced Underwater Archaeology Course

20 Anna Demetriou Mazotos Shipwreck Project Cyprus Worldwide 2012 Advanced Underwater Archaeology Course 21 Anita Jelić Conservation Institute Croatia SEE 2012 Advanced Underwater Archaeology Course 22 Rok Kovačić Freelance underwater

photographer Slovenia SEE 2012 Advanced Underwater Archaeology Course

23 Maria Ktori Committee on the Missing Persons

Cyprus Worldwide 2012 Basic Underwater Archaeology Course

24 Sarita Karpuzova Institute for Protection of Cultural Monuments

FYROM SEE 2012 Basic Underwater Archaeology Course

25 Borjana Lyutzkanova PhD student Bulgaria SEE 2012 Basic Underwater Archaeology Course 26 Tanja Šuflaj Museum of Umag Croatia SEE 2012 Basic Underwater Archaeology Course 27 Maria Ktori Committee on the Missing

Persons Cyprus SEE 2012 Introduction to Foreshore & Underwater

Archaeology20 28 Tanya Mateeva Business Operations Lead,

Hewlett-Packard Bulgaria SEE 2012 Introduction to Foreshore & Underwater

Archaeology29 Marina Mustać ICUA Croatia SEE 2012 Introduction to Foreshore & Underwater

Archaeology30 Nemanja Čavlović Ministry of Culture Montenegro SEE 2012 Introduction to Foreshore & Underwater

Archaeology31 Maria Ktori Committee on the Missing

Persons Cyprus Worldwide 2012 Certificate in Foreshore and Underwater

Archaeology1 32 Tanya Mateeva Business Operations Lead,

Hewlett-Packard Bulgaria SEE 2012 Certificate in Foreshore and Underwater

Archaeology33 Marina Mustać ICUA Croatia SEE 2012 Certificate in Foreshore and Underwater

Archaeology

20 Nautical Archaeological Society Course.


37

NO NAME AND SURNAME INSTITUTION COUNTRY REGION YEAR COURSE 34 Nemanja Čavlović Ministry of Culture Montenegro SEE 2012 Certificate in Foreshore and Underwater

Archaeology35 Nicolas Bartos Brown University USA Worldwide 2013 Introduction to Foreshore & Underwater

Archaeology21 36 Damian Byers Student USA Worldwide 2013 Introduction to Foreshore & Underwater

Archaeology37 David Conklin University of Miami USA Worldwide 2013 Introduction to Foreshore & Underwater

Archaeology38 Stephanie Ford Florida State University USA Worldwide 2013 Introduction to Foreshore & Underwater

Archaeology39 Jaaziel Garcia University of Puerto Rico USA Worldwide 2013 Introduction to Foreshore & Underwater

Archaeology40 Cameron Hutchins University of Colorado USA Worldwide 2013 Introduction to Foreshore & Underwater

Archaeology41 Lee Pape University of West Florida USA Worldwide 2013 Introduction to Foreshore & Underwater

Archaeology42 Anie Wright Transylvania University USA Worldwide 2013 Introduction to Foreshore & Underwater

Archaeology43 Nicolas Bartos Brown University USA Worldwide 2013 Underwater Sciences Field School22 44 Damian Byers Student USA Worldwide 2013 Underwater Sciences Field School45 David Conklin University of Miami USA Worldwide 2013 Underwater Sciences Field School46 Stephanie Ford Florida State University USA Worldwide 2013 Underwater Sciences Field School47 Jaaziel Garcia University of Puerto Rico USA Worldwide 2013 Underwater Sciences Field School48 Cameron Hutchins University of Colorado USA Worldwide 2013 Underwater Sciences Field School49 Lee Pape University of West Florida USA Worldwide 2013 Underwater Sciences Field School40 Anie Wright Transylvania University USA Worldwide 2013 Underwater Sciences Field School51 Maria Ktori Committee on the Missing

Persons Cyprus Worldwide 2013 Advanced Underwater Archaeology Course

21 Nautical Archaeological Society Course. 22 Illyrian Coastal Exploration Program.


38

NO NAME AND SURNAME INSTITUTION COUNTRY REGION YEAR COURSE 52 Sarita Karpuzova Institute for Protection of

Cultural Monuments FYROM SEE 2013 Advanced Underwater Archaeology Course

53 Vladimir Danilović University Ca 'Foscari, Venice

Serbia SEE 2013 Advanced Underwater Archaeology Course

54 Maria Alexandrou European Master in Classical Cultures

Cyprus Worldwide 2013 Advanced Underwater Archaeology Course

55 Damir Ugljen University of Mostar Bosnia & Herzegovina SEE 2013 Basic Underwater Archaeology Course 56 Dragomir Garbov Centre for Underwater

Archaeology, Sozopol Bulgaria SEE 2013 Basic Underwater Archaeology Course

57 Ana Fundurulić Agency for Management of Stari Grad Plain

Croatia SEE 2013 Basic Underwater Archaeology Course

58 Maria Michael Ministry of Communication and Works

Cyprus SEE 2013 Basic Underwater Archaeology Course

59 David Badovinac Badovinac d.o.o. Slovenia SEE 2013 Introduction to Foreshore & Underwater Archaeology23

60 Iris Bekljanov N/A Slovenia SEE 2013 Introduction to Foreshore & Underwater Archaeology

61 Matej Draksler Matej Draksler s.p. Slovenia SEE 2013 Introduction to Foreshore & Underwater Archaeology

62 Matej Školc N/A Slovenia SEE 2013 Introduction to Foreshore & Underwater Archaeology

63 Aleš Tiran ARHAT, arheološke raziskave s.p.

Slovenia SEE 2013 Introduction to Foreshore & Underwater Archaeology

64 Anita Jelić ICUA Croatia SEE 2013 Introduction to Foreshore & Underwater Archaeology

65 Marina Šimičić ICUA Croatia SEE 2013 Introduction to Foreshore & Underwater Archaeology

66 David Badovinac Badovinac d.o.o. Slovenia SEE 2013 Certificate in Foreshore and Underwater Archaeology4



39

NO NAME AND SURNAME INSTITUTION COUNTRY REGION YEAR COURSE 67 Iris Bekljanov N/A Slovenia SEE 2013 Certificate in Foreshore and Underwater

Archaeology68 Matej Draksler Matej Draksler s.p. Slovenia SEE 2013 Certificate in Foreshore and Underwater

Archaeology69 Matej Školc N/A Slovenia SEE 2013 Certificate in Foreshore and Underwater

Archaeology70 Aleš Tiran ARHAT, arheološke

raziskave s.p. Slovenia SEE 2013 Certificate in Foreshore and Underwater

Archaeology71 Anita Jelić ICUA Croatia SEE 2013 Certificate in Foreshore and Underwater

Archaeology72 Marina Šimičić ICUA Croatia SEE 2013 Certificate in Foreshore and Underwater

Archaeology73 Carlota Perez-Reverte

Manas ARQUA, Cartagena-Murcia Spain Worldwide 2014 Advanced Course on Conservation and

Restoration of Metal Finds from Underwater Environments

74 Carla Riera Andreu N/A Spain Worldwide 2014 Advanced Course on Conservation and Restoration of Metal Finds from Underwater Environments

75 Cristina Ojeda Oliva N/A Spain Worldwide 2014 Advanced Course on Conservation and Restoration of Metal Finds from Underwater Environments

76 Maria Molilna Intxaustegi Master of History Spain Worldwide 2014 Advanced Course on Conservation and Restoration of Organic Finds from Underwater Environments

77 Melanie Munzner Think Heritage, Muharraq, Kingdom of Bahrain

Germany Worldwide 2014 Basic Underwater Archaeology Course

78 Veronika Zerzánová N/A Czech Republic SEE 2014 Introductory Course on Conservation and Restoration of Archaeological Finds from Underwater Environments

79 Kelsey Dwyer Davidson College USA Worldwide 2014 Introduction to Foreshore & Underwater Archaeology24



40

NO NAME AND SURNAME INSTITUTION COUNTRY REGION YEAR COURSE 80 Steven Lopez Biola University USA Worldwide 2014 Introduction to Foreshore & Underwater

Archaeology 81 Svenja Weise University of Southern

Denmark Germany Worldwide 2014 Introduction to Foreshore & Underwater

Archaeology 82 Jack Pink University of Southampton United Kingdom Worldwide 2014 Introduction to Foreshore & Underwater

Archaeology 83 Elizabeth Krueger Massachusetts Institute of

Technology USA Worldwide 2014 Introduction to Foreshore & Underwater

Archaeology 84 Daniel Neubauer N/A Germany Worldwide 2014 Certificate in Foreshore and Underwater

Archaeology25 85 Carmen Obied University of Southampton United Kingdom Worldwide 2014 Scientific Diving Course26 86 Margaret Siple University of Washington USA Worldwide 2014 Scientific Diving Course87 Maili Roio Estonian National Heritage

Board Estonia Worldwide 2014 Scientific Diving Course

88 David Selmo N/A USA Worldwide 2014 Scientific Diving Course89 Esther Unterweger University of Southampton Germany Worldwide 2014 Scientific Diving Course90 Kelsey Dwyer Davidson College USA Worldwide 2014 Scientific Diving Course91 Steven Lopez Biola University USA Worldwide 2014 Scientific Diving Course92 Svenja Weise University of Southern

Denmark Germany Worldwide 2014 Scientific Diving Course

93 Jack Pink University of Southampton United Kingdom Worldwide 2014 Scientific Diving Course94 Maria Ktori University of Cyprus Cyprus Worldwide 2014 Scientific Diving Course95 Anya Rutter University of Southampton Germany Worldwide 2014 Scientific Diving Course96 Kelsey Dwyer Davidson College USA Worldwide 2014 Underwater Sciences Field School7 97 Steven Lopez Biola University USA Worldwide 2014 Underwater Sciences Field School98 Svenja Weise University of Southern

Denmark Germany Worldwide 2014 Underwater Sciences Field School

99 Jack Pink University of Southampton United Kingdom Worldwide 2014 Underwater Sciences Field School

25 Nautical Archaeological Society Course. 26 Illyrian Coastal Exploration Program.


41

NO NAME AND SURNAME INSTITUTION COUNTRY REGION YEAR COURSE 100 Elizabeth Krueger Massachusetts Institute of

Technology USA Worldwide 2014 Underwater Sciences Field School

101 Darko Kovačević N/A Serbia SEE 2014 Advanced Underwater Archaeology Course 102 Nikola Paskali Institute for Protection of

Cultural Monuments FYROM SEE 2014 Advanced Underwater Archaeology Course

103 Valentina Todoroska Museum Dr. Nikola Nezlobinski, Struga

FYROM SEE 2014 Advanced Underwater Archaeology Course

104 Zdravka Georgieva Student Bulgaria SEE 2014 Basic Underwater Archaeology Course 105 Aleksandar Sajdl Student Serbia SEE 2014 Basic Underwater Archaeology Course 106 Jelena Čelebić Student Montenegro SEE 2014 Basic Underwater Archaeology Course 107 Sara Ćorković N/A Slovenia SEE 2014 Introduction to Foreshore & Underwater

Archaeology27 108 Davor Lipljan N/A Croatia SEE 2014 Introduction to Foreshore & Underwater

Archaeology 109 Roko Surić N/A Croatia SEE 2014 Introduction to Foreshore & Underwater

Archaeology 110 Sara Ćorković N/A Slovenia SEE 2014 Certificate in Foreshore and Underwater

Archaeology8 111 Roko Surić ICUA Croatia SEE 2014 Certificate in Foreshore and Underwater

Archaeology 112 Maria Ktori N/A Cyprus Worldwide 2014 Certificate in Foreshore and Underwater

Archaeology


Annex 2: Terms of reference


Terms of Reference Background Category 2 institutes and centers under the auspices of UNESCO form an important part of UNESCO’s network and as a general rule represent an effective partnership model for UNESCO’s programme delivery, significantly contributing to priority areas in UNESCO’s fields of competence. Category 2 institutes and centers are intended to contribute to the achievement of UNESCO’s strategic programme objectives and sectoral or intersectoral programme priorities and themes and to the attainment of programme results at the Main Lines of Action (MLA) level of the UNESCO programme and budget (C/5), whether through individual action, joint action with other category 2 institutes and centers or through joint implementation with the Secretariat. Category 2 institutes and centers can also play a considerable role in helping the Organization achieve programme objectives for which sectoral expertise or resources are not sufficient. In order to enhance the operation and effectiveness of individual UNESCO category 2 institutes and centers, as well as the effectiveness of their network, a revised Integrated Comprehensive Strategy for Institutes and Centers under the Auspices of UNESCO, as contained in document 37 C/18 Part I and its annex, was approved by the 37th session of the General Conference (37 C/Resolution 93). This strategy, among other elements, provides guidelines for renewal assessment procedures of category 2 institutes and centers. Those guidelines provide that an agreement for the establishment of an institute or centre as a category 2 institute or centre is typically concluded for a definite time period, not exceeding six years. The agreement may be renewed by the Director-General, with the approval of the Executive Board, in the light of a review of the activities of the institute or centre and of its contribution to the strategic programme objectives of the Organization and the aforementioned Integrated Comprehensive Strategy for category 2 institutes and centers. The 34th session of the General Conference, in its 34 C/Resolution 40, approved the establishment, in the Republic of Croatia, of the International Centre for Underwater Archaeology (hereafter, ‘the Centre’). The objectives of the Centre are:

a) to train underwater archaeologists and conservation specialists, nationally and internationally, practically and theoretically (including professional diving training for archaeologists, historians, geologists, photographers and other specialists; scientific methodological education for the research of underwater archaeological sites and education in conservation and restoration);

b) to improve, in the framework of international cooperation, the scientific research of underwater cultural heritage sites, the analysis of finds and their presentation and the restoration of objects recovered from the sea;

c) to foster and facilitate the exchange of knowledge in the discipline of underwater archaeology;

d) to organize international conferences and workshops; and e) to educate the public in order to raise the awareness of the underwater heritage among

the public at large. Subsequent to the approval of the Executive Board, an Agreement concerning the establishment of the Centre (hereafter, ‘the Agreement’) was signed between the Government of The Republic


43

of Croatia and UNESCO on 1 August 2008 and entered into force upon meeting the formalities required to that effect by the domestic law of the Republic of Croatia and by UNESCO’s internal regulations (Article 18).

Purpose The main objectives of this review are to assess the Centre’s performance with respect to its objectives and functions, as specified in the agreement between UNESCO and the host Government, and its contribution to UNESCO’s strategic programme objectives and sectoral or intersectoral programme priorities and themes. The findings of the review will serve as the basis for the sector Review Committee’s recommendation to the Director-General as to whether the Agreement should be renewed. The Director-General will then provide the results of these reviews, including the endorsement or rejection to renew a specific agreement to the Executive Board. The approval of the Executive Board will be required before the Director-General can proceed with the renewal of an agreement between UNESCO and the Government of the Republic of Croatia. The results of this review will be shared with the Government of the Republic of Croatia and the Centre and presented to the Executive Board, as specified in the Integrated Comprehensive Strategy. They will also be made available on the website of the Culture Sector.

Scope In order to meet the purpose of the review described above, the following parameters shall be considered by the expert(s) responsible for conducting the review and writing a report that is consistent with UNESCO’s reporting mechanisms:

a) Whether the activities effectively pursued by the Centre are in conformity with its functions as set out in the Agreement signed between UNESCO and the Government of the Republic of Croatia;

b) The relevance of the Centre’s programmes and activities to achieving UNESCO’s strategic programme objectives and sectoral or intersectoral programme priorities and themes, as defined in the Organization’s Medium-Term Strategy (C/4), and to attaining programme results at the Main Lines of Action (MLA) level, as defined in the Organization’s Approved Programme and Budget (C/5);

c) The regional impact and usefulness of the Centre, with special focus on the South-East Europe sub-region;

d) The fulfilment of the contractual obligations as set out in the Agreement signed between the UNESCO and the Government of the Republic of Croatia;

e) The effectiveness of the Centre’s programmes and activities to achieving its stated objectives, as defined in the Agreement;

f) The quality of coordination and interaction with UNESCO, both at Headquarters and in the Field, with regard to planning and implementation of programmes, as well as with other thematically-related category 2 institutes or centers, with regard to planning and implementation of programmes;

g) The quality of relations with ICUA Member States, including its focal points, government agencies and UNESCO National Commissions, and with public/private partners and donors;

h) The nature and quality of organizational arrangements, including management, governance and accountability mechanisms;

i) The human and financial resource base and the quality of mechanisms and capacities, as well as context-specific opportunities and risks for ensuring sustainable institutional capacity and viability;


44

j) The process of mobilizing extra budgetary resources and to what extent such extra budgetary funding is aligned to the strategic programme objectives of UNESCO. In addition to the findings on each topic, the expert(s) shall offer four types of recommendations:

a general recommendation whether renewal of the Centre’s status as a category 2 centre is warranted and would conform to the Integrated Comprehensive Strategy;

specific recommendations to the Centre for improving the effectiveness of its operations;

specific recommendations to UNESCO for improving the effectiveness of its coordination and interaction with the Centre;

specific recommendations for possible amendments to the Agreement, in the event it is to be renewed.

Methodology The review of the Centre will include:

A desk study of relevant documents, provided by the Centre and UNESCO Secretariat; A visit to the Centre, including interviews with the Centre’s management and staff; Interviews (telephone, online and/or via e-mail) with the Centre’s stakeholders,

collaborators and beneficiaries as well as UNESCO staff representatives involved in the Centre’s Board of Direction and in the implementation of operational activities in cooperation with the Centre;

Preparation of the review report.

Roles and responsibilities The review will be conducted by a team comprising one or two independent experts. Local travel, materials, secretarial support and office space will be provided by the Centre during the field visit. The reviewer(s) will be responsible for telecommunications and printing of documentation. The UNESCO Culture Sector will facilitate and oversee the review process, to the extent possible, by providing any relevant information, and will be responsible for reviewing and approving the final report.

Background documents UNESCO shall make the following documents available to the review team in electronic form:

The Executive Board and General Conference documents concerning the establishment of the Centre;

The existing Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Croatia and UNESCO concerning the establishment of the Centre, together with its amendment;

The Medium-term Strategy 2008-2013 (34 C/4), Medium-term Strategy 2014-2021 (37 C/4), Approved programme and budget 2010-2011 (35 C/5), Approved programme and budget 2012-2013 (36 C/5) and Approved programme and budget 2014-2015 (37 C/5);

Relevant correspondence concerning the cooperation between UNESCO and the Centre. The Centre shall make the following documents available to the review team in English,

in electronic or paper form: Annual progress reports; Financial reports; List of staff; List of key publications; List of donors and project partners;


45

Minutes, decisions and working documents of the Governing Board and Executive Committee meetings;

Report of support provided to or received from Member States; Available audit and evaluation reports; Account of networking achievements linked with other thematically related category 2

institutes or centers and UNESCO’s programmes.

Draft review report A draft report will present findings, conclusions and recommendations, with a draft executive summary. The UNESCO Culture Sector, the UNESCO Regional Office for Science and Culture in Europe, the Government of the Republic of Croatia and the Centre itself will have the opportunity to comment and give feedback to the review team.

Final review report The final report (max. 20 pages, excluding annexes) should be structured as follows:

Executive summary (maximum four pages); Introduction (background, purpose and scope) Methodology; Findings; Recommendations (as described above); Annexes (including interview list, data collection instruments, key documents consulted,

Terms of Reference). The language of the report shall be English.

Review team The review team will consist of one or more independent experts/reviewers. A single proposal/expression of interest must be submitted on behalf of the team, whether it is one or several persons, and a single contract will be executed. Qualifications:

At least 7 years of professional experience in research and/or capacity-building in the field of cultural diversity, intercultural dialogue, cultural heritage, cultural policy or culture and development;

At least 7 years of professional experience in policy and programme evaluation in the context of international development;

Fluency in English (written and spoken); Knowledge of the role and mandate of UNESCO and its programmes.

Schedule The review shall be completed no later than 15 February 2015. The schedule for the review is as follows:

A desk study of background documents (to be completed prior to the visit to the Centre);

A mission to visit the Centre; Writing and submission of the draft review report no later than 31 January 2015; Submission of the final review report.

The date of the mission to the Centre will be defined by UNESCO in coordination with the Centre and taking into account the reviewers’ availability.

Submission of proposals/expression of interest Interested candidates should submit their applications in English, consisting of:

1. Curriculum vitae of expert(s)/reviewer(s) and, if applicable, company profile;


46

2. Letter expressing interest and clearly identifying how the candidate/candidate team meets the required skills and experience;

3. For enterprises/companies, a single overall cost; for individuals a total cost, distinguishing the fees for services from the travel expenses.

Applications should be submitted no later than 1 December 2014, midnight (Paris time) to Ms Chihiro Nishikawa ([email protected]). Please note that applications submitted through other channels will not be considered. Selection will be made on the basis of best value for money.


47

Annex 3: ICUA cooperation events

International Centre for Underwater Archaeology (ICUA)

National and International Cooperation28

CROATIA

University of Zadar, Department for Archaeology (Zadar): Organization of International Congress on Underwater Archaeology, cooperation on field work in underwater (archaeological sites in Pakoštane and Babuljaš Islet).

Public Agency Han-Vrana (Biograd na Moru): multiannual cooperation on field work in underwater archaeological sites in Pakoštane and Babuljaš Islet, underwater archaeological surveying of Zadar and Šibenik counties.

Croatian Conservation Institute, Department for Underwater Archaeology (Zagreb): cooperation on field work in several underwater archaeological sites in Darda, Brač Island, Veštar, Istrian peninsula survey and Žirje; cooperation in conservation-restoration works on many underwater archaeological artefacts; organization of the First Experts Meeting on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage in South-Eastern Europe; organization of lectures on the topic of Radiation Methods in the Protection of Cultural Heritage.

Institute of Art History (Zagreb): publication of the results of underwater excavations of Suleiman Bridge in Northern Croatia.

Heritage Museum (Rovinj): multiannual cooperation on field work in underwater archaeological site Veštar; organization of exhibitions on underwater excavations in Veštar bay and publication of catalogue of exhibition.

Tourism Board of the Municipality of Rovinj: financing the field work in underwater archaeological sites in Veštar and Piruzi Island.

Museum of Ancient Glass (Zadar): organization of exhibitions on underwater glass finds from the Adriatic Sea.

Tourism Board of the Municipality of Pakoštane: financing the field work in underwater archaeological sites in Pakoštane and Babuljaš Islet.

Ližnjan county: financing the field work in underwater archaeological site Uljeva.

INTERNATIONAL

Ca' Foscari University of Venice, Department of Humanities, Italy: organization of scientific conference called "Incontro Italo-Croato - Archeologia Marittima in Croazia", held in Venice.

German Society for Underwater Archaeology (DEGUWA): International Congress on Underwater Archaeology (IKUWA 4), Germany, organized by the Croatian Ministry of Culture, the Croatian Ministry of Science, Education and Sport, the County of Zadar, the City of Zadar, the University of Zadar, the City of Nin, Archaeological Museum of Zadar and ICUA.

Bayerischen Gesellschaft fur Unterwasssrarchaologie (BGfU), Germany: cooperation in the field work, underwater archaeological sites Camping Veštar and Piruzi Island; publication of book on five years excavation campaigns in Veštar bay. 28 Without UNESCO.


48

Romisch-Germanisch Komission Frankfurt (RGK), Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (DAI), Berlin, Germany: cooperation on field work in underwater archaeological sites Janice- Pakoštane and Babuljaš Islet. Permanent loan of Harald Von Petrikovits Library of DAl to ICUA.

Nautical Archaeology Society (NAS), UK: ICUA is regional training centre for conducting NAS underwater archaeology courses.

RPM Nautical Foundation, USA: multiannual cooperation in deep sea underwater survey of Croatian seabed.

Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage, Slovenia: multiannual cooperation in excavation of underwater site Uljeva; cooperation in excavations in Ljubljanica river in Slovenia.

Working group for underwater archaeology (AK Unterwasserarchäologie) of the Austrian Society for Prehistory and Early History (Österreichische Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte), Austria: lectures of ICUA staff at the University of Vienna.

European Scientific Diving Panel (ESOP) of the European Marine Board (EMB), Brussels, Belgium: organization of the meeting and acceptance of Croatia to full membership at this meeting.

Turkish Institute of Nautical Archaeology (TINA), Turkey: lectures in Istanbul about excavations of Suleiman Bridge.

Illyrian Coastal Exploration Program (JCEP), USA: organization of underwater field school and scientific diving courses.

Transylvania University, USA: organization of underwater field school and scientific diving courses.

Danish Agency for Culture, Denmark: two year cooperation agreement between Danish museums and ICUA for cooperation in Croatia and Denmark.


49

Annex 4: Research tools

Research tools: individual / group interview guides

INTERVIEW GUIDE: FORMER ICUA TRAINEES

Current work / study and experience with ICUA (year, course, topics etc.). How did you find out about ICUA's courses and activities? Why did you follow the course? Please describe your specific experience at the course: trainers, facilities, topics, interaction / learning process, follow-up etc. What did you like, what you didn't like about the course and ICUA? How did you use the knowledge / skills / experience gained at the course in your professional life? Does your country have a specialized institution in underwater archaeology? If yes, do you know if this institution is cooperating with ICUA? Did you have any course follow-up activities concerning the promotion of the 2001 Convention? What are your suggestions to ICUA in relation to your experience at the course and in general? As you may know, UNESCO supports ICUA's activities. How visible was UNESCO's support to ICUA during your experience in Zadar? How important do you think is for the Centre to work under UNESCO's auspices?

INTERVIEW GUIDE: INSTITUTIONAL STAKEHOLDERS (UNESCO)

Please describe your position at UNESCO HQ/office and your responsibilities with relevance to ICUA. What were your initial expectations concerning the institute's contribution to meet UNESCO's regional objectives and sectoral / intersectoral priorities? Same question regarding the promotion and implementation of the 2001 Convention in the region. How would you describe the performance of the institute as compared to these expectations? What was the specific assistance provided by UNESCO to the Centre? Please describe your interaction with the institute and its projects as concerns:

planning and coordination; communication; implementation of programs; international cooperation with other UNESCO institutes and the academic community; cooperation with the Croatian government.

In your opinion, what is the most important role that the institute played at regional and/or international levels? What difference did the institute make within the UNESCO network and scientific community? What are your expectations if the renewal of the Centre's status as a category 2 centre is approved? How do you see the next step(s) which should be further taken by the Centre? How do you see UNESCO's future role in the next phase of cooperation with the Centre?


50

INTERVIEW GUIDE: ICUA STAFF Please describe your position at the institution and your responsibilities with relevance to ICUA. What were your initial expectations concerning the institute's contribution to meet UNESCO's regional objectives and sectoral / intersectoral priorities? Please examine and comment on the Centre's contribution to UNESCO's strategic objectives: past, present and future. Describe cooperation facts with member states (regional first). Please describe the interaction and coordination between ICUA and UNESCO and, respectively, between ICUA and the Croatian Ministry of Culture. What were the major changes in structure, organization etc. (including the financial basis) of ICUA and what was their impact? Please describe how ICUA's staff is recruited. Obstacles and opportunities in daily work / performing well. Performance measurements (evaluation). Please discuss issues such as training and career, professional standards. What does for ICUA and its staff to work under UNESCO's auspices?

INTERVIEW GUIDE: INSTITUTIONAL STAKEHOLDERS (CROATIAN MINISTRY OF CULTURE)

Please clarify the following issues refer to the Agreement between UNESCO and the Croatian Ministry of Culture (MoC), related to the functioning of ICUA:

Article XIII of the Agreement foresees that the Government of the Republic of Croatia shall provide to the account of the Centre, annually from the State budget and through the MoC, the minimum amount of $918,000 for human resources, administration and maintenance and programs. Why the funding from MoC's budget was not entirely provided to the Centre?

The proposal for the establishment of the Centre foresees unification of the underwater archaeology in the Republic of Croatia. Please explain the reason why there are still two similar institutions, the Centre and the Department for Underwater Archeology of the Croatian Restoration Institute.

What was the Centre's contribution to the strategic goals of UNESCO and the promotion of the 2001 Convention in general and in the region? How did the Ministry of Culture ensure that the Centre fulfills its role as a regional institution, in particular for SE Europe? What financial solutions to support the Centre (from the Ministry's point of view) are in view i.e. mobilizing extra-budgetary resources? How can the Ministry help ICUA in developing relations with other member states and government bodies concerned with underwater archaeology? How will the Ministry and its structures support the Centre for the renewal of the Agreement with UNESCO and the Centre's status as a category 2 centre?


51

Annex 5: Key documents

Key documents consulted Documents provided by UNESCO and/or ICUA

The Executive Board and General Conference documents concerning the establishment of the Centre. The existing Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Croatia and UNESCO concerning the establishment of the Centre, together with its amendment. The Medium-term Strategy 2008-2013 (34 C/4), Medium-term Strategy 2014-2021 (37 C/4), Approved programme and budget 2010-2011 (35 C/5), Approved programme and budget 2012-2013 (36 C/5) and Approved programme and budget 2014-2015 (37 C/5). Relevant correspondence concerning the cooperation between UNESCO and the Centre. Annual progress reports. Financial reports. List of staff, key publications, donors and project partners. Minutes, decisions and working documents of the Governing Board and Executive Committee meetings. Report of support provided to or received from Member States. Account of networking achievements linked with other thematically related category 2 institutes or centers and UNESCO’s programs (gathered from interviews). List of archaeology projects, conservation projects, training events.

ICUA publications Post-Medieval glass from the seabed of Istria and Dalmatia. Submerged heritage 4: A Yearbook of ICUA Conservation of underwater archaeological finds (manual, first and second edition) Promotivni letak Međunarodnog centra za podvodnu arheologiju u Zadru, 2014. Potopljena baština 3 - Godišnjak MCPA. Potopljena baština 2 - Godišnjak MCPA. Podvodna arheološka istraživanja uvale Veštar, 2008-2010. Jurišićev zbornik. Istraživanje podvodne kulturne baštine u Hrvatskoj - Priručnik. Potopljena baština - Godišnjak MCPA. Conservation of underwater archaeological finds (manual) Zadar Seminar 2009 - Abstracts Book. Zadar Seminar 2009 - Joint Statement. International Centre for Underwater Archaeology in Zadar (presentation leaflet).


52

Annex 6: List of participants (interviews)

List of participants at evaluation activities (individual interviews)

NO NAME AND SURNAME INSTITUTION REMARKS

1 Dr. Sc. Luka Bekić International Centre for Underwater Archaeology

Field mission: Zadar

2 Mladen Pešić International Centre for Underwater Archaeology


3 Marina Mustać International Centre for Underwater Archaeology


4 Marina Šimičić International Centre for Underwater Archaeology


5 Roko Surić International Centre for Underwater Archaeology


6 Ivana Galzina International Centre for Underwater Archaeology


7 Antonija Jozić

International Centre for Underwater Archaeology


8 Anita Jelić



9 Martina Čurković



10 Zdenka Vrgoč International Centre for Underwater Archaeology


11 Roko Surić International Centre for Underwater Archaeology


12 Rut Carek Croatian Commission for UNESCO Field mission: Zadar 13 Tomislav Jelić Ministry of Culture

Normative and Administrative-Legal Activities

Field mission: Zagreb

14 Ranka Saračević-Wurth Ministry of Culture Protection of Cultural Heritage


15 Tomislav Petrinec Ministry of Culture Conservation Departments and Inspection


16 Damir Ugljen Former ICUA trainee (BiH) University of Mostar

Skype

17 Omayra Gorostidi Eibar Former ICUA trainee (Spain)

Skype

18 Jelena Čelebić Former ICUA trainee (Montenegro)

Skype

19 Darko Kovačević Former ICUA trainee (Serbia) Skype 20 Igor Miholjek Croatian Conservation Institute Skype 21 Jasen Mesić Former Minister of Culture Skype


53

NO NAME AND SURNAME INSTITUTION REMARKS 22 Ulrike Guérin UNESCO, Paris HQ

Cultural Heritage Protection Skype

23 Siniša Šešum UNESCO, Venice Office Head of Antenna Office, Sarajevo

Skype

24 Matteo Rosati UNESCO, Venice Office Skype