On January 4, 2024, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications (MOTC) announced a draft partial amendment to the "Regulations Governing Water Recreation Activities." The primary consideration was the growing popularity of freediving in recent years, prompting authorities to add "freediving" to the relevant provisions along with additional related rules. BlueTrend and the Editor have mixed feelings about all this: seeing a government agency propose amendments and take action on diving issues at least suggests that ocean and water activities are receiving ever-greater attention. However, when the diving community took a closer look at the provisions, they found what appeared to be some grey areas in the wording. In this article, BlueTrend and the Editor will walk through the additions proposed in the draft amendment together with you.
photo credit：Giam Teo
Key Amendments to the Regulations Governing Water Recreation Activities at a Glance
If you'd like a full breakdown of all the amendment details, you can visit the Public Policy Online Participation Platform. BlueTrend and the Editor have summarised the key amendment points below:
Draft Amendment — Article 16
"Freediving" is added to the list of diving activities, defined as diving "without carrying breathing apparatus" and "on a single breath-hold."
Draft Amendment — Article 17
Persons engaging in "freediving" are required to hold proof of diving ability issued by a domestic or overseas diving organisation.
Draft Amendment — Article 18
Persons engaging in "freediving" are required to carry buoyancy equipment (with a freediving float cited as an example); "freediving" must be accompanied by a person who is familiar with the dive site and meets the requirements of the preceding article.
Draft Amendment — Article 19
Persons leading clients in "freediving" activities must hold proof of qualification as a dive instructor issued by a domestic or overseas diving organisation; each instructor may guide a maximum of four people per session, expandable to six if a qualified assistant instructor is present.
Freediving Enters the Regulations Governing Water Recreation Activities: An In-Depth Look at the Details
The announced draft has sparked considerable discussion. BlueTrend and the Editor have gathered perspectives from as many stakeholders as possible to offer a multifaceted view and invite the diving community to engage with this amendment.
For this article, in addition to consulting the supervising authority — the Tourism Administration of the MOTC — the team interviewed two freediving instructor trainers / dual-agency instructors*, Coach Xiao Ming and Coach Wayne, to understand the views of some experienced freedivers. The team also exchanged views with multiple freedivers to collect a range of opinions; observed an online briefing session organised by the Pingtung County Diving Instructors' Professional Union to gain the perspective of some industry practitioners; and invited the Taiwan Freediving Development Association to participate, though the association declined and recommended deferring to the government's responses. Additionally, we reviewed the proceedings of consultation meetings and have incorporated excerpts from those discussions in the content below.
*Note: Coach Xiao Ming is a Molchanovs Instructor Trainer, an AIDA (freediving agency) Instructor Trainer, and an AIDA International Judge, and has previously set an Asian record in the constant weight bifins (CWT-BF) freediving discipline.
Coach Wayne is a PADI (certification agency) Freediver Instructor Trainer, an AIDA (freediving agency) Instructor, and an AIDA International Judge.
How Should Freediving Be Defined?
photo credit：簡晨宇
The draft amendment uses "without carrying breathing apparatus" and "on a single breath-hold" as the definition. On this point, Coach Xiao Ming is concerned that the current definition is difficult to distinguish from snorkeling, and is candid that even with this definition, enforcement of related regulations would be challenging in practice. Coach Wayne, on the other hand, feels the current definition is reasonable and broadly consistent with how major international systems define freediving.
During the open Q&A at the briefing session hosted by the Pingtung County Diving Instructors' Professional Union, one participating instructor raised a concern: "In a typical recreational freedive, most people rarely go beyond 10 metres — it's very hard to distinguish from snorkeling or ocean swimming." Union chairperson Ryan Zhan (詹皓宇) responded that the union has also recommended defining freediving by "depth," suggesting that depths at which past freediving incidents have occurred could serve as a reference point, and noted that the definition in the draft is too broad.
Response from the Tourism Administration's Scenic Area Development Division
According to the consultation meeting minutes, given that snorkeling, freediving, and scuba diving differ significantly in equipment and activity mechanics, snorkeling and scuba diving can be subjectively distinguished with relative ease without adjustment. The amendment therefore focuses solely on proposing a definition and scope for freediving. Regarding whether to incorporate "depth" as part of the definition: since neither freediving nor snorkeling has a clearly established depth threshold, it would be difficult for regulatory authorities to make practical determinations, and there are currently no plans to include "depth" in the provisions.
What Counts as "Proof of Ability"?
The draft amendment states that participants "shall hold proof of diving ability issued by a domestic or overseas diving organisation." A question arising from this provision is whether a course participation certificate obtained without passing an assessment qualifies as "proof of ability."
Coach Xiao Ming finds this wording too vague and open to multiple interpretations. His instinct is that failing an assessment should mean you don't have proof of ability — but he also raises a question: "If you can't get in the water because you haven't passed, and you don't get to practise, does that mean you can never learn?"
Coach Wayne says his instinct upon seeing "proof of ability" is to interpret it as "proof obtained by passing a test." He draws an analogy to a driving licence: "If you pass the practical road test but fail the written test and don't get your licence, no one would say you have the ability to drive on the road." He emphasises that a course participation certificate is merely a record of learning progress, allowing an instructor to quickly understand a student's learning stage. In terms of wording, Wayne suggests "valid certification" would be more precise than "proof of ability."
photo credit：Giam Teo
Ryan notes that obtaining a diving certification requires completing many sessions of coursework and training across several competencies. If a candidate fails to demonstrate even one competency, they cannot receive certification — "because even if there's just one thing you can't do, you may not be able to handle certain situations, and that could be dangerous." He therefore considers a course participation certificate ("learning certificate") to be inadequate as a substitute for proof of ability.
Response from the Tourism Administration's Scenic Area Development Division
As currently written, the "proof of diving ability" referred to in this provision includes "learning certificates," in accordance with the legislative commentary on Article 16 (formerly Article 17) of the Regulations Governing Water Recreation Activities: "The proof of diving ability referred to in these regulations includes diving certifications and learning certificates."
What Does "Familiar with the Dive Site" Mean?
The draft amendment states that participants "shall be accompanied by a person who is familiar with the dive site." Coach Xiao Ming is puzzled: "What counts as familiar? Going there once? Ten times?" He considers the wording too vague to be practically enforceable, and adds: "If we take this literally, does that mean there will never be any new dive sites?"
Coach Wayne shares his understanding of "familiar" — it should mean knowing the terrain, current direction, tidal patterns, and so on, so that in the event of an unexpected situation, a rapid evacuation plan can be formulated and executed. However, given the difficulty of establishing a uniform standard for "familiar," Coach Wayne suggests that a certification mechanism might be developed in the future — for example, for a popular dive site such as Dafu Fishing Port on Xiaoliuqiu, a designated teaching and diving zone could be established, with hydrological information, tidal data, and other details for that zone documented and verified through a certification exam.
photo credit：Jenny Tsai
Ryan likewise criticises the lack of a clear definition of "familiar." Referring to the draft amendment consultation meeting minutes, a representative from the Ocean Affairs Council also raised the point that "the definition of whether an instructor is familiar with a given dive site should be more precise." At the same meeting, however, a representative from another group noted that New Zealand has no comparable regulatory oversight for recreational diving, and suggested that "'familiar with the dive site' should be regarded as a soft advisory."
Response from the Tourism Administration's Scenic Area Development Division
The provision requiring accompaniment by a person "familiar with the dive site" and meeting the requirements of the preceding article is part of the existing regulatory framework of the Regulations Governing Water Recreation Activities. This amendment simply extends that framework to include freediving.
Regarding the ambiguity around the definition of "familiar with the dive site": per the conclusions of the consultation meeting, the Tourism Administration's Scenic Area Development Division will incorporate the definition into its deliberations, and will simultaneously reference the Ocean Affairs Council's "Guidelines for Planning and Managing Marine Recreation Activities" to evaluate the development of activity-specific management guidelines for reference by authorities overseeing various water recreation activities.
Different Views on the "Dive Buddy System"
The draft amendment states that participants "shall be accompanied by a person who is familiar with the dive site and meets the requirements of the preceding article." The preceding article requires participants to "hold proof of diving ability issued by a domestic or overseas diving organisation." This provision has therefore been interpreted as enshrining a "dive buddy system." Both Coach Xiao Ming and Coach Wayne agree that the vast majority of people understand the concept of a dive buddy, but that effective implementation of a buddy system is not always achieved. They emphasise that rather than amending the regulations, it is more important to invest greater resources in education and promotion of the buddy safety system.
Coach Wayne also posed an interesting question: "When you go on an overseas dive trip, do you want a dive guide?" He noted that most people would say yes — but would the answer be the same back home in Taiwan? Yet if you sit quietly and think about it, "which is safer — with a dive guide or without?" — the answer probably comes to mind naturally.
photo credit：Jenny Tsai
He went on to say that nobody likes being told "you freedivers are always being reckless." From a safety standpoint, he believes a dive guide system might be preferable to a buddy system. If a solid framework could be established to require dive guides to hold relevant certifications or pass assessments — "after all, it's their livelihood; if something goes wrong, they lose their job, so they're bound to be more professional and careful than a recreational buddy." However, he also acknowledged the practical challenges: how dive guides would be recognised, whether instructors qualify as dive guides, and whether a separate dive guide qualification would be needed all require much further discussion.
Ryan, meanwhile, pointed out that liability between dive buddies falls outside the scope of the water recreation activity liability insurance, and considers the "buddy system" to be a high-risk approach. He is also concerned that if an accident were to occur in the future, difficulty in assigning liability could negatively affect the growth of the industry.
Response from the Tourism Administration's Scenic Area Development Division
The requirement to be "accompanied by a person meeting the requirements of the preceding article" can be understood as reflecting the spirit of the "dive buddy system." This provision is also part of the original framework of the Regulations Governing Water Recreation Activities, and is consistent with the fundamental dive safety principles established by major international diving certification organisations. The relevant regulations are considered capable of improving the safety of participants in both scuba diving and freediving activities.
What Are Your Thoughts on the Draft Amendment to the Regulations Governing Water Recreation Activities?
National Geographic once published a feature on Taiwan's freediving boom, citing a 2020 report by AIDA (freediving agency) International that ranked Taiwan second in the world for the number of freediving certifications issued.
As freediving continues to grow in popularity, its incorporation into regulation is becoming a reality. While achieving consensus among the many stakeholders involved in amending legislation is never easy, provisions with ambiguous wording risk generating divergent interpretations — and with them, greater potential for dispute. We hope that thorough discussion and open dialogue will help ensure the eventual implementation of related regulations proceeds as smoothly as possible.
Do you have any thoughts on this round of amendments? Feel free to leave a comment or send a message to BlueTrend on social media to share your views with us; you can also visit the Public Policy Online Participation Platform and leave your valuable input in the discussion section.
Further Reading:
