TABLE OF CONTENTS

Annex 01 Procedural Information

Annex 02 Synopsis report of consultation actions for the proposal on the import of cultural goods

Annex 03 COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 116/2009 on the export of cultural goods

Annex 04 QUESTIONNAIRE MS ADMIN TASKS AI 2017

Annex 05 Average administrative cost of new administrative tasks as a result of each policy option under consideration

Annex 06 1970 UNESCO Convention

Annex 07 1995 UNIDROIT Convention

Annex 07a US legislation on import CPIA

Annex 08 'Fighting illicit trafficking in cultural goods: analysis of customs issues in the EU', external study carried out for the Commission, 2017

Annex 09 Report from the Commission to the EP, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 116/2009 of 18 December 2008 on the export of cultural goods, 1 January 2011 – 31 December 2013

Annex 10 UNESCO 1970 Convention Operational Guidelines

Annex 11 UNESCO-WCO Export Model Certificate

Annex 12 Object ID, international standard for describing cultural objects

Annex 13 Letter dated 31 March 2016 from the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council

Annex 14 Links to press articles and other relevant online information

Annex 15 Damage satellite imagery photography

Annex 16 United Nations Security Council Resolution 2199 (2015)

Annex 17 United Nations Security Council Resolution 2253 (2015)

Annex 18 United Nations Security Council Resolution 2347 (2017)

2

ANNEX 01 - PROCEDURAL INFORMATION

This annex presents the procedural information concerning the process to prepare the

impact assessment report and the related initiative.

1. Lead DG, Agenda Planning and Work Programme

The impact assessment of a legislative proposal on the import of cultural goods was

prepared under the lead of Directorate General for Taxation and Customs Union. Within

the Agenda Planning of the European Commission, the project is referred to under item

2017/TAXUD/004. In the 2016 Action Plan to strengthen the fight against terrorist

financing, the Commission committed to put forward a legislative proposal against illicit

trade in cultural goods by the end of the second quarter 2017.

2. ORGANISATION AND TIMING

Work on the preparation of the Impact Assessment started in October 2016. Work on the

legislative proposal started in December 2016 and is ongoing.

An Inter-services Steering Group assisted DG Taxation and Customs Union in the

preparation of this Impact Assessment report. The Steering Group was set up in October

2016 and included colleagues from DG Migration and Home Affairs (HOME), DG

Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SME's (GROW), DG Trade, DG

Education and Culture (EAC) , DG Justice and Consumers (JUST), the Legal Service and

the Secretariat-General.

The Steering Group met on three occasions between October 2016 and May 2017. The

last meeting of the Steering Group took place on the 12th

May 2017. At each occasion,

the members of the Steering Group were given the opportunity to provide comments on

the draft versions of the documents presented.

3. CONSULTATION OF THE REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD

The Impact Assessment report was reviewed by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board on the

29th

of March 2017.

The Regulatory Scrutiny Board delivered a negative opinion on that first version of the

Impact Assessment report, citing important shortcomings with regard to circumscribing

the problem and its magnitude, the pursued objectives, the proposed policy options and

combinations thereof and the validation of their impacts, in particular their associated

costs.

Following this, an effort has been made in the new version of the Impact Assessment

report to achieve better clarity in the problem definition, the presentation of the policy

objectives, policy options and in the assessment of their impact.

Two important changes were made with regard to the policy options: firstly, the IA report

now explicitly tackles the issue of the definition of the scope of cultural goods to be

covered by the initiative; this was only implicitly addressed in the previous IA report.

Secondly, the preferred option with regard to the documentation needed to certify that the

goods have been legally exported from the source country has been simplified.

3

From a presentational point of view the various options other than the Baseline Scenario

are now structured within three distinct groupings: A) Soft-law options relying on

stakeholder goodwill and self-discipline, as well as on capacity building and trainings for

relevant authorities; B) Regulatory options relating to the definition of the scope of the

cultural goods to be covered; and C) Regulatory options relating to the documentation

required to certify the licit provenance of the goods.

4. External Expertise

DG Taxation and Customs Union made use of the expertise provided by Member States'

national experts members of the “Experts Group on customs issues related to Cultural

Goods”. This interaction was both ad hoc and structural, with 2 annual meetings on 2016

and 2 in 2017. A separate external study1 provides for an analysis that contribute to this

impact assessment.

1 The final report of the study is being currently reviewed for acceptance. The findings are thus only

preliminary.

4

ANNEX 02 - SYNOPSIS REPORT OF CONSULTATION ACTIONS FOR THE PROPOSAL ON

THE IMPORT OF CULTURAL GOODS

1. Introduction

The proposal for measures on the import of cultural goods aims to provide an effective and

coherent response to illicit trafficking challenges by empowering EU customs at the stage of

importation to prevent the entry in the Union of illicit cultural goods, by improving traceability of

the imported objects and by depriving organised crime and terrorist organisations from a source

of income. The proposal is foreseen by the Commission's Action Plan for strengthening the fight

against terrorist financing [see COM(2016) 50 final].

2. Consultation actions

2. 1. Targeted consultation on illicit trafficking

A targeted consultation been carried out by a contractor for the purposes of a study titled

'Fighting illicit trafficking in cultural goods: analysis of customs issues in the EU'2 through

questionnaires sent to Member States authorities; international organisations and stakeholder

representatives.

All respondent Member States to the survey agree that illicit importation of cultural goods is a

problem that needs to be tackled. Member States have taken measures with regard to the

trafficking in cultural goods at different levels (i.e., both national and international).

With regard to the two ad hoc Regulations prohibiting imports from Iraq and Syria, the contractor

concludes that the limited number of identified cases of illicit import of cultural goods originating

from Syria and Iraq could be attributable to the difficulty, costly and time consuming expertise of

a cultural good, in combination with the burden of proof (with regard to provenance), which is

imposed on the competent authorities of the Member States. When incorrectly declaring the

origin of the cultural good, it is up to the customs authorities to provide evidence of the opposite.

As cultural heritage regions do not necessarily correspond with country borders, cultural goods

cannot always be traced back to the country of origin, rather to the region of origin. In the case of

proven theft in Iraq or Syria of the good in question, provenance is easier to prove.

After seizure of a good found to be imported in breach of the Regulations, questions arise

with regard to its restitution to the rightful owner, whose identification can be highly

difficult. Restitution of cultural goods to territories suffering from political instability is

often problematic in view of the very purpose of the measures.

The contractor concludes that intensive exchange of intelligence among Member States but also

between the EU and third countries could result in a more effective system, both considering the

tracing and identification (through expertise) of cultural goods.

2. 2. Discussions at the Expert Group on customs issues related to cultural goods

The Commission has also held so far four Expert Group meetings (representatives from customs

and cultural authorities from the Member States), where the initiative was presented; followed by

an in-depth exchange of opinions and a discussion on the various challenges and objectives. The

delegates were given also the opportunity to submit position statements in writing on the various

options and several of them did.

2 Final report currently under review. Not published yet.

5

The position of the majority of Member States supports the adoption of customs control measures

that will ensure a high level of scrutiny. Although they see the merits for traceability of the

importer statement and Object ID accompanying form, they are unfamiliar with such a system

and unsure as to how effective a deterrent it would be for unscrupulous market operators. They

would prefer an export certification requirement or the obligation for importers to apply for and

obtain the issue of an EU import licence (some Member States even suggest that the import

licence should be issued on the basis of an export certificate). They seem to support the idea of

limiting the impact of such strict measures by limiting the scope of the action, e.g. to categories

of goods at high risk from pillaging and theft, such as products of archaeological excavations.

2. 3. Member State authorities survey on administrative costs

Member States customs and cultural authorities were also surveyed with regard to

potential/expected impact of various regulatory options to administrations (cost/burden).

16 replies were received, of which only 12 provided partial information on how much time will

be needed (in minutes) to accomplish formalities related to the regulatory policy options. Most

Member States were not able to provide any estimates, stating that the structure of their current

system and procedures does not permit it. The figures submitted in minutes were then converted

in EUR values following the Standard Cost Model method.

The results are inconclusive as the estimates provided do not show any clear, unambiguous and

coherent trend among Member States. Of the respondent Member States, partial estimates were

only provided, in some cases only for some policy options and not for others. In the table

attached as an Annex 5 the improbable result appears after conversion to monetary values that, on

average, registering an importer statement by customs (receiving, dating and filing) would cost

more than receiving and examining an application and issuing an import licence by a Member

State cultural competent authority, a process which would require the expertise of a culture

specialist every time3.

2. 4. Open Public Consultation (OPC)

The Commission launched an Open Public Consultation based on the "EU Survey", after

publication via "My Voice in Europe" in all official languages, which could be accessed and

completed by any interested party. The consultation ran from 23 October 2016 until and

including 23 January 2017, for a total of 13 weeks.

Identification of stakeholders

From examination of the various administrations and actors involved in the import and trade in

cultural goods in the EU and potential buyers, the most concerned stakeholders are:

1. Individual citizens

2. Enterprises (art market and activities related to the import of cultural goods)

3. Professional associations and interest representatives

4. NGOs and civil society

5. Public authorities

6. Other

Concept and question methodology

The consultation was conceived as a multi-page document where an introduction was given about

the subject, information was provided about the consultation itself as well as background

documents (links to relevant EU and international legislation, resolutions, communications, etc.).

3 As known from the experience of implementing Regulation (EC) 116/2009 on the export of cultural

goods, which provides for the issue of export licences by competent Member State authorities

(Member States ministries of culture or equivalent).

6

Subsequently, there were sections on

1. Identification of the respondents (stakeholder category, personal data, authorisation

to seek contact and/or publish the contribution etc.),

2. Questions regarding the subject matter for which input was sought,

3. A final section where any opinion on any subject not addressed in the previous

questions could be expressed by the respondents.

After a brief introduction to the topic, the questions were asked in a "closed/multiple choice"

format with the choices corresponding to the major policy options under consideration. The

respondents had every time the option to select a "No opinion/don't know" reply; in questions

relevant to various possible actions that could be undertaken simultaneously they were given the

opportunity to select more than one. Respondents could also select "Other" and introduce their

own suggestions. At the end of the survey, respondents were invited to provide remarks or submit

statements on the topics previously addressed by the survey.

Consultation results

293 contributions were received within the deadline, while the Commission took into

consideration also a number of positions and statements submitted within a week after the

deadline expired (303 submissions in total).

Stakeholders Respondents

Individual citizen 122

Enterprise 75

Interest representative (association or professional organisation) 32

Public authority (national or regional government, customs authority, etc.) 41

NGO or other association of the civil society 8

Other 15

Total 293

It seems that some of the persons responding in the category 'citizens' are still representatives or

professionals of the art market. There was a notable participation from one Member State in

particular, Germany, with multiple contributions received from enterprises there, as well as from

multiple German public authorities. Based on replies to the part 'identification of respondents',

most enterprises of the art market are SMEs, with some very rare exceptions (auction houses).

7

The questions and answers provided

Question 1: This question aimed to address the baseline scenario, i.e. whether stakeholders

consider that the Union should adopt customs rules at import, or whether it should not intervene.

While citizens responses were not clearly for or against taking measures (31.97% agree very

much; 29.51% disagree very much; 22.95% agree), enterprises and interest representatives were

more clearly against the adoption of customs rules (Enterprises: 44% disagree very much.

Interests representatives: 37.5% disagree very much). On the other hand, NGOs & civil society

(87.5% agree very much; 12.5% agree) and respondent public authorities (60.98% agree very

much; 29.27% agree) indicate they strongly support the adoption of EU rules scrutinising imports

from third countries.

Question 2: The question referred to the contribution of an EU measure against trafficking in the

fight against organised crime and terrorist financing. The position of 'citizens' was not clear

(32.79% would not contribute at all; 27.87% would contribute very much); enterprises were

mostly against the perspective of adopting EU rules (42.67% would not contribute at all; 28%

would not contribute much); Interests representatives were less negative but still not optimistic

(34.38% would not contribute much; 28.12% would not contribute at all; 18.75% would

contribute very much). Again, NGOs & civil society: (50% would contribute; 37.5% would

contribute very much) and public authorities (51.22% would contribute; 36.59% would

contribute very much) took the opposite position, with strong percentages.

Question 3: This question sought to identify the weaknesses of the current situation that need to

be addressed. Citizens consider problematic the difficulty to investigate and prove the illicit

character, the lack of resources and expertise on third countries culture as the main problems.

Enterprises mostly chose option 8 'Other' where they denied the existence of an illicit trade

problem in the EU. Interest representatives cite the difficulty to investigate and prove the illicit

character of the goods and as second option they chose 'Other' as was the case with enterprises

('there is no illicit trafficking problem'). NGOs & civil society and Public authorities selected as

main identified weaknesses the insufficiency of human resources; diverse regulatory measures in

the Member States and the difficulty to investigate and prove the illicit character.

Question 4: This question sought to identify main criteria to establish the scope of potential

measures, i.e. which cultural goods from third countries should be targeted according to the

respondents. In some replies, all the criteria suggested were marked as 'not appropriate' by

respondents, indicating more an opposition to any measures for which such a scope would be

needed, than actual not appropriateness of the criteria suggested (e.g. all instruments, domestic,

EU and international, on the protection of cultural heritage include a minimum age criterion to

define cultural goods that are within their scope of application, which would indicate that it is

pertinent).

In general, citizens, enterprises and interests representatives favour rarity and market value,

whereas NGOs & civil society and public authorities consider age, scientific or educational value

and whether the cultural good comes from a country in armed conflict are the most appropriate.

Certain responses and statements pointed out the particularities of objects of paleontological

interest (just by chance found within a country's borders, no significance for history or culture;

minimum age criterion irrelevant for such objects).

Question 5: This question referred to the possible policy options under consideration. It is

interesting to note that citizens, enterprises and interest representatives favoured all option 5, 'co-

operation with third countries to help them protect their cultural heritage'. They also selected as

second or third-best 'training for customs' and 'awareness-raising campaigns'. Although all three

options seem to have been chosen because they appeared to these respondents as non-regulatory,

the co-operation with third countries could actually result in the EU mirroring third countries'

bans and restrictions of the export of cultural goods, i.e. by corresponding EU import bans and

restrictions.

NGOs and civil society and public authorities selected mostly option 4, adopt legislation

empowering EU customs, and 5 as second choice (co-operation with third countries).

8

Question 6: Question 6 sought to identify aspects of the illicit trade problem that should be

addressed by an eventual regulatory measure at import. Citizens showed preference for not

impeding the temporary import of cultural goods for educational or scientific purposes (option 6)

and to a lesser extend the requirement for some form of documentation to be submitted upon

entry (option 3); while enterprises and interests representatives selected option 7 (museums as

temporary repositories or refuges) and option 6 and as a third favourite 'Other', stating in remarks

that they are opposed to any regulatory measure at import.

NGOs & civil society showed very strong favour for options 1 (imposing penalties), 3

(documentation requirements at import) and 6 and strong favour for options 2 (burden of proof to

be placed on the importer), 5 (controls in free zones or transit) and 7, whereas Public authorities

favour strongly options 6 and 3 and, to a slightly lesser extent, options 2 and 5.

Question 7: This question seeks to identify among less or more strict documentation or

authorisation requirements the one(s) that stakeholders consider as more appropriate or more

effective (export certification; import licence; self-certification). It has to be noted that the third

option, self-certification, although defined in the beginning of the survey, is not a system with

which stakeholders are familiar so some respondents were reluctant to select it or chose not to

reply.

The position of 'citizens' was again unclear, with export certification being their favourite option

but not by a large margin.

The majority of enterprises respondents mostly chose 'not appropriate at all' for all suggested

documentation or authorisation requirements (1: 29.33% not appropriate at all; 2: 33.33% not

appropriate at all; 3: 22.67% not appropriate at all).

Interests representatives consider export or import authorisations are the most appropriate, while

self-certification is not appropriate at all. This seems to be also the position of NGOs and civil

society and of the Public authorities.

Question 8: This question refers to the possible impact of the adoption of regulatory measures on

national customs authorities.

Impact on national customs authorities:

In terms of operational human resources

Public authorities consider that some additional human resources might be needed for customs

checking export certification from third countries and for EU authorities issuing import licences,

while the majority selected 'Don't know/No opinion for option number three, self-certification,

which is to be expected as they have no experience with that system.

9

This is also the position of NGOS and civil society.

In terms of additional administrative costs for national customs authorities to cover training,

filing of information, inspections and verifications due to the new legal obligation

Public authorities consider that export certificates or import licences might require some

additional administrative costs, while self-certification will have no impact.

The position of NGOs and civil society is similar, with a 37.5% selecting 'Don't know/No

opinion' on the impact of self-certification.

10

Question 9: This question refers to the possible impact of the adoption of regulatory measures on

importers/traders.

In terms of volume of imports of cultural goods from third countries

Citizens consider that imports of cultural goods will decrease if there were controls of export

certificates or if an import licence requirement were imposed, while self-certification would have

no impact on the volume of trade. Enterprises and interests representatives predict that import

volumes will significantly decrease in the case of export certification or import licence

requirements and will decrease if self-certification were imposed.

11

12

In terms of operational human resources for EU importers/traders

Enterprises consider that they will need significant additional human resources both in the case of

export certification and import licencing, while for self-certification a 26.33% replied that they

will also need significant additional human resources in the case of self-certification, with a

26.67% however choosing 'Don't know/No opinion'.

Interests representatives expressed the same position with regard to the export certification or

import licencing, and the majority could not take position on self-certification (31.25%).

13

In terms of compliance costs for EU importers/traders due to the new legal obligation

More than half of the responded enterprises believe that compliance costs will significantly

increase if there were a requirement for obtaining export certificates from the third country of

origin or if they had to apply for an import licence in the EU. A 25.33% of them consider that

compliance costs will significantly increase also in the case of self-certification requirements,

while another 25.33% of them chose 'Don't know/No opinion' on that respect.

14

This seems to be also the prediction of interests representatives, while citizens consider that costs

will increase in the first two cases but they cannot say with certainty about the third option of

importer statements (self-certification).

ANNEX 03 – COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) NO 116/2009 ON THE EXPORT OF

CULTURAL GOODS

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 116/2009 on the export of cultural goods

15

ANNEX 04 –QUESTIONNAIRE MS ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS AI 2017

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL TAXATION AND CUSTOMS UNION Security, safety, Trade Facilitation, Rules of origin & International cooperation Protection of citizens and enforcement of IPR

Brussels, 31.01.2017 CG

Questionnaire to Member States competent authorities (customs & cultural authorities)

- INTRODUCTION

The Commission Communication on an Action Plan for strengthening the fight against

terrorist financing lists, among other planned actions, the adoption of measures regarding

the import of cultural goods from third countries. An initiative on the import of cultural

goods aims primarily to prevent illicit trafficking in cultural goods, regardless of the third

country of export. It aspires also to provide EU customs and other authorities with

information on the cultural goods that enter the EU territory; to disrupt sources of

financing for organised crime and terrorists and to enhance the efforts of third countries

and international bodies to protect our common cultural heritage.

In the framework of preparing such a proposal, the Commission has to evaluate the

administrative burden of new administrative tasks as a result of each policy option under

consideration. Thus, in the present context, by administrative burden we mean

administrative tasks that need to be carried out ONLY because of new regulatory

requirements. Those regulatory requirements will be the new administrative tasks.

- PURPOSE

The purpose of this questionnaire is to collect information from the administrations

concerned.

Please submit your answers to the questionnaire by the 9th

of February, 2017 to:

TAXUD-B1-CULTURALGOODSCONSULT@ec.europa.eu

16

- QUESTIONS

There are three options under consideration for the moment for control measures at the

border. As the administrative tasks might differ from one option to the other, we ask for

your estimates for each option individually.

Option "Export certificate"

Any entry of cultural goods in the EU territory would be subject to an export certificate.

The export certificate is issued by the third country of origin of the cultural good and

certifies that the export is in accordance with that country's laws and regulations. EU

customs would check if the document complies with formal requirements. When in doubt

about the statements or the authenticity of the document, they can refer it to the issuing

authority of the third country for verification.

Since this option requires an administrative co-operation commitment by the exporting

country, it will be chosen only for third countries who (a) have established an export

certification requirement in accordance with the 1970 UNESCO Convention (b) have

formally requested from the EU to perform these controls for cultural goods coming from

their country, and (c) have undertaken the obligation to provide their administrative co-

operation to EU customs when the latter need to perform a verification of the certificate.

Question 1:

Under this option, please estimate the time needed to perform the administrative

tasks necessary to process a regular case on import of cultural goods by each

official/agent involved. Please indicate any other administrative tasks you foresee, if

any.

For each relevant administrative task please provide an estimate on the time necessary to

perform it (in minutes) under the correct level of officer4 in charge of this action. If there

are different levels of officers in charge for one single type of administrative task, fill in

the information for all of them.

4 According to the International Standard of Classification of Occupations (ISCO),

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/isco88/major.htm

17

Question 1: Administrative tasks (note

the minutes only for the relevant ones)

Senior officials

and/or managers

Professionals

(cultural goods

expert,

archaeologist,

etc.)

Customs

agents

Clerks

(assistants

and

secretaries)

Inspection of document(s) mins mins mins mins

Physical inspection of the goods mins mins mins mins

Training of staff on handling customs

declarations for the import of cultural

goods

mins mins mins mins

Carrying out expertise by cultural

authority, if needed

mins mins mins mins

In case of reasonable doubt, verification of

the export certificate with the competent

authority who issued it in the third country

of export

mins mins mins mins

Filing operations mins mins mins mins

Post-clearance audit mins mins mins mins

other:…. mins mins mins mins

Option "Import licence"

Any entry of cultural goods in the EU territory would be subject to an import licence.

The import licence would be issued by EU competent authorities, designated in each

Member State, after submission of an application by the person who seeks to import the

cultural goods.

In terms of work and resources involved, it should require about as much as when an EU

competent authority receives an application for an export authorisation for EU cultural

goods under Regulation 116/2009 and has to process it. The only difference is that the

competent authority would have to examine the lawfulness of the export from the third

country on the basis of that country's legislation and will have to appreciate the accuracy

and authenticity of statements and supporting documents independently, without the

possibility of cross-verification.

Question 2:

Under this option, please estimate the time needed to perform the administrative

tasks necessary to process a regular case on import of cultural goods by each

official/agent involved. Please indicate any other administrative tasks you foresee, if

any.

For each relevant administrative task please provide an estimate on the time necessary to

perform it (in minutes) under the correct level of officer in charge of this action. If there

are different levels of officers in charge for one single type of information obligation, fill

in the information for all of them.

18

Question 1: Administrative tasks (note

the minutes only for the relevant ones)

Senior officials

and/or managers

Professionals

(cultural goods

expert,

archaeologist,

etc.)

Customs

agents

Clerks

(assistants

and

secretaries)

Processing5 the application for import

authorisation by the Member State

competent authority who issues import

licences

mins mins mins mins

The Member State competent authority

who issues import licences examines

whether the licence can be granted

mins mins mins mins

Carrying out expertise of the cultural

good, if needed

mins mins mins mins

Issuing the import licence mins mins mins mins

Filing operations mins mins mins mins

Other:…. mins mins mins mins

Question 3:

is the fee (if any) you would charge the economic operators for processing their

import licence application? In EUR:……

Option "Declaration with an Object ID"

Any entry of cultural goods in the EU would be subject to a declaration, signed by the

person who seeks to import the cultural goods, stating that they have been exported from

the country of origin in accordance with this country's laws and regulations, accompanied

by a standard document with photo(s) describing the cultural good. From research it

appears that the most accepted standard is the Object ID.

EU customs – Member States may designate specific customs offices to handle the

formalities for cultural goods - would have to receive the two documents and check for

compliance with formal requirements. In case of doubt about the statements made in the

declaration or the Object ID form, they can ask the importer for further evidence. Copy

of the documents is kept by EU customs.

Question 4:

Under this option, please estimate the time needed to perform the administrative

tasks necessary to process a regular case on import of cultural goods by each

official/agent involved. Please indicate any other administrative tasks you foresee, if

any.

For each relevant administrative task please provide an estimate on the time necessary to

perform it (in minutes) under the correct level of officer in charge of this action. If there

are different levels of officers in charge for one single type of administrative task, fill in

the information for all of them.

5 The administrative formalities of receiving an application and assigning it to an agent.

19

Question 1: Administrative tasks (note

the minutes only for the relevant ones)

Senior officials

and/or managers

Professionals

(cultural goods

expert,

archaeologist,

etc.)

Customs

agents

Clerks

(assistants

and

secretaries)

Reception of the declaration and

Object ID document by the designated

customs authority

mins mins mins mins

Check the procedural and formal

conformity of the documents

mins mins mins mins

Physical inspection of the goods mins mins mins mins

Carrying out expertise of the cultural

good, if needed

mins mins mins mins

Filing operations mins mins mins mins

Post-clearance audit mins mins mins mins

Training of staff on handling customs

declarations for the import of cultural

goods

mins mins mins mins

Other:…. mins mins mins mins

20

ANNEX 05 - AVERAGE ADMINISTRATIVE COST OF NEW ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS AS

A RESULT OF EACH POLICY OPTION UNDER CONSIDERATION

Average administrative cost of new administrative tasks as a result of each policy option under consideration.

MS OPTION EXPORT

CERTIFICATE

OPTION IMPORT

LICENCE

OPTION

IMPORTER'S

STATEMENT

BE 975 649 461

BG 248

CZ 166 52 223

DK

DE

ET

EI 54 23

EL

ES 449 265 341

FR

IT

CY 415 222 414

LV 870 288

LT

LU 723 459 694

HR

HU

MT

NE 452 321 354

AT

PL

PO

RO

SL 1160 816 2459

SK

FI 1134 714 872

SE 156 202 150

UK

596 385 599

Average 11/28 MS Average 11/28 MS Average 10/28 MS

NOTE: the figures represent cost in EUR for carrying out the actions under each policy

option.

16 replies received from 28 Member States. Only 12 replies provided information that was possible to

include into the calculation.

21

ANNEX 06 -1970 UNESCO CONVENTION

1970 UNESCO Convention

ANNEX 07 -1995 UNIDROIT CONVENTION

1995 UNIDROIT Convention

ANNEX 07A - US LEGISLATION ON IMPORT CPIA

US legislation on import CPIA

ANNEX 08 - REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EP, THE COUNCIL AND THE

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) NO 116/2009 OF 18 DECEMBER 2008 ON THE

EXPORT OF CULTURAL GOODS, 1 JANUARY 2011 – 31 DECEMBER 2013

'Fighting illicit trafficking in cultural goods: analysis of customs issues in the EU',

external study carried out for the Commission, 2017

ANNEX 09 - REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EP, THE COUNCIL AND THE

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) NO 116/2009 OF 18 DECEMBER 2008 ON THE

EXPORT OF CULTURAL GOODS, 1 JANUARY 2011 – 31 DECEMBER 2013

Report from the Commission to the EP, the Council and the European Economic and

Social Committee on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 116/2009 of 18

December 2008 on the export of cultural goods, 1 January 2011 – 31 December 2013

22

ANNEX 10 - UNESCO 1970 CONVENTION OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES

UNESCO 1970 Convention Operational Guidelines

ANNEX 11 - UNESCO-WCO EXPORT MODEL CERTIFICATE

UNESCO-WCO Export Model Certificate

23

ANNEX 12 - OBJECT ID, INTERNATIONAL STANDARD FOR DESCRIBING CULTURAL

OBJECTS

Object ID is an international standard for describing cultural objects. It is the result of

years of research in collaboration with the museum community, international police

and customs agencies, the art trade, insurance industry, and valuers of art and

antiques.

The Object ID project was initiated by the J. Paul Getty Trust in 1993 and the

standard was launched in 1997. It is being promoted by major law enforcement

agencies, including the FBI, Scotland Yard and Interpol, UNESCO, museums,

cultural heritage organisations, art trade and art appraisal organisations, and insurance

companies.

Having established the descriptive standard, the Object ID project now helps combat

the illegal appropriation of art objects by facilitating documentation of cultural

property and by bringing together organisations around the world that can encourage

its implementation.

From 1999 to 2004, the Object ID project was housed at the Council for the

Prevention of Art Theft (CoPAT). In October 2004, the International Council of

Museums (ICOM) signed an agreement with the J. Paul Getty Trust for ICOM's non-

exclusive worldwide use of the Getty's Object ID standard. ICOM, in close

collaboration with UNESCO and other organisations fighting illicit trade, will

actively disseminate information about Object ID and also organize workshops on its

implementation. New translation initiatives are constantly being promoted and

undertaken.

*Object ID ™ is a trademark of the J. Paul Getty Trust. Use of this trademark is

prohibited without permission from: ICOM, Maison de l'UNESCO, 1 rue

Miollis, 75732 Paris cedex 15, France © The J. Paul Getty Trust, 1999. All rights

reserved.

The illicit trade in cultural objects is now widely recognized as one of the most

prevalent categories of international crime. The proceeds of thefts, forgery, ransoms,

and smuggling operations involving cultural objects are often used to fund other

criminal activities, the objects themselves serving as both a medium of exchange

between criminals and a means of laundering the profits of crime.

The police have long recognised the importance of good documentation in the fight

against art thieves. Documentation is indeed crucial for the protection of art and

antiques, for police officers can rarely recover and return objects that have not been

photographed and adequately described. Police forces have custody of large numbers

of objects that have been recovered in the course of operations, but which cannot be

returned to their rightful owners because there is no documentation that makes it

possible to identify the victims.

24

In 1993 the Getty Information Institute initiated a collaborative project to develop

an international documentation standard for the information needed to identify

cultural objects. The new standard has been developed in collaboration with

police forces, customs agencies, museums, the art trade, valuers, and the

insurance industry

The contents of the standard were identified by a combination of background

research, interviews, and, most importantly, by major international questionnaire

surveys. In total, over 1,000 responses were received from organisations in 84

countries. The findings of these surveys — published in Protecting Cultural

Objects in the Global Information Society — demonstrated that there was close

agreement on the information needed to describe objects for purposes of

identification. The result is the Object ID checklist.

Around the world there is growing, broad-based support for the new standard. The

Object ID checklist has already been translated into Arabic, Chinese, French,

Russian, and Spanish. Plans are underway for translations into many other languages.

Amongst participants promoting and using the Object ID Checklist are:

J. Paul Getty Trust UNESCO ICOM Interpol Federal Bureau of Investigation National Stolen Art Theft Program U.S. State Department International Cultural Property Protection Italian Carabinieri London Metropolitan Police Art and Antiques Unit World Customs Organization AXA Nordstern Art Insurance CulturalHeritage.cc Foundation Kit - Royal Tropical Institute CINOA Trace Swift Find Stop-rob.com Association of Art and Antiques Dealers Appraisers Association of America Ciram Leon Eeckman Art Insurance

25

ANNEX 13 - LETTER DATED 31 MARCH 2016 FROM THE PERMANENT

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION TO THE UNITED NATIONS

ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL

Letter dated 31 March 2016 from the Permanent Representative of the Russian

Federation to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council

ANNEX 14 - LINKS TO PRESS ARTICLES AND OTHER RELEVANT ONLINE

INFORMATION

Stanford University: Buying, owning, selling the past

http://news.stanford.edu/news/multi/features/heritage/

Culture Under Threat: the Fight to Save the Middle East’s Antiquities from

Terrorism (see also interesting links within the article)

http://europe.newsweek.com/syria-antiquities-trafficking-threat-isis-333608?rm=eu

Cultural Racketeering – The Antiquities Coalition

https://theantiquitiescoalition.org/problems-and-solutions/cultural-racketeering/

The antiquities looting crisis in the Middle East

The ease of archaeological discoveries in the Middle East is exploited by black-market

dealers, criminal gangs and ISIL

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/03/antiquities-looting-crisis-middle-east-

160310093409472.html

Law Enforcement Focuses on Asia Week in Inquiry of Antiquities Smuggling

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/arts/design/law-enforcement-focuses-on-asia-week-

in-inquiry-of-antiquities-smuggling.html?_r=2

Federal Agents Seize What They Called an Illicit Antiquity Headed for Asia Week

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/arts/design/federal-agents-seize-what-they-called-

an-illicit-antiquity-headed-for-asia-week.html?_r=0

Another Gallery Is Raided in Antiquities Case

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/19/arts/design/another-gallery-is-raided-in-antiquities-

case.html

Senate Votes to Ban Imports of Syrian Art and Antiquities

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/world/middleeast/senate-votes-to-ban-imports-of-

syrian-art-and-antiquities.html?module=WatchingPortal&region=c-column-middle-span-

region&pgType=Homepage&action=click&mediaId=thumb_square&state=standard&co

ntentPlacement=3&version=internal&contentCollection=www.nytimes.com&contentId=

http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2016%2F04%2F14%2Fworld%2Fmiddleeast%

26

2Fsenate-votes-to-ban-imports-of-syrian-art-and-

antiquities.html&eventName=Watching-article-click&_r=0

US proposal H.R.1493 - Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property Act

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1493/text

Seizures in BG of artefacts coming from CH

http://www.customs.bg/en/pubs/6577

Daily Sabah - Turkey: no tolerance for antiquities smuggling from Syria

http://www.dailysabah.com/nation/2016/04/18/turkish-culture-minister-no-tolerance-for-

antiquity-smuggling-from-syria

Israel Antiquities Authority Inspectors Seized Two Covers of Ancient Sarcophagi

that Previously Contained Egyptian Mummies and were Smuggled – via London -

into Israel (March 2012)

http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_eng.aspx?sec_id=25&subj_id=240&id=1925

On the same news from Jerusalem Post:

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Israel-to-return-stolen-ancient-sarcophagi-to-Egypt-

454336

National Geographic: How Tomb Raiders Are Stealing Our History

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/06/looting-ancient-blood-antiquities

NYT on free ports: One of the World’s Greatest Art Collections Hides Behind This

Fence

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/arts/design/one-of-the-worlds-greatest-art-

collections-hides-behind-this-fence.html?_r=0

BBC News: Geneva Free Port, the greatest art collection no-one can see

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-38167501

Germany passes law to keep art of 'national value' in the country

http://www.dw.com/en/germany-passes-law-to-keep-art-of-national-value-in-the-

country/a-19350687

Cultural Destruction as a War Crime (NYT)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/opinion/cultural-destruction-as-a-war-

crime.html?action=click&contentCollection=Europe&module=RelatedCoverage&region

=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article

International Court takes a stand with Ruling on Destruction of Antiquities

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/30/world/africa/icc-hague-court-

antiquties.html?module=WatchingPortal&region=c-column-middle-span-

region&pgType=Homepage&action=click&mediaId=wide&state=standard&contentPlac

ement=14&version=internal&contentCollection=www.nytimes.com&contentId=http%3

A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2016%2F09%2F30%2Fworld%2Fafrica%2Ficc-

hague-court-antiquties.html&eventName=Watching-article-click

Italian mob trades weapons for looted art from ISIS in Libya

27

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/18/italian-mob-trades-weapons-with-

looted-art-from-isis-in-libya.html

Islamic State: the struggle to stay rich (BBC News)

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35585298

Al Jazeera: The blood antiquities funding ISIL

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/11/blood-antiquities-funding-isil-

2014119113948461658.html

The Local (Italian news in English)

http://www.thelocal.it/20160810/italian-customs-seize-huge-haul-of-roman-artefacts

Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/08/19/smithsonian-other-

agencies-protect-artifacts-in-iraq-syria/?utm_term=.a7e4c5dccdd9

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e50a6626af3840b5987ddda2383ba31b/obama-signs-law-

new-restrictions-syrian-antiquities

The Costa Rica Star: Suspected Tomb Raider Gets Raided in Costa Rica

http://news.co.cr/suspected-tomb-raider-gets-raided-costa-rica/50028/

The Tribune (India): 500 seized coins date back to ancient times: Customs dept

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/500-seized-coins-date-back-to-ancient-times-

customs-dept/291636.html

FranceBleu: A Roissy, les douanes saisissent des biens culturels probablement pillés

en Syrie

https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/faits-divers-justice/les-douanes-saisissent-des-bas-

reliefs-1474376290

Le Figaro: Deux bas-reliefs saisis à Roissy

http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2016/09/20/97001-20160920FILWWW00283-

pillagesyrie-deux-bas-reliefs-saisis-a-roissy.php

Archeology: Police in Greece arrest 26 in bust of alleged antiquities smuggling ring

Investigators recovered more than 2,000 objects, mostly coins, that they say were offered

for sale through auction houses

http://theartnewspaper.com/news/archeology/police-in-greece-arrest-26-in-bust-of-

alleged-antiquities-smuggling-ring/

ARCA (Association for research into crimes against art): Carabinieri del Comando

Tutela Patrimonio Culturale to return stolen archaeological finds to Mexico

http://art-crime.blogspot.be/2016/10/carabinieri-del-comando-tutela.html

ARCA: Auction Alert - Christie's Auction House - A il(licit) Roman Marble Draped

Goddess?

http://art-crime.blogspot.be/2016/10/auction-alert-christies-auction-house.html

28

TeleSur: Black Market for Latin American Cultural Heritage Revealed

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Black-Market-for-Latin-American-Cultural-

Heritage-Revealed-20161017-0023.html

SYRIA Direct: Some looted Idlib National Museum artifacts resurface, fate of

others a mystery amidst ‘thriving black market trade’

http://syriadirect.org/news/some-looted-idlib-national-museum-artifacts-resurface-fate-

of-others-a-mystery-amidst-%E2%80%98thriving-black-market-trade%E2%80%99/

Africa Times: Antiquities mystery solved: Swiss return stolen artifact to Egypt

http://africatimes.com/2016/11/14/antiquities-mystery-solved-swiss-return-stolen-

artifact-to-egypt/

US Dept. of State: Secretary Kerry Signs Cultural Property Protection Agreement

With Egypt

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2016/11/264632.htm?platform=hootsuite

The Guardian: Looted Palmyra Relics seized by Swiss authorities at Geneva ports

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/03/looted-palmyra-relics-seized-by-swiss-

authorities-at-geneva-ports

NYT: Prominent Antiquities Dealer Accused of Selling Stolen Artifacts

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/arts/design/prominent-antiquities-dealer-accused-

of-selling-stolen-artifacts.html?module=WatchingPortal&region=c-column-middle-span-

region&pgType=Homepage&action=click&mediaId=thumb_square&state=standard&co

ntentPlacement=4&version=internal&contentCollection=www.nytimes.com&contentId=

http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2016%2F12%2F21%2Farts%2Fdesign%2Fpro

minent-antiquities-dealer-accused-of-selling-stolen-

artifacts.html&eventName=Watching-article-click&_r=0

Egypt retrieves 340 smuggled artifacts from Jordan

http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/egypt-retrieves-340-smuggled-artifacts-jordan

El Despertar: Restituyen al gobierno mexicano 12 piezas arqueológicas incautadas

en Italia

http://www.periodicoeldespertar.com/cultura/restituyen-al-gobierno-mexicano-12-piezas-

arqueologicas-incautadas-en-italia/

The Guardian: Mosul Iraqi troops find Assyrian treasures in network of ISIS

tunnels

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/mosul-iraqi-troops-find-assyrian-

treasures-in-network-of-isis-tunnels

Trafic illicite: un musée genevois expose des objets d’art confisqués

Archéologie Neuf pièces antiques sont montrées au Musée d’art et d’histoire de Genève

avant d’être restituées à leurs pays d’origine, la Syrie, le Yémen et la Libye.

http://www.24heures.ch/suisse/suisse-romande/Trafic-illicite-un-musee-genevois-

expose-des-objets-d-art-confisques/story/18524917

29

Al Jazeera: Art trafficking

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/specialseries/2017/02/art-trafficking-

170228090044987.html

Observer: The Case of the Missing Feet: Antiquities and Terrorism in Cambodia

http://observer.com/2017/04/prince-ravi-cambodian-antiquities-looted/

30

ANNEX 15 - DAMAGE SATELLITE IMAGERY PHOTOGRAPHY

Satellite-based Damage Assessment to Cultural Heritage Sites in Syria

Aleppo

31

.

32

Apamea

33

34

Dura Europos

35

36

Ebla

37

Kirkbizeh

38

Palmyra

39

Raqqa

http://unosat.web.cern.ch/unosat/unitar/downloads/chs/FINAL_Syria_WHS.pdf

https://unitar.org/unosat/maps/SYR

40

ANNEX 16 - UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2199 (2015)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2199 (2015)

ANNEX 17 - UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2253 (2015)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2253 (2015)

ANNEX 18 - UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2347 (2017)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2347 (2017)