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:
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®ion=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®ion
=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®ion=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®ion=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)
Top Related