The present Questionnaire is prepared in application of the aforementioned decision of the Subsidiary Committee.

Transcription

1 Questionnaire for States parties to UNESCO s Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property INTRODUCTORY REMARKS At the 5th session of the Subsidiary Committee of the Meeting of States Parties to the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (1970 Convention), held from 17 to 19 May 2017 at UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, France, the Members of the Subsidiary Committee adopted Decision 5.SC 6 bis requesting the Secretariat to: establish, in coordination with the Bureau of the Subsidiary Committee, a questionnaire in order to identify potential measures to strengthen the implementation, efficiency and visibility of the Convention in all its aspects especially legal, political and structural, including the opportunity to establish a List of Good Practices; send the questionnaire to the Bureau of the Subsidiary Committee for approval; send the questionnaire to all States Parties before the end of September 2017, asking States Parties to submit their responses before 15 January 2018; consolidate the answers of the States Parties and send a summary of the results to all States Parties before the end of April The present Questionnaire is prepared in application of the aforementioned decision of the Subsidiary Committee. The Secretariat would appreciate receiving the replies from States Parties to the Questionnaire before 15 January Please send the completed Questionnaire to convention1970@unesco.org. 1

2 EFFICIENCY IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION The questions below relate to the implementation of paragraph 3 of the Decision 5.SC 6 bis with regard to the efficiency in the implementation of the Convention. 1) How does your country wish to improve the implementation of the Convention (please elaborate briefly). It is important to improve implementation of the Convention at the national level of the State Parties. Norway's approach to combatting illicit trade consists of two elements: Firstly, we need to make more efforts to improve coordination at national level between concerned government agencies, ministries and institutions. Part of our new approach is also to try to coordinate actions and efforts with the other Nordic countries with the purpose of becoming more efficient in finding viable solutions to combat illicit trade within our national jurisdiction. This initiative started with a conference in Oslo, December "Stronger together? How the Nordic countries can optimise collaborative initiatives and measures to combat illicit sale." (Link to the report: port-illicit_trade_in_cultural_artefacts_temanord_ pdf In the first instance, it has been important to identify areas in which a closer cooperation would be of mutual benefit, and to ensure a more efficient use of our administrative resources. The Oslo conference outlined five key areas for developing a joint Nordic strategy: Coordinate efforts, Communication, Skills-/Capacity building and more Knowledge. A good starting point is to Identify measures and initiatives already in place, that can be built on in a further regional context. There are already a number of such services and programmes in place, which may benefit all. Enhancing the ability to detect objects that have been plundered, stolen and/or illegally exported/imported is of utmost importance for fulfilling the intentions of the Convention. Norway supports measures to strengthen the implementation of the Convention through the development of methods and tools to monitor importation, exportation and trade with cultural objects and artefacts. The increasing online trade on the Internet is of particular concern. In this respect it is, in our view, vital to strengthen the dialogue and information flow between cultural authorities, law enforcement (police and customs) and cultural experts (museums, etc). For small countries, it could be useful to consider enhancing cooperation at a regional level with a view to making better use of resources, f.i. with regard to awareness raising among the general public, and also among cultural experts and art professionals with regard to ethical norms. 2) Which pillar(s) of the Convention should be given priority in terms of strengthening the implementation? (please tick the box(es) and provide explanations if need be). Bearing in mind that the different alternatives are inter-related, we should try to move forward along several pillars with regard to the State Parties' implementation of the Convention, ( x ) Prevention 2

3 ( x) Return and Restitution ( x ) International Cooperation (exchange good practices, development of standard procedures for monitoring trade, return and restitution, etc ) ( x ) other (f.i. increasing knowledge and capacity building at national level) 3) Does your country have any specific proposals and examples regarding the strengthening of the implementation and efficiency of the 1970 Convention? If yes, please provide your input under the most relevant section. a) Prevention Some thefts of cultural objects seem to have occurred partly as a result of absent or deficient security plans and systems, or lacking procedures. Norway has a governmental support scheme where museums and galleries under the remits of the Ministry of Culture can apply for funding of safety installations and security measures to prevent theft or other damages to their collections. Repeated awareness-rising campaigns, targeted at the general public at national level, are essential for preventing unintended infractions of rules and regulations. International airports and railway stations would be an important arena for information to travellers. A UNESCO-coordinated effort to this end would be much welcomed. In addition, Norway recommends recurring ethical training sessions for various professional stakeholders and expert institutions dealing with cultural objects and artefacts. Such events could be organized at a regional level in order to share resources and expertise, as well as at a national level. b) Return and Restitution Customs has a pivotal role in detecting illegal export and import of cultural goods. Therefore, it is also crucial with regard to strengthening the implementation of the Convention to develop adequate tools for the customs in order to make their work operative and effective. A key factor in this respect is to ensure easy access to preliminary assessments from cultural experts. When disclosing attempts of illicit importation, thefts, etc. leading to the return or restitution of an object, it would sometimes be useful for administrative support to consult prior experiences and solutions. We suggest to establish a shared UNESCO website or a standardized reporting mechanism, which could serve as a joint resource for subsequent return cases. In order not to burden the Secretariat 3

4 too much, such reporting could perhaps be published directly on a dedicated website and monitored by the Secretariat. c) International Cooperation In December 2015, Norway hosted, under the auspices of the Nordic Council of Ministers, a regional expert conference with the purpose of examining the possibility of a closer cooperation with regard to coordinated efforts in order to make more efficient use of joint administrative resources. A shared purpose is to ease communication between law enforcement agencies and cultural expertise, and to cooperate with regard to skills building programs, awareness raising, etc. One of the recommendations was to organize annual seminars or conferences to discuss matters of joint interest, (Link to the report: eport-illicit_trade_in_cultural_artefacts_temanord_ pdf In December 2017, Norway organized a symposium for the Nordic countries relating to legislation and legal issues and practices with regard to culture crimes. Such events are important for facilitating networks both interdisciplinary and cross borders. We suggest that similar topical events could be arranged also in other regions in order to disperse knowledge and awareness in professional communities, facilitate the creation of professional networks and enhance transboundary cooperation projects, and would be happy to share our experience from this Nordic initiative. d) Other As part of our national strategy, we started in 2015 an informal network/contact forum with participation from various stakeholders, in particular cultural experts and law enforcement/judicial experts, together with representatives of cultural authorities and other government bodies. The group meets 4-5 times a year to exchange information and discuss recent cases. 4) With regard to Return and Restitution, does your country have any suggestions regarding the interaction between the Subsidiary Committee and the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in case of Illicit Appropriation (ICPRCP)? 4

5 5) Considering the momentum gained through the establishment of the Meeting of the States Parties, the creation of the Subsidiary Committee and the adoption of Operational Guidelines for the implementation of the Convention, how could these governing bodies be better utilized in order to strengthen the Convention and support States Parties interests? The Periodic Reports provide an important source of information as to identifying problems in relation to the implementation of the Convention. The governing bodies should therefore consider giving more priority to analysing and discussing the outcome of the periodic reporting. These reports provide a relevant basis of input for deciding the next necessary steps forward in strengthening the implementation of the Convention. Presentations made in connection with Meetings of the States Parties and of the Subsidiary Committee often contain information on best practices and valuable experiences. Sometimes it could be useful for a State Party later to compare its national cases against these narratives, thus finding administrative support and learning from other states' experiences and solutions. Such presentations should be made long-term available at UNESCO s webpage. 6) How useful in your experience, are the existing legal and practical tools 1 produced by the Secretariat? Do you have proposals for possible future deliverables by the Secretariat? If so, would you be prepared to provide resources to deliver them? The Model Export Certificate is very useful and constituted a model for the Norwegian application form in 2007, even if there is not a full compliance. In Norway we plan to revise the present application form, i.a. with regard to detecting endangered cultural objects from other countries, which might have been illicitly imported to Norway before applying for an export licence. The NatLaw Database can be operational when all the documents are available in an English version. Perhaps reminders from the Secretariat to this effect would be appropriate. 7) Do you have further suggestions to improve the dissemination of the tools produced by the UNESCO Secretariat? 1 Practical tools : Model Export Certificate for Cultural Objects (UNESCO WCO); UNESCO International Code of Ethics for Dealers in Cultural Property; UNESCO Database National Cultural Heritage Laws Basic Actions concerning Cultural Objects being offered for sale over the Internet (INTERPOL UNESCO ICOM) Legal tools: Model Provisions on State Ownership of Undiscovered Cultural Objects; Rules of Procedure for Mediation and Conciliation 5

6 The UNESCO Secretariat can consider updating the States Parties in an annual e- mail notification as to where information about the different tools is shown, with links to the relevant websites. 8) Once a tool is produced to support the implementation of the Convention, endorsed by the relevant governing bodies, what steps should be taken by the national authorities in order to ensure that all relevant governmental or related experts are aware of the existence of the tool and make use of it? The dissemination of information with regard to new tools is in Norway facilitated by the existence of a well-functioning network for cooperation between authorities at the national level, c.f. 3d. Since 2015 an informal network/contact forum with participation from various stakeholders, such as cultural experts and law enforcement/judicial experts, representatives of cultural authorities and other government bodies meets 4-5 times a year to exchange information. Such networks should be promoted and needs to exist not only between different cultural heritage authorities, archives and museums but also between these authorities and the Customs and Police. 9) Have you or other stakeholders in your country benefited from capacity-building activities/tools related to preventing illicit trafficking of cultural property developed by the Secretariat? If so, give examples and indicate briefly the resulting effect or change. The campaign #Unite4Heritage has been a useful tool to reach out to the public with information relating to trafficking of cultural objects. Also, at several occasions, representatives from the Secretariat have come to Norway and given educational and enlightening topical presentations relating to illicit trade. 10) Do you have suggestions for how the capacity-building programme could be further improved, should financial resources be available? Perhaps some short guidelines could be drawn up for the Police and for the Customs respectively, with suggestions as to relevant standard questions to be asked when Police or Customs come across a cultural object or artefact. This could be helpful in their inquiries, when they are conducting interviews, perhaps thus ensuring that the questions relating to the cultural object in question are not forgotten or omitted from the questioning. 6

7 VISIBILITY AND PROMOTION OF THE CONVENTION The questions below pertain to the implementation of paragraph 3 of the Decision 5.SC 6 bis with regard to the visibility of the Convention. 11) What steps have been taken by your national authorities to promote the Convention and its implementation in your country? Information about the Convention and links to UNESCO's webpages for the Convention are available at the websites of the Ministry of Culture ( and of Arts Council Norway and other cultural heritage institutions and organizations. In the past two years, Norway has been involved in several return cases, which have served as excellent examples to disseminate information through the media. Over the last years, Norway has given financial support and funding to several events and mechanisms that are relevant for the 1970 Convention. In 2016 and 2017, Norway organized at our Embassy in Beirut, together with INTERPOL, two conferences on the illicit trade with cultural objects in the Middle East, with participation also from the UNESCO Secretariat. The contributions of these events were 0, 3 million NOK in 2016 and 0, 4 million NOK in For 2018, we have budgeted with an estimate of 0, 35 million NOK to a similar event with participation this time also from the museum of Mosul in Iraq. In 2017, Norway also contributed 1 million NOK to UNODC's training module on cultural objects within their education program, with the purpose of combatting illicit trade of cultural objects in container transport sector. In 2016, Norway contributed 1, 5 million NOK to UNESCOs Special Account for Heritage Emergency Fund. In 2017, Norway contributed 6 million NOK to UNESCOs Special Account for Heritage Emergency Fund, including an earmarked grant of 3 million NOK, dedicated to the World Heritage Committee's work in relation to African world heritage sites, which was contributed through the World Heritage Fund. For 2018, Norway has budgeted with an estimated contribution of 2 million NOK to the Heritage Emergency Fund. 12) Does your country have any proposals regarding the improvement of the visibility and further promotion of the Convention including through the following organs/activities? a) Statutory bodies b) Capacity-building activities 7

8 c) Awareness-raising activities International airports and railway stations would be an important arena for information to travellers and the general public. A UNESCO-coordinated effort to this end would be much welcomed. d) Education material and activities e) Publications The UNESCO Handbook Legal and Practical Measures Against Illicit Trafficking in Cultural Property (2006) should perhaps need an update. f) Online resources and web-pages Cf. earlier comments with regard to compilation of experiences and best practices. g) Media 13) Does your country benefit from the information and links available on the 1970 Convention webpage. Do you find information to be easily accessible and useful? If no, how would you recommend the Secretariat to develop its webpage? Yes, the information is both easily accessible and useful. Also more information could perhaps be made accessible via this website: Cf. question 5: Presentations made in connection with Meetings of the States Parties and of the Subsidiary Committee often contain information on best practices and valuable experiences. Sometimes it could be useful for a State Party later to compare its national cases against these narratives, thus finding administrative support and learning from other states' experiences and solutions. Such presentations should be made long-term available at UNESCO s webpage. 14) Please provide any additional suggestions to increase the visibility of the Convention. 8

9 CAPACITY BUILDING AND GOOD PRACTICES The questions below pertain to the implementation of paragraph 3 of the Decision 5.SC 6 bis with regard to the opportunity to establish a List of Good Practices. 15) Does your country maintain a List of Good Practices pertaining to the implementation of the Convention? If yes, which criteria are used to establish such a national List? We have not established a national list of good practices. So far, the few Norwegian return cases have been described on our governmental website, and made accessible here : 16) Does your country inform the Secretariat on national good practices concerning the protection of cultural property? ( X ) yes For example, in connection with the Periodic Reporting and through presentations/statements at different UNESCO-meetings and other relevant national and international forums. ( ) no 17) What in your view should be the criteria and assessment mechanism for a possible international list? The reporting mechanism should be relatively standardized in order to ensure that the good practices published are briefly presented in a more or less uniform manner. The key factors should be clearly described, both regarding challenges and problems, as well as with regard to solutions and success factors. In addition, cases that have not been successful, may contain useful information, and should be included in the list, with a view to developing perhaps future solutions to similar challenges. 18) Does your country support the idea of the creation of an international list on the best practices of return and restitution cases? 9

10 ( ) yes ( ) no - We suggest starting out with a more "low key" compilation of experiences that might have transfer value to comparable cases in other countries, cf. earlier answers. 19) How could Good Practices be better integrated in capacity building initiatives to strengthen the implementation of the Convention? Presentations of procedures in relation to concrete cases and their specific challenges. Cf earlier answers. 20) Additional Comments: 10