The World Customs Organisation has finally published a new report following the 2019 report, covering two years from 2019-2021, probably delayed because of the Covid 19 pandemic. Its results once again show that global levels of illicit trade in cultural property are far lower than claimed.
In the press release we read: “This year, the analysis provided in this Report is based on data collected from 138 Member administrations. Previously composed of six sections, the Report now covers seven key areas of risk in the context of Customs enforcement: Anti-money laundering and terrorist financing; Cultural heritage; Drugs; Environment; IPR, health and safety; Revenue; and Security.”
It also states: “The analysis contained in this Report is mainly based on the collection of data from the WCO Customs Enforcement Network (CEN) — a database of worldwide Customs seizures and offences”….
“However, the CEN database relies heavily on voluntary submissions by Members hence the quantity and quality of the data submitted to the system has its limitations”…
“However, as part of this new methodology, the data and information sources used to elaborate this Report has been enlarged to include various open sources.”
While the rest of the report might be “mainly based on the collection of data from the WCO Customs Enforcement Network (CEN)”, in the introduction to the Cultural Heritage chapter on page 57, the WCO goes further, admitting: “Unfortunately, the data received through the WCO’s Customs Enforcement Network (CEN) in 2020-2021 being incomplete, the following analysis will be mostly based on open source information.”
Case studies based on media reports rather than primary research
The result for the Cultural Heritage section is that most of the case studies are based on newspaper articles, sometimes even on events that happened decades ago, and have nothing to do with recent trafficking activities. This is alarming as much of the problem with false data plaguing the cultural property sector stems from misreporting in the media. It is even more alarming when the misleading picture created by a surface reading of the chapter will undoubtedly be used as ‘evidence’ in future campaigns against the art market, as past reports have been.
The WCO is supposed to report recent and reliable figures, like figure 3 on page 35, showing that the number of worldwide reported cultural goods cases for 2021 is a mere 156, that is 1.1 case per reporting country….
A newly introduced graph (shown here) in the WCO report (Page 17, Fig. 4) reveals precisely what the ADA and its fellow association IADAA have reported over the past years: the illicit trade in cultural heritage is so small that it barely shows in the statistics. Not only is it the smallest category – so small that you have to look carefully in case you miss it – but the graph also shows that seizures have fallen by around 50% between 2019 and 2021.
Let’s not forget, too, that the Cultural Heritage category is not limited to antiquities, as so many mistakenly believe; it covers 13 distinct sub-categories, including: all forms of art, antiques and collectables, household items, flora and fauna, books and manuscripts. In 2019, the top three categories of recovered item sub-categories were: Fauna, Flora, Minerals, Anatomy & Fossils; Other; and Hand-painted or Hand-drawn articles and works of art. No mention of antiquities, which did not even warrant its own sub-category.
All of this begs the question as to why, in its chapter on Cultural Heritage, the WCO has chosen to focus exclusively on photographs of seized antiquities (at least one of which seems to be a fake) alongside fossils and coins. The choice appears politically charged.Consistent reporting of
The WCO has stated in the past and here that there is under-reporting of crime in the culture sector and that it only counts seizures and cases reported via the Customs Enforcement Network (CEN), the implication being that the problem is much larger.
Figures consistently show low rate of illicit trade in cultural property
However, the miniscule share of illicit trade represented in its reports over the years by cultural property has been consistent, only now augmented by media reports not sourced via the CEN.
It further boosts this chapter of the report with a summary of Pandora VI, the latest in a seven-year campaign of international operations involving mass seizures and arrests. What the WCO, Europol or Interpol have never done, however, is to provide data on how many of their seizures and arrests later prove to be justified and how many were shown to be related to terrorism financing. It is not just the trade asking for these figures, academic investigators want them too to see how effective these operations are.
Previously the WCO has attempted to rebut the ADA and IADAA’s analysis of its reports, stating that the figures cannot be relied on. As our analysis always provides transparent sources for the data emanating from the reports, however, the WCO’s case against our analysis simply does not stand up.
Ultimately, its figures must be indicative of the global state of affairs; if they are misleading, why publish them?
ADA Members are aware and deeply saddened by the devastating consequences of the unfolding human tragedy in Ukraine. It is a country with a rich history from the earliest times and while Ukrainian origin antiquities are not so commonly found in our market, ADA members are on the alert to any cultural property which may have originated from that region. This follows on from the ADA’s existing vigilance over antiquities possibly originating from the Crimea, in place since that region was annexed by Russia in 2014. The Code of Conduct of the Antiquities Dealers’ Association provides specific guidance to Members on the dangers to cultural property in war-torn countries, under the heading ‘Conflict Zones’.
CINOA, IADAA and others call for major review and propose five-point plan for future
Trade and cultural heritage groups including global trade federation CINOA and international antiquities association IADAA have called for a major international review of policy and legislation as it applies to the art market.
The call comes in a letter after the US Treasury review of anti-money laundering proposals found the art market to be low risk, with Congress turning its attention to shell companies and the real estate industry instead for the moment.
CINOA secretary general Erika Bochereau and IADAA chairman Vincent Geerling pointed out that all of the numerous recent studies researching possible links between the art market, money laundering and terrorism financing found no justification for clamping down on the market on this basis.
They argued that the lack of hard evidence produced by any of the reports meant that authorities should stop targeting “dealers, collectors and auction houses with wave after wave of damaging and unjust legislation.” Policy making is “being driven by assumptions and false claims,” they argued in their open letter.
Why false claims and bogus data abound
It is thought that one of the reasons so much misinformation is so widely spread is the interests of drawing attention to the pet issues of international NGOs, law enforcement and others all vying for attention and funding as they push their agendas.
The trade and cultural heritage groups singled out UNESCO’s claim that the annual value of trade in illicit cultural goods is $10 billion, a claim that is demonstrably false and not supported by the source that UNESCO gave for it. Despite being informed of this in November 2020, and despite numerous public clarifications on this point by the trade, UNESCO continues to promote the figure and it is still quoted in the media.
The trade and cultural heritage groups have now set out a five-point plan for better policy, listed in the Art Newspaper as follows:
“Policy makers, including governments, when discussing the development of and drafting any policy or legislation which impacts cultural property and the art market, should ensure that recognised representatives from the relevant sector of the art market are co-opted on to any relevant panel or consulting body.
Regulatory review boards or panels assessing the impact of government proposals should focus on how far they have actively addressed concerns and suggestions raised by recognised market representatives, while all proposals should be tested against clear standards of evidence and proportionality.
A designated contact person at the decision-making level of government should be named, whose role is to follow any on-going laws or regulations affecting the art and antiques market, and they should act as a sector contact, with whom the trade can open a dialogue to ensure that the conservation of art or cultural heritage objects is not being unintentionally demoted or ignored.
All relevant active and pending cultural property legislation should be reviewed to take account of the facts and data currently available, particularly if those facts are at odds with the assumptions on which legislation was predicated.
Legislators, particularly in the EU, should commission an independent review to analyse the way in which significant public resources, supposedly dedicated to combating illicit trade in cultural goods, have been wasted as a result of relying on misinformation. Clear guidance should be produced to prevent legislation affecting the art market from misdirecting resources in the future.”
As well as CINOA, signatories of the letter include: the ACPCP (American Council for the Preservation of Cultural Property), the ATADA (Authentic Tribal Art Dealers’ Association), the Committee for Cultural Policy (Cultural policy think tank and information source), Drouot Patrimoine auction house, the EFA (European Federation of Auctioneers), the Global Heritage Alliance advocacy group and the IADAA (International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art).
ADA chairman Joanna van der Lande has written the first in a series of articles on issues concerning antiquities and the art market for distribution within the European Parliament and to representatives at the recent Davos summit.
The article appears in MACE, a Brussels-based political magazine whose purpose is to raise issues of cent and spark debate among politicians, civil servants and other people of influence within the EU machine.
Articles will follow by IADAA chairman Vincent Geerling on data, fake news and how they help create misguided policy, and Ivan Macquisten on the wider implications of how this is affecting the art market.
The objective is to encourage deeper understanding of the challenges the market faces, with a view to establishing better relationships with decision makers on the political stage.
The European Commission has upgraded its ivory trade restrictions as part of a proposal for a new EU Directive against environmental crime. The new rules will come into effect on 19 January, 2022.
Although targeted chiefly at banning trade in raw ivory, the Commission is to “suspend issuing certificates for worked specimens acquired after 1947 except for pre-1975 musical instruments. This will limit the internal trade in worked items to pre-1947 antiques and pre-1975 musical instruments.”
It is also clamping down on EU imports and re-exports, although allowances are being made for the movement of family heirlooms, the exchange of cultural goods between reputable institutions and for the purpose of enforcement, scientific of educational study.
However, the Commission advises: “It is recommended that the conditions for issuing re-export certificates for the above exceptions are strictly interpreted.”
Clampdown despite low-level risk of antiques
The tighter restrictions are announced in a document that acknowledges the low level of risk posed by antiques: “It is highly unlikely that internal EU trade of pre-1947 antiques or pre-1975 musical instruments would contribute to illegal trade of ivory or demand for illegal ivory, given also that such remaining trade will be strictly controlled.”
However, the paperwork and potential costs of compliance are likely to make much trade uneconomic, while the burden of proving the legality of an item falls more heavily on the applicant under the EU’s precautionary principle, where the need to mitigate risk outweighs the presumption of innocence.
Although this sets an ethical standard, its practical application is another matter. The guidance shows authorities will require evidence of legal acquisition, which may not exist in the case of an heirloom, for instance.
Erika Bocherau, the director general of CINOA, the international art market federation representing around 5,000 dealer globally, has led the negotiations with the Commission on behalf of the market.
She said: “The impact of the new restrictions will be felt by both the trade and private individuals. It is hard to digest that the EU’s new restrictions on the trade of antique worked ivory were approved even though legislators acknowledge that none of the EU Member States have been identified as countries that are implicated in the illicit ivory trade.”
Welcome news that the Yorkshire Museum has acquired the Ryedale Hoard. The 1,800-year-old collection of ritual artefacts discovered in North Yorkshire in May 2020 went for auction earlier this year.
The museum acquired the hoard thanks to a large donation from an American supporter. Its pieces include a bust of Emperor Marcus Aurelius and are said to be among the finest known from Roman Britain. They are due to go on display next spring.
Found along with the bust were a statuette of the god Mars and – previously unseen among recovered Roman artefacts in the UK – a plumb bob, the hoard (shown here) sold at Hanson’s auctioneers for £185,000. (Photo courtesy of Hanson’s)
Recent Comments