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)
Help prevent trafficking in Afghanistan’s cultural heritage
The Afghan crisis has given rise to serious concerns about the fate of the country’s heritage under the Taliban. Some media reports claim the Taliban have pledged to protect cultural heritage sites and artefacts and to prevent looting. Others raise fears that what happened to cultural heritage previously under the Taliban may happen again.
Illicit digging for artefacts can destroy important archaeological sites, something the art market does not want to unwittingly facilitate. Allowing such artefacts to enter the market compromises the legitimate art and antiquities market and goes against our trade associations’ professional and ethical standards, which are reflected in our written codes.
The art trade must be prepared to do what it can to ensure that any illicit cultural property coming out of Afghanistan does not make its way on to the market. To that end, as trade associations we will continue to alert our members and others to the heightened risks involved. We will continue to support law enforcement in publicising news of stolen and trafficked items to prevent them from entering the market.
The Antiquities Ministry in Afghanistan comes under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior Affairs. The current acting Minister of the Interior is Sirajuddin Haqqani, a terrorist wanted by the FBI and with a bounty of up to $10 million on his head. Because of this, governments must also be careful about returning artefacts to Afghanistan under the Taliban.
Signed,
Art And Antique Dealers League of America (AADLA, USA)
Associazione Antiquari D’Italia (AAI, ITALY)
Antiquities Dealers’ Association (ADA, UK)
British Antique Dealers’ Association (BADA, UK)
Comité Professionnel des Galeries d’Art (CPGA, France)
Czech Association of Antique Dealers (AS, Czech Republic)
Federación Española de Anticuarios (FEA, Spain)
International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA, Int’l)
Kunsthändlerverband Deutschland e.V. (KD, Germany)
LAPADA the Association of Art & Antiques Dealers (LAPADA, UK)
Syndicat National des Antiquaires (SNA, France)
Syndicat National des Maisons de Ventes Volontaires (SYMEV, France)
In his statement to his peers, government whip Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay said the government hoped to bring clarity to what was required under UK law by the changes.
Some of his fellow peers argued that revoking the law in full meant weakening the UK’s defences against crime. However, Lord Parkinson said the EU legislation would create “complexity and confusion” at borders, and two important reasons persuaded the government to go for full revocation.
The first was that “the provision applies to almost all cultural goods created or discovered in non-EU countries, regardless of their age, value or date of export, and because there is no requirement in the regulation for any person to provide evidence to demonstrate either lawful export or unlawful removal from the country of creation or discovery”.
This meant that in the event of a claim of unlawful export, it was not clear where the burden of proof would lie or what evidence would be required.
“These issues could result in cultural goods being delayed or detained at the border, and might deter people from importing cultural goods to sell in the UK art market or museums from lending objects for exhibitions in this country.”
Success of existing legislation
The second reason for revoking the law was that provisions the UK already has in place are proving successsful.
“The effectiveness of our existing legislation was demonstrated very recently, when we returned to Libya a statue which had been unlawfully removed from that country and which was found and detained by HMRC at Heathrow Airport. This is only the most recent example.”
In the latest round of consultations with the EU over the upcoming 2025 enforcement of the import licensing regulations, the ADA and others have been at pains yet again to demonstrate how unworkable the legislation is.
The objection is not to the protection of borders and fighting crime, but to the impossibility of the compliance demands, the net effect of which would be to destroy much of the art market within Europe. It is this aspect that those objecting to the revocation in the Lords do not seem to grasp.
So far the European Commission has signed serious concerns raised in previous consultations, including earlier this year.
Still not resolved is exactly what documents will be required for legal import. Article 8 (1) d of the draft legislation states that “Other types of documents to submit in support of an import licence application may be, but are not limited to the following” before listing 11 different types of document that must be submitted for approval.
Numerous other problems remain within the draft legislation, from uncertainty over the number or location of customs offices to how property would be marked, as well as very onerous compliance measures that would make a vast number of imports uneconomic.
Recent Comments