1

4 MSP

C70/17/4.MSP/8Rev Paris, March 2017 Original: English

Limited distribution

Meeting of States Parties to the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property

(UNESCO, Paris, 1970)

Fourth Meeting

Paris, UNESCO Headquarters, Room II 15-16 May 2017 Item 8 Rev of the Provisional Agenda: Follow-up to the recommendations of the Report on

the Evaluation by the Internal Oversight Service of UNESCO’s Standard-setting Work of the Culture Sector (Part II)

This document contains information on the status of implementation of the Recommendations presented in the IOS evaluation report and offers proposals for the consideration of the Meeting of States Parties. Draft Resolution: Paragraph 37

2

I. BACKGROUND

1. In line with its biennial evaluation plan for 2012-13, UNESCO’s Internal Oversight

Service (IOS) conducted the “Evaluation of UNESCO’s Standard‐setting Work of the Culture Sector: Part II – 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property” (hereafter IOS evaluation). A summary of this evaluation was presented to the Executive Board at its 194 session (document 194 EX/22) which requested “the Director-General to continue her efforts to ensure that all Internal Oversight Service recommendations are properly implemented within a reasonable time frame, in consultation with the governing bodies of the cultural conventions, as necessary, and without prejudice to the conclusions of the working group (194 Ex/Dec.22).”.

2. Since the purpose of the IOS evaluation, in relation to the 1970 Convention, was “to generate findings and recommendations regarding the relevance and the effectiveness of the standard-setting work of the Convention with a focus on its impact on ratification, legislation, policies and strategies of Parties to it; and the implementation of the convention at national level”, it is important to distinguish which recommendations fall under whose responsibility. These recommendations are addressed to the States Parties, the Secretariat, and the Governing Bodies of the Convention, as follows:

3. Document C70/14/2.SC/4, presented during the Second Session of the Subsidiary Committee, introduced the IOS evaluation and proposed responses for the consideration of the Subsidiary Committee. Its members adopted Decision 2.SC 41 in line with the relevant recommendation of the IOS evaluation.

4. Resolution 3.MSP 8 adopted during the Third Meeting of States Parties requested the Subsidiary Committee “in cooperation with the Secretariat, to prioritize the areas of work related to the implementation of the (…) recommendations, as well as the activities included in the Roadmap [for the fulfilment of the functions of the Subsidiary

1 http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/2_SC_Decisions_en.pdf

States Parties

Recommendations

2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,

10, 20 & 21

Secretariat

Recommendations

14, 15, 17, 18, 19 &

24

Governing bodies

Recommendations

3, 11, 12 & 13

Recommendation

16

Recommendations

22, 23, 25, 26 & 27

3

Committee2], and to report on the status of their implementation at the next Meeting of States Parties”.

5. Subsequently, document C70/15/3.SC/7, presented during the Third Session of the Subsidiary Committee, proposed concrete steps prioritizing the implementation of the recommendations. It presented five themes for consideration, based on the evaluation recommendations and the Roadmap.

6. Based on Resolution 3. MSP 8 and the abovementioned documents, this document presents the status of implementation of the recommendations presented in the IOS evaluation report and offers proposals for the consideration of the Meeting of States Parties. The present document builds upon the five themes reflected in document C70/15/3.SC/7.

II. STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSALS

II.1 Capacity-building and awareness-raising

7. For capacity-building, the Roadmap proposes exploring ways and means to promote

the development of institutional and human resources to support the implementation of the 1970 Convention. Recommendations 1, 14 and 15 of the IOS evaluation complement this approach, by focusing on how to improve ratifications, especially in regions where they are low, through awareness-raising and capacity-building initiatives. Furthermore, Decision 2.SC 43 explicitly requested the Secretariat to develop a comprehensive capacity-building strategy.

8. In response to this, in 2015 the Secretariat sent a questionnaire to UNESCO Field Offices to determine what areas needed to be addressed - in order of priority - in terms of capacity-building and awareness-raising initiatives. The Secretariat made a series of proposals on modalities and mechanisms, topics to be addressed, beneficiaries and mechanisms to enhance follow-up. These proposals were presented in document C70/15/3.SC/7. The Secretariat proposed a timeframe in accordance with UNESCO’s Medium-Term Strategy (2014-2021) and four-year Programme and Budget cycle.

9. Regarding modalities and mechanisms for capacity-building, training initiatives for specific stakeholders were proposed as a short-term priority. The Secretariat continues to undertake such activities with the support of State Parties, with special attention to areas with a low ratification rate, in particular in Africa4. Bilateral consultations with experts were also identified as an action to be undertaken in the short-term. In this regard, the Secretariat contracted an expert for needs assessment missions to Thailand (January 2017), Lao People’s Democratic Republic (February 2017) and Jordan (March 2017) to identify and make recommendations on policies leading to a more effective implementation of the 1970 Convention in these countries. A similar action will be undertaken for Myanmar in late 2017.

2http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/Extra_SC_3_roadmap.pdf , adopted by the Subsidiary Committee

during its extraordinary session held on 18 May 2015 at UNESCO Headquarters

3http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/2_SC_Decisions_en.pdf

4Please refer to document C70/17/4.MSP/7 for more information on capacity-building activities undertaken during the period

2015 – 2017.

4

10. The results of the questionnaire also showed the need to train the trainers in the

medium-term. The Secretariat conducted a pilot project in 2015 in North Africa, which has proven to be very beneficial for ensuring the sustainability of the action5. As shown in the results of the questionnaire, E-training is also an option to be considered as both a short and the long-term.

11. Regarding mechanisms for enhanced follow-up to capacity-building, the creation of committees and focal points (staffed with previously trained personnel) and their close cooperation with the Secretariat has been identified as one of the main priorities.

12. Concerning awareness-raising and education6, the Secretariat is planning to strengthen outreach activities for the general public through a multidirectional awareness-raising campaign, using different means of communication (videos, social networks) and establishing partnerships with international media, renowed museums, airlines and travel guides

13. Activities targeting youth will follow an integrated approach, favouring synergies with

the Education Sector and other UNESCO Culture Conventions, as well as the #Unite4Heritage7 campaign. The integration of illicit trafficking into formal and non-formal education will also be a priority in the short-term. Indeed, the Secretariat plans to develop a comprehensive programme for heritage education and to strengthen the links with the UNESCO World Heritage Education Programme. Regarding the inclusion of the topic in university curricula, in February 2017 the Secretariat organized a series of university lectures to raise awareness on the need to protect cultural heritage from looting and trafficking among students in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama. Furthermore, with the aim to strengthen the links with higher education, the Secretariat has actively promoted the creation of a UNITWIN network on the “Protection of Cultural Property Against Illicit Trafficking in the MENA region (ProCult)”8.

14. Information provided in national reports9 reflects that many States Parties implement special training programs especially for police, customs and magistrates, which are also the priority target groups identified through the questionnaire. Similarly, a vast majority of States also implemented educational and awareness-raising activities. However, States Parties globally consider that UNESCO should play a more important role in the areas of education and awareness-raising as well as in the organisation of seminars and the training of professionals.

15. Taking into account the considerations above, the Secretariat will establish a pool of experts. The experts would first follow a cycle of training of trainers workshops by region. This would allow the experts to be familiar with the UNESCO tools and training materials, which could then be adapted to local contexts and used to deliver training and capacity-building services, such as needs assessments, technical assistance and

5More information on this activity can be found in document C70/17/4.MSP/7

6The Secretariat’s strategy to promote educational tools to prevent illicit trafficking is going to be discussed during the forthcoming Fifth Session of the Subsidiary Committee on the basis of document C70/17/5.SC/5A

7http://www.unite4heritage.org/

8For more information on this UNITWIN ‘ProCult’ network, please refer to paragraph 25 of the present document as well as to document C70/17/5.SC/5A of the forthcoming Fifth Session of the Subsidiary Committee

9Document C70/15/3.SC/6 of the Third session of the Subsidiary Committee presents a synthesis of the reports submitted in the 2015 reporting cycle

5

policy advice at the country level. Experts will also provide substantial advice in the development of the awareness-raising and educational activities on the fight against the illicit trafficking.

16. This methodology will multiply the training resources of the Secretariat and will therefore strengthen the sustainability of the action, as well as the follow-up of the activities undertaken. At the same time, it will increase the implementation of activities in areas with a low ratification rate, including Africa and SIDS. It will also facilitate the use of a wider scope of capacity-building modalities, such as bilateral consultations and e-learning modules, which have been ranked as priorities in the aforementioned questionnaire. States Parties may wish to promote in particular the use of the latter given its cost-effectiveness.

II.2 International Cooperation

17. Recommendation 11 of the IOS evaluation highlights the need to clarify procedures for

return and restitution at the national level by designating focal points that can be contacted by other State Parties. This recommendation, addressed to the Subsidiary Committee and to the States Parties, complements paragraph 12 of the aforementioned Roadmap that refers to Article 9 of the Convention on international cooperation, in particular concerning the protection of cultural patrimony in jeopardy from pillage of archaeological and ethnological material.

18. In order to strengthen international cooperation among States Parties to the 1970 Convention, the Secretariat provides necessary support, technical advice as well as legal and practical tools to facilitate dialogue between the concerned States. On the occasion of the Fourth Session of the Subsidiary Committee (September 2016), the Secretariat presented a document10 on standard actions to facilitate the return and restitution of illegally trafficked cultural objects to their country of origin, when these objects have been found on sale on the art market. While the Secretariat will continue to do its utmost to provide the required means for negotiations when requested, it also calls on States Parties to cooperate by taking all necessary actions and measures, especially to prevent the illicit trafficking of cultural objects flowing through countries in times of conflict.

19. The UNESCO Database of National Cultural Heritage Laws is a key tool for promoting and clarifying the procedures for return and restitution cases. In this regard, States Parties are encouraged to submit relevant national laws and regulations to the database. Given the relevance of this tool, the Secretariat is planning to launch a new version in the second half of 2017 – provided that extra-budgetary resources are found – with an improved search engine programme in order to render the database more user friendly.

20. States Parties are also encouraged to use the Model Export Certificate11, jointly developed by UNESCO and the World Customs Organization (WCO) as a tool to track information on the provenance of cultural property. The dissemination of this type of tool can facilitate the distinction between legally and illegally exported cultural artefacts, and help exercise due diligence requirements and determine good faith. States Parties

10http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/English_standard_action_plan_return_restitution_01.pdf

11http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-trafficking-of-cultural-property/legal-and-practical-instruments/unesco-wco-model-

export-certificate/

6

may also wish to use the “Basic Actions concerning Cultural Objects being offered for Sale over the Internet”12, jointly developed by UNESCO, INTERPOL, and ICOM.

II.3 Facilitate dialogue and develop partnerships

21. As mentioned in the Roadmap and in the IOS evaluation (Recommendations 9, 22, 23 and 25), strengthening dialogue among all stakeholders, including intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations as well as art-market professionals and Internet service providers and research centres and institutions is essential to reduce risks of illicit trafficking.

22. The Secretariat regularly invites representatives of the art market to participate in key

events to forge links, enhance cooperation and encourage a constructive dialogue with the Secretariat. Following Decision 3 SC.7 of the Third Session of the Subsidiary Committee, the Secretariat compiled a list of associations or organizations of art dealers, museum professionals and private collectors. As of March 2017, this list is composed of 39 art dealers associations. States Parties may wish to consider submitting more contacts to enrich this list further.

23. Also following Decision 3.SC 7, the Secretariat organized on 30 March 2016, in partnership with the Conseil des Ventes Volontaires, a one-day round table focused on the art market and its important role in the fight against the illicit trafficking of cultural property, entitled “The movement of cultural property in 2016: regulation, international cooperation and professional diligence for the protection of cultural heritage”. Art market stakeholders, including representatives of auction houses and online platforms, museum representatives, cultural heritage experts, specialized intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations as well as Member States participated in the round table, which took place in Paris at UNESCO Headquarters. States Parties may wish to provide a follow up to this initiative, either at international, regional or national level.

24. Thanks to financial effort from the European Union, the Secretariat launched in March 2017 a two-year project “Engaging the European art market in the fight against the illicit trafficking of cultural property”. The objectives of this project are to raise the awareness of European art market stakeholders regarding this issue, provide technical assistance to beneficiaries on due diligence principles, strengthen cooperation among European art market professionals and build bridges and strengthen cooperation with relevant national authorities. Two capacity-building trainings will be organized and a web platform for knowledge sharing will be created.

25. The Subsidiary Committee may wish to encourage States Parties to better promote and broadly circulate the UNESCO International Code of Ethics for Dealers in Cultural Property13 among the representatives of the art market, museums and cultural institutions, and to strengthen existing national legislations and regulations on trade of cultural objects. As part of their awareness-raising efforts, the States Parties may decide to create national contact lists of auction houses.

12 http://portal.unesco.org/culture/es/files/21559/11836509429MesuresTraficIlliciteEn.pdf/MesuresTraficIlliciteEn.pdf

13http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001213/121320M.pdf

7

26. Regarding UNESCO’s engagement with research institutions with a view to reinforce its role as a broker for knowledge related to the implementation of the 1970 Convention, the aforementioned UNITWIN network on the “Protection of Cultural Property Against Illicit Trafficking in the MENA region (ProCult)” is called to play a key role in this endeavour. This network will bring together interdisciplinary research and implementation expertise needed to analyze the illicit traffic in cultural objects and to develop adequate counter measures on various levels. It aims at strengthening research, teaching, and implementation capacities of the participating institutions and will serve as a think tank to build bridges between academia, civil society, local communities, research and policy-making.

II.4 Identification of problem areas 27. The IOS evaluation identified specific problem areas and proposed tailor-made

recommendations to address them. Moreover, the Operational Guidelines14 aim to strengthen and facilitate the implementation of the Convention.

28. One of the functions of the Subsidiary Committee is ‘to identify problem areas arising from the implementation of the Convention including issues relating to the protection and return of cultural property’. According to the Roadmap, the Subsidiary Committee will discuss issues raised by States Parties and examine national reports, identify new challenges that arise from the implementation of the Convention and propose solutions.

29. The Subsidiary Committee at its Third Session, and in accordance with Resolution 3.MSP 815 adopted in the Third Meeting of States Parties, started to prioritize the issues to be examined at its Fourth Session. Indeed, Decision 3.SC 7 (9)16 specified as priority topics the online sales of illicitly trafficked cultural property, the establishment of standard and simplified procedures for search, seizure, confiscation orders and restitution orders of such property and the trafficking in documentary heritage.

30. The aforementioned issues were consequently addressed during the Fourth Session of the Subsidiary Committee17. Furthermore, Decision 4.SC 1918 requested the Secretariat to produce a document on the role of education in preventing illicit trafficking of cultural property. Accordingly, the forthcoming Fifth Session of the Subsidiary Committee will examine this issue and will set forth new perspectives for strengthening the role of education and awareness raising.

31. States Parties may wish to establish a methodology in order to facilitate the selection process of the priority topics. Currently, priority topics for the following session are identified during the previous session through the decisions of the Subsidiary Committee. Unfortunately, given the limited duration of the sessions, it is not always possible to make in depth analysis of the priorities. In this regard, States Parties may wish to invite the Chairperson of the Subsidiary Committee to launch a consultation with Members of the Committee two months prior to the next ordinary session of the Subsidiary Committee to identify the priority topics to be examined at the following session. Based on this consultation, the Chairperson, in agreement with the Bureau, could thereafter propose a maximum of three priority topics for the next session.

14http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/OPERATIONAL_GUIDELINES_EN_FINAL.pdf

15 http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/RESOLUTIONS_EN_FINAL_01.pdf

16 http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/3SC_List_of_Decisions_EN.pdf

17Please refer to documents C70/16/4.SC/10, C70/16/4.SC/15 and C70/16/4.SC/12 respectively. Please also refer to the Decisions of

the Fourth Session of the Subsidiary Committee.

18http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/Final_Decision_4SC.pdf

8

32. Furthermore, the UNITWIN ‘ProCult’ network will be instrumental for promoting and conducting research on the priority topics identified by the Subsidiary Committee. This will contribute to a more participatory implementation of the 1970 Convention.

II.5 Periodic Reporting 33.Taking into account Recommendation 27 of the IOS evaluation, the Subsidiary Committee

and the Secretariat were tasked with improving periodic reporting by revisiting the reporting format and introducing an online system for submission and analysis of periodic reports based on in-house best practices. In order to identify lessons learnt, evaluate and measure progress made in the implementation of the 1970 Convention, the Committee has to examine the national reports before submitting its proposals to the Meeting of States Parties, as stated in the Roadmap.

34. The Subsidiary Committee, at its Fourth Session19, adopted an updated reporting form and

decided to present the new version of the reporting form to the Meeting of States Parties. The updated reporting form is attached to this document (Annex A).

35. However, further amendments might be proposed, as the adopted reporting format will have to be harmonized with the relevant result framework of the 39 C/5 to be adopted by the General Conference at its forthcoming session.20

36. Decision 4.SC.14 also requested the Secretariat to prepare a proposal for an electronic reporting system which responds to the needs and expectations of States Parties. Document C70/17/5.SC/9A presented in the forthcoming Fifth Session of the Subsidiary Committee will report on the objectives and advantages of the new electronic reporting tool. It is anticipated that the new reporting system will be operational for the next reporting period in 2019.

37. Taking into account the above-mentioned analysis, information and proposals, the Meeting

of States Parties may wish to adopt the following Resolution:

Draft Resolution 4.MSP 8

The Meeting of States Parties,

1. Having examined Document C70/17/4.MSP/8,

2. Welcomes the creation of the UNITWIN network on the “Protection of Cultural Property Against Illicit Trafficking in the MENA region (ProCult)”;

3. Requests the Secretariat to continue capacity-building and awareness-raising activities, paying special attention to establishing enhanced follow-up mechanisms;

4. Urges State Parties to use the existing tools to strengthen measures against illicit trafficking of cultural property, in particular on the internet, and reinforce national and international cooperation;

19See Decision 4.SC.14

20According to the abovementioned Decision 4.SC.14, Secretariat is allowed on emergency cases to submit to the Subsidiary Committee draft proposals on further amendments on the reporting form with a view to enable the collection of information on new trends and developments in the fight against illicit trafficking

9

5. Calls upon State Parties to better promote the International Code of Ethics for Dealers in Cultural Property and encourages State Parties to create and maintain up-to-date national lists of auction houses and galleries as an integral part of national awareness-raising efforts;

6. Invites the Chairperson of the Subsidiary Committee to launch a consultation with Members of the Committee two months prior to the next ordinary Session of the Subsidiary Committee, in order to facilitate the selection process of the priority topics to be addressed at the other session;

7. Invites States Parties to support the Secretariat with extra-budgetary resources.

10

Annex - Reporting Form

Respondent Information

Name:

Position

Organization/Agency

Country

Policy and Legislative Framework

1) Did your country implement the 1970 UNESCO Convention, and if so, how?

Civil Law

Criminal Law

Specific Law

2) Does your country have an overall policy and/or strategy for fighting illicit

trafficking of cultural property (i.e., a document that describes the country’s

overall vision for fighting illicit trafficking)?

Yes

No

3) If yes, please provide the name and year the policy was passed (and web link

to the policy/strategy if possible)

4) Please describe your country’s overall legal framework for protecting cultural

property from illicit trafficking, referencing specific laws and years passed

(including specific provisions on the return of cultural objects illegally

exported from other States Parties to the Convention).

5) To what extent does your country’s policy and legislation on this issue

address the following topics (Please rate the degree of achievement from 1

to 5 in accordance to the table below):

5 Excellent

4 Very Good

3 Good

2 Satisfactory

1 Poor

11

Clear definition of cultural property

State ownership of undiscovered cultural heritage

Regulations on trade of cultural property

Export controls

Export certificates

Certificate of authenticity

Import controls

Establishment of national services

National inventory of cultural property

Inventory requirements for museums, public institutions, private collections

Protection of archaeological sites and regulation of archaeological excavations

Public education and awareness raising

Measures to prevent museums and similar institutions from acquiring illegally exported cultural property

Prohibition of import of cultural property stolen from a museum or religious/secular institution

Regulation of the diplomatic pouch

Provisions for the return of cultural objects stolen from a museum or other public institution

Sanctions (criminal and/or administrative and/or civil) of illicit activities related to destruction and illicit trafficking of cultural property

Requirement of register of sales for antique dealers, auction houses, dealers of cultural heritage and art galleries

Protection of underwater cultural heritage

Regulations regarding the use of metal detectors

Regulations regarding the trade of cultural artefacts on internet (agreement with internet platforms, specify which internet platforms) etc.

Other (please specify):

6) Did your country’s legal framework regarding illicit trafficking of cultural

property change as a result of ratifying the 1970 Convention?

7) If yes, what laws were passed or changed as a result of ratification? (Please

provide the name of the law and the year it was passed)

8) Any additional comments on the legislative/policy framework

9) Has your country implemented a policy to prevent the illicit export of cultural property?

Yes

No

12

10) Has your country implemented a policy to prevent the illicit import of cultural

property? Among them the requirement of a legally issued export certificate

of the country of origin and/or transit?

11) Has your country encountered difficulties in returning/restituting cultural

property to its place of origin due to incompatibilities with national judicial

decisions? Please specify.

Implementation and operative framework

Institutional Framework

12) Does your country have a specialized service for the protection of cultural

property (as described in Article 5 of the Convention) whose functions may

include drafting laws and legislation, establishing national inventory,

promoting establishment/development of scientific and technical institutions,

organizing the supervision of archaeological sites, establishing rules for

curators, antique dealers, etc., developing educational activities and/or

publicizing the disappearance of cultural property?

13) If yes, please describe this service’s major roles and responsibilities:

14) Please indicate which of the following departments/ministries/agencies also

have specialized services for the protection of cultural property against illicit

trafficking: (mark all that apply)

Magistrates and/or judges

Police, gendarmerie, and/or Department of Interior

Public prosecutor

Customs

Other (please specify):

15) Please describe the roles and responsibilities of these specialized services

in more detail:

Yes

No

13

16) How do relevant stakeholders (Ministry of Culture, police, customs, etc.)

coordinate regarding the protection of illicit trafficking? Mark all that apply

Formal coordinating committee, working group, etc.

Coordination lead by specialized service (as described in Article 5), antenna or focal point

Communication and meetings as necessary (i.e., for specific cases)

Cross-trainings (i.e., trainings for police from Ministry of Culture staff)

Other (please specify):

17) Please provide more detail on this coordination, including how it functions

and who is involved:

18) Does your country use a database of stolen cultural objects?

Yes, we have our own national or/and regional database that is not linked with the INTERPOL database

Yes, we have our own national or/and regional database that is linked with the INTERPOL database

Yes, we use the INTERPOL database (and do not have our own national database)

No, we do not currently have a national database or use the INTERPOL database

We would request assistance to establish such a database

19) Please provide additional details on how your country uses such a database:

Protection and Prevention Systems

20) To what extent do museums and religious or secular public monuments have

their own specific inventories of their cultural property/collections?

All/almost all cultural property is inventoried

Most, but not all, cultural property is inventoried

Some cultural property is inventoried, but significant gaps remain

Very little cultural property is inventoried

No/almost no cultural property is inventoried

21) Please provide additional details on these inventories, specifying whether

they are digitized, and including any challenges in creating/maintaining

them:

14

22) To what extent does your country have a centralized national inventory of

cultural property?

All/almost all protected cultural property is inventoried

Most, but not all, protected cultural property is inventoried

Some protected cultural property is inventoried, but significant gaps remain

Very little protected cultural property is inventoried

No/almost no protected cultural property is inventoried

23) Please provide additional details on this inventory, including any challenges

in creating/maintaining it:

24) Please describe the extent to which looting/pillaging/illegal excavations of

archaeological and ethnological objects is a challenge, including actions

taken to combat it.

Knowledge, Skills and Values of Stakeholders and the Public

25) Has your country undertaken any public awareness campaigns related to the

protection of cultural property in the past five years?

Yes

No

26) If yes, please describe, including methods, target audience, etc.

27) To what extent is the public in your country engaged in the protection of

cultural property? Examples of engagement may include

Protection of local archaeological and heritage sites by the public (eg. assistance in monitoring of sites, support in documenting etc.)

Return of objects to relevant authorities

Sharing information on stolen objects with authorities

Placing pressure on museums to change acquisition policies

Advocating for policy change

28) Overall, to what extent do police and/or gendarmerie have the necessary

resources and knowledge to address cultural property crime?

15

29) Overall, to what extent do customs officers have the necessary resources

and knowledge to address cultural property crime?

30) What type of training do police receive on cultural property crime?

No specific training on this issue

Training has occurred in the past, but is not ongoing

Training occurs periodically

In-depth, specialized training for officers working on this issue

An assistance is required from UNESCO and its partners

Other (please specify):

31) Please provide additional details on the content and frequency of these

trainings:

32) What type of training do customs officers receive on cultural property crime?

No specific training on this issue

Training has occurred in the past, but is not ongoing

Training occurs periodically

In-depth, specialized training for officers working on this issue

An assistance is required from UNESCO and its partners

Other (please specify):

33) Please provide additional details on the content and frequency of these

trainings:

34) To what extent have museums in your country adopted a code of ethics,

such as the ICOM Code of Ethics, that is in line with the principles of the

1970 Convention?

All or almost all have adopted such a code of ethics

Most have adopted such a code of ethics

Some have adopted such a code of ethics

None/only a few have adopted such a code of ethics

35) Please provide additional details on the degree to which museums adhere to

such a code of ethics:

16

36) To what extent do dealers and auction houses in your country follow practices

that are in line with the principles of the 1970 Convention, such as those

outlined in the UNESCO International Code of Ethics for Dealers in Cultural

Property and the Operational Guidelines of the 1970 Convention?

All or almost all follow such practices

Most follow such practices

Some follow such practices

None/only a few follow such practices

37) Please provide additional details on the policies and practices of dealers and

auction houses in your country:

38) How has your country engaged art and antiquities dealers around the issue

of illicit trafficking of cultural property?

39) Do you regulate the trade of cultural objects on internet?

40) Have you entered into a specific agreement with an internet platform?

International Cooperation

41) Please list any formal, bilateral agreements your country has regarding the

protection of cultural property, including the years for which the agreement

is in effect.

42) Please indicate how the 1970 Convention helped with return/restitution cases

your country has been involved in?

To no extent

To some extent

To a considerable

extent

To a great extent

N/A

Provided a legal framework for return/restitution

Provided a moral framework for return/restitution

Provided a diplomatic framework for return/restitution

Other (please specify):

17

43) Please provide additional details on or examples of how the 1970 Convention

has facilitated return/restitution cases

44) Does your country have a system in place to facilitate international

cooperation (e.g. single points of contacts and easily accessible information)

in cases of illicit trafficking of cultural property?

45) How have your country promoted this system and ensure the international

community is aware of it?

Overall

46) Yearly statistics

Reporting year

Number of objects Additional information

Thefts 1st year

2nd year

3rd year

4th year

Illegal Excavations 1st year

2nd year

3rd year

4th year

Seizures (cultural objects originating from own country)

1st year

2nd year

3rd year

4th year

Seizures (cultural objects originating from another country)

1st year

2nd year

3rd year

4th year

Restitutions 1st year

2nd year

3rd year

4th year

18

47) Please rate the extent to which each of the following is a challenge your

country faces in preventing theft and illicit exportation of its cultural

property:

Not a challenge

Somewhat of a

challenge

A considerable

challenge

A major challenge

N/A

Gaps in national legislation to protect cultural property

Lack of police capacity related to cultural property

Lack of customs capacity related to cultural property

Lack of coordination between relevant stakeholders

Lack of inventories and databases in museums

Inadequate security systems in museums and places of worship

Inadequate security of archaeological sites

Lack of cooperation from the art market

Lack of expertise/capacity in the legal field (lawyers, judges, prosecutors, etc.)

Lack of regulation on the internet

Lack of public awareness

Other (please specify):

48) If applicable, please describe the three biggest barriers your country faces in

securing the return/restitution of cultural property that has been

stolen/illegally exported (e.g., cost of legal proceedings in other countries,

lack of communication with counterparts in other countries, etc.):

49) If applicable, please describe the most common reasons why your country is

not able to fulfill requests for return/restitution made by other countries (e.g.,

requests made outside parameters of existing legal framework, lack of

evidence base for claims, etc.)

19

UNESCO Support for the Implementation of the 1970 Convention

General awareness raising and communication strategies

50) UNESCO and its partners have developed a number of tools to help State

Parties implement the 1970 Convention. Please rate how helpful these tools

have been to your country:

Not at all helpful

Somewhat helpful

Very helpful

Extremely helpful

N/A

Object ID Standard (ICOM, the Getty, and UNESCO)

UNESCO International Code of Ethics for Cultural Property Dealers

ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums

UNESCO Database of National Cultural Heritage Laws

Basic Measures Concerning Cultural Items Offered for Sale on the Internet (INTERPOL, UNESCO, ICOM)

Model Provisions Defining State Ownership of Undiscovered Cultural Property (UNESCO and UNIDROIT)

Model Export Certificate for Cultural Objects (UNESCO and WCO)

51) Please provide additional details on how your country has used UNESCO’s

tools:

52) Please indicate whether your country has uploaded relevant national laws to

the UNESCO Database of National Cultural Heritage Laws:

53) What additional tools would be helpful for UNESCO to develop:

20

54) Have you or other stakeholders in your country participated in any of

UNESCO’s capacity building workshops or projects related to preventing

illicit trafficking of cultural property in the past five years?

Yes

No

55) If yes, how did these workshops or projects contribute to the implementation

of the 1970 Convention in your country? Please provide specific examples

where possible.

56) There are a number of ways the UNESCO Secretariat could support State

Parties in the implementation of the 1970 Convention in the future, in

addition to servicing the governing bodies of the Convention. Please indicate

the extent to which the Secretariat should give priority to the following

activities:

No priority

Low priority

Somewhat of a priority

High priority

Support in reforming national policies and legislation

Promoting policy dialogues between countries

Support for inventorying projects

Specialized trainings for police

Specialized trainings for customs

Specialized trainings for museum staff

National workshops to bring together stakeholders across departments, ministries, etc.

Regional workshops to bring together stakeholders from across the region across departments, ministries, etc.

Awareness raising activities (press releases, video clips, etc.)

Development of more legal and practical tools such as the WCO model export certificate, the Database of National Cultural Heritage Laws, etc.

Facilitating the sharing of best practices between countries (e.g., online or through a newsletter)

Other (please specify):

21

57) Please provide any additional suggestions for how UNESCO should focus its

work on this topic going forward:

58) Any other additional issues or comments you would like to share:

59) What difficulties did you State encounter while implementing the Convention

during the last reporting cycle period:

60) How has your country used the Operational Guidelines of the 1970 Convention

adopted in UNESCO during the Third Meeting of States Parties (2015):