III. Preventing Illicit Trade in Antiques
Over the years, UNESCO, Interpol, a number of other international agencies as well as the EU, have published several documents aiming for the reduction of the illegal trade of antiquities & art in what is a lucrative market worldwide. Furthermore, many EU Member States also have strict legislations and even joined forces to fight the illegal activities (from national police to a special unit in Interpol). However, the threats still exists and every year thousands of artefacts are recovered from attempted transactions or within raids in the moment of looting.
This is not only a matter of goods being transported or sold on European territory or by European nationals from conflict areas or undeveloped regions, but also within our borders, where a continuous looting of our archaeological heritage is being observed. It is also worth noting, that these illegal practices shed a dark light on the legal collecting and trading of art, which is an important European tradition in keeping and creating our common culture.
Here, the norms are not uniform, neither are the solutions dealing with the suspected sources of the objects. Generally sources are thought to be individuals illegally using metal detectors to retrieve finds, or people acting as part of organised crime networks for illegal acquisition and trafficking of artefacts. It also has to do with the different legal conceptions regarding artefact ownership and other regulations, for example on the property of land; the actual scenario does not help to fight the problem at its source. Moreover, it affects other
EU policies that aim to give the public access to land as part of citizens’ participation rights.
The situation is being complicated by the ambiguous concept of archaeological resources as commodities within a global market. The interest of private collectors opens a strictly regulated market that makes most operations dark and favours the illicit acquisition of archaeological resources in many ways from direct looting, to theft or more elaborated fraudulent strategies. Moreover, free ports have become allies in the process, building stores to hide ‘undeclared’ goods. Also, illegal trade of forgeries and counterfeits of archaeological objects is growing.
Overall, while legislation apparently covers everything, loopholes are appearing that allow the problems to continue and make lawsuits ineffective in many cases. Law enforcement agencies usually lack administrative capacity and other resources to protect archaeological artefacts from the risks of crime and to build strong cases against suspects or around objects.
Questions to topic III:
Please indicate which of these statements would best suit your party’s plan of action:
III.1 Ownership
a) We support the recognition of archaeology as a common good, taking the necessary action to discourage private ownership of archaeological objects within the EU whatever their origin might be.
b) We support developing common EU legal framework regarding a stronger regulation and stricter control of privately owned archaeological objects (data collection, status control, conservation standards etc.).
c) We support private ownership of archaeological objects within the current legal frame of each particular EU Member State.
d) (Possibility to write a more detailed answer, max. 500 words)
III.2 Metal detecting
Within the parliamentary period 2019-2024 we will try to harmonise EU legislation concerning metal detecting on archaeological sites and/or targeting archaeological artefacts in the following way:
a) We support regulating metal detecting on archaeological sites. Metal detectors for the purpose of retrieving archaeological artefacts should be executed exclusively by professional archaeologists and only when a special licence has been issued by the competent authority of the particular EU Member State.
b) We support local authorities in general to prohibit metal detection without a special licence issued by competent authorities of the particular EU Member State.
c) We support allowing metal detection without any special licence.
d) (Possibility to write a more detailed answer, max. 500 words)
III.3 Practical implementation
a) We will harmonise and empower at a national level the related law enforcement and other agencies (e.g. the police, customs, airport security departments, etc.), prosecutorial institutions and courts. We will provide more resources (incl. training and experience exchange) for the prevention, investigation, prosecution and conviction of offenders with regard to the illegal obtainment and trafficking of archaeological and other cultural objects, as well as the production and sale of forgeries and illicit trade.
b) We will reinforce the functions of an existing EU agency or agencies aiming to coordinate the prevention, investigation, prosecution and conviction of offenders regarding illegal obtainment and trafficking of archaeological and other cultural objects, as well as the production and sale of forgeries.
c) We will support research and outreach on heritage crimes’ topics to improve the prevention and combating of illegal obtainment and trafficking of archaeological and other cultural objects as well as production and sale of forgeries.
d) (Possibility to write a more detailed answer, max. 500 words)