UNESCO
1970 CONVENTION.
INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE MOVABLE CULTURAL HERITAGE OF NATIONS
(By Peruvian Dr. Cecilia Bákula, PhD in History, Professor at the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú and Director of the Museum of the Banco Central de Reserva del Perú. She is a member of ICOM and is also member of the Board of Directors of the ICOMOS Peruvian Committee)
The novelty of the UNESCO Convention resides in the fact that it denounces and alerts for the first time on the illicit traffic of cultural property; it openly declares the social value of these objects; it expresses ethical arguments and proposes a series of preventive actions to attack this scourge and prevent this illegal traffic from interrupting the memory of nations, who must be able to structure their identity on the basis of the material elements making up their past and their national personality. This document revealed that the concept of “National Heritage” includes a broad spectrum of material objects, which are represented not only by a series of sites and monuments , ¹¹ but also by the flora and fauna, mineral and paleontological specimens, archaeological and ethnological objects, elements from decorative arts, manuscripts, books and incunabula, as well as sound, photographic and cinematographic archives, and it set out the guidelines for the protection of the Cultural Heritage of any period of time. Going a step further, according to this Convention, it would be each State’s responsibility to apply the necessary legal and administrative sanctions. ¹² But these are precisely the aspects which have been most ignored in our region and we don’t really have many positive examples of what should mean “a really serious warning” for those responsible for this traffic.
It is therefore not enough to adopt these texts; they must be ratified and, of course, implemented; these would then be the required steps to go from a rhetoric attitude to a concrete action, thus obtaining results that would encourage others to implement this Convention.
Within this activity related to material heritage, UNESCO has articulated its action around three main aspects: prevention, management, and intervention, and the 1970 Convention has given unity to all three in order to articulate what the States Parties will be doing in their aspirations for peace, respect, and equity, their most important mission being the protection of the cultural heritage of mankind, and it is in this very mission that all of us, States and individuals, must feel committed.
Though all this should be enough to prove the importance of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, it becomes necessary to stress some of its aspects, which we will express in three general groups.
Regulations that all UNESCO Member States and signatories of the Convention must comply with, though each is free to apply them according to their specific legal structure. ¹³
As we all know, in some States there are conflicts and contradictions between their numerous internal regulations; they should be revised and reordered to serve as the correct basis for a coherent formulation of the cultural policy for these countries in particular, and the region as a whole. We must recognize the fact that there have been recent efforts and campaigns to create awareness and to demand from local authorities the adoption of adequate regulations. (14) The States who have adopted this legal instrument have also been called on to take all the necessary measures to prohibit the export of cultural objects, with the specific exception of those holding the necessary permits. Each country must make a permanent analysis of these internal regulations so they can be adapted to the constant changes taking place in the modus operandi of illegal traders, thus giving local authorities improved legal instruments for their preventive action. These regulations must be made known to all those involved or related to these import and/or export activities.
The countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, whose movable cultural heritage is being affected by plunder, destruction and illicit traffic, must revise and update their respective legal rules and put them in step with the conventions subscribed by these countries, so they can be as useful as they were meant to be.
There are some interesting examples: the case of Bolivia, whose Political Constitution, adopted in 1995, declares in its Article 137 the “public and inviolable property” of the Nation’s heritage, and Article 191 makes an even more concrete mention of this fact as it establishes that “monuments and archaeological objects are State property, and the artistic heritage from colonial times, archaeology, history, documents or belonging to religious cults constitutes our cultural treasure […]” (15)
In January of this year [2003] the Chilean Government revised the text of its law 17.228 “On National Monuments” (the original text was drafted in 1970), which makes a specific mention of the States’ custody and protection of the objects defined therein, and Article 14 establishes regulations for their export. Though this is a recent text that incorporates the principles proclaimed by UNESCO, Chile has not yet subscribed the 1970 Convention nor the UNIDROIT Convention—which constitute legal instruments adjusted to the relations and actions of most of the countries involved, as providers or receivers, in this scourge represented today by: the illicit traffic of our cultural heritage.
Preventive actions aimed at the understanding and management of the cultural property each State has recognized as its own property, and now in danger.
International cooperation, since no action, however wonderful it may seem, can be efficient enough unless it counts on the participation of other States and the support of agencies such as the International Council of Museums (ICOM) and INTERPOL. As an example of this cooperation we might mention the “red lists,” with proven results in the case of Africa’s heritage, whose countries have been implementing them since the year 2002, as we shall describe later on. (16) We should also mention the will shown by some States “receivers” of products illicitly smuggled out of their original sites, and who have subscribed bilateral agreements between two countries in order to generate the most efficient barriers to prevent these objects from entering their country and being sold within their territory. (17)
A few examples can serve to prove to what extent different States want to avoid and stop the illicit traffic going on in their territories of specific cultural objects coming from other States with whom they have signed bilateral agreements. In spite of the positive results of these instruments, they demand from “providing” countries like Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Mexico, Nicaragua and Panama, among others, the will to define and specify the objects that must be safeguarded by such an agreement. The specialists will of course be required to carry out arduous work, for these cultural objects now endangered must be specifically described and defined—the protection agreed to does not cover absolutely all the objects that a specific country considers as cultural property, but only those that have been specifically declared as such by that agreement. (18)
The Register of Cultural Property. An Efficient Action
One of the most efficient ways to understand your cultural heritage, be it movable or immovable, is to register it; registration is a necessary instrument to know, control and value the objects that may or not be endangered, in order to promote campaigns .to strengthen awareness and prevention, and be in a position to defend, manage and preserve what each nation considers part of its cultural heritage. Each State is responsible for defining its own norms and design its own strategies to make this registration an efficient and sure instrument. There are numerous ways to register cultural property, UNESCO only wants each country to assume this task and is not concerned with the system chosen.
The 1970 Convention concentrates many of its expectations for a successful implementation of this registration in its appeal to the signatory countries to make a commitment in relation to this task (19) Stating this commitment so crudely might make it seem excessive and above and beyond anybody’s capacities. Many people think it would be impossible to materialize this register (20), but far from discouraging, all these opinions are but one more reason and one more motivation to go forward. The register is needed and every country must adapt it to its own reality, its own needs, and its specific possibilities. (21) But this is an important and long-range commitment, particularly in the countries possessing and therefore originating the kind of cultural property that attracts the attention of the international market—it will be useful, therefore, only if the States define in their specific legislations exactly which objects of their national and cultural heritage must be protected. And this would imply an inventory of what they consider to be their heritage. Every State adhering to the UNESCO Convention will then be required to draft and update a list of their cultural property whose export would notably impoverish their national heritage.
We must become well aware that the absence of such an inventory can only make us aware—when it becomes too late to do anything about it—of the fact that we knew nothing about what we lost, since the lack of elements to identify these objects becomes, in the long run, a true obstacle to recover them and really makes the task easier for exporters and illicit traders.
Documents and inventories are important when they represent well-known and unique works of art belonging to national treasures, but they can become crucial when the objects needing protection are less well known. The importance of these documents has long-since been recognized internationally as a vital part of the struggle against the illicit traffic of our cultural heritage. (22)
While we are on this topic we must mention the efforts made by institutions such as the Paul Getty Foundation. We will develop this aspect further on , together with other progress in countries of our own region. UNESCO cooperates with the Getty Research Institute to adopt an international standard known as “Object ID.” It is specifically meant for the quick and simple registration of database or the minimum essential characteristics to identify—and therefore recover—works of art placed on the international market. Having recognized the increase in the illicit traffic of cultural objects, there is a general consensus on the urgent need to create a system for uniform international data to facilitate the use and exchange of information, even though on an internal scale, each country is free to draft its own inventory programs, adapted to the specific characteristics of the heritage it wants to protect.
As a result of this common effort by museums, art dealers, organizations linked to the defense of our cultural heritage, police and customs agencies, insurance companies, collectors and representatives of numerous agencies managing culture, there is now an “Object Identification Checklist, a short list of information normally known as “Object ID.” It is used to gather the most important data on endangered property, or on those to be protected in case this information is needed to identify the object, taking into account that not all those involved in the recovery of stolen goods or participating in networks for illicit traffic are experts in all the forms of art and cultural expression endangered throughout the whole world.
As soon as this checklist is made up, each State is then responsible for its dissemination, and to make sure it is correctly used by museums, collectors and agents linked to the defense of this cultural heritage. (23) “Object ID” does not substitute the need for a scientific registration card, it is merely a very useful element to be taken into account by those managing objects from the cultural heritage that might be in danger. (24) The information needed for this “Object ID” also helps INTERPOL, when they request it to follow up theft and illicit traffic. As we have already mentioned, the forms drafted by this international police agency are known as “CRIGEN Art Forms” and they have a very specific use in their research. They constitute a very basic element but they do not substitute in any way the registration form each object or each kind of object must have. (25)
In 1999, OIPC INTERPOL’s General Secretariat decided to prepare a CD-ROM to diffuse information on stolen works of art under investigation. It is updated bimonthly and the last version has data and images for 20 000 objects—a huge effort carried out by this international agency to place in the hands of different authorities and agents linked to the defense and protection of our cultural heritage, the kind of precise and orderly information they might need for operations leading to the successful recovery and return of these works. (26)
The 1970 Convention clearly calls for action to make this register a priority, the responsibility of each State Party, for it will be in the unique interest of the authentic owners and/or generators of these endangered objects to assume the challenge of defining, identifying, classifying and describing the works that are an evident part of their material cultural heritage.
The efforts carried out to systematize and standardize information have brought in the assistance of different agencies and institutions such as INTERPOL, the World Customs Organization (WCO), and the International Council of Museums (ICOM) to share and exchange information to recover and defend whatever heritage may be at risk.
As we can see in UNESCO’s Manual for the Implementation of the 1970 Convention, we must make a distinction between what is known as inventories and what is called other kinds of inventories of cultural products.