Jump to content

fossil laws in Germany


Thecosmilia Trichitoma

Recommended Posts

Does anybody know about fossil laws in Germany?

It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt

 

-Mark Twain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I know is that Germany recently passed the Cultural Property Protection Act that restricts collecting (but is still legal to a small extent). I'm not sure though. I think this explains the law a bit better, but ich spreche kein Deutsch, so I'll just post a translated version here:



Accompaniment of the legislative process

The fossil community Steinkern.de has since the announcement of the draft bill of amendment of the cultural property lawon 15.09.2015 in public and behind the scenes in cooperation with the Association of Friends of Geology and Mineralogy (eV), the Gesellschaft für Geschiebekunde eV, the Paleontological Society, the Dachverband Geowissenschaften, the Freiberg University, the Münchner Mineralientagen, the Mineralienatlas, others Associations and collectors groups as well as individual universities and numerous dedicated scientists and individuals used for improvements to the law. The German Natural Science Research Collections (DNFS) also attacked the critics to a large extent. In addition, through the "Aktionsbündnis Kulturgutschutz", networking with other stakeholders concerned (art dealers, gallerists, numismatists, philatelists) took place,

 

On 08.10.2015 in Berlin on the initiative of Steinkern.de there was a discussion about the effects of the cultural law protection law amendment on paleontology. In the end, after we had pointed out the facts and concerns, the invitation had been given by Ministerial Director Dr. Günter Winands as representative of the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media Monika Grütters. Regrettably, however, the criticism articulated in the context of the conversation has at first no bearing on the government draft of the Cultural Property Protection Act published on 4 November 2015found. A parallel discussion with State Secretary Monika Grütters on the Internet platform "Abgeordnetenwatch" went without any accommodation on their part, while other specialist politicians in the same place already indicated that they would be willing to take seriously in the context of the parliamentary process with our criticism. Nevertheless, it was unfortunately necessary to seek publicity with the protest. To this end, the petition " For the Preservation of Private Collecting " was supported as far as possible and thousands of votes from the scientific field were raised, which found noticeable impact in the 48,038 votes cast. Under this pressure, the Federal Government publishedfirst "Background Paper on Paleontology" (Version December 2015) , which should take the wind out of the sails of the criticism by a somewhat flowery presentation of the facts and therefore required an answer - Steinkern.de and the paleontological society responded to it at short notice with counterfeit documents ( Link 1 , Link 2 ). There was a great "solidarizing effect" among geoscientists and collectors, who spontaneously decided to sign our paper and thus considerably increased the relevance of the paper.

At the same time, a petition was filed with the German Bundestag, and the Federal Government Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information was called in to highlight the unacknowledged failure of the cultural and media commissioners and their staff to approach palaeontologists and scientists and their expertise from the October hearing, despite the full inclusion of paleontology in the law. During a public appearance in Mannheim, Ministerialdirektor Dr. Winands on his promotional tour for the cultural property protection law on the defensive, as he saw there not only the criticism of the art trade and art collectors, but also exposed by paleontologists.

The Scientific Service of the German Bundestag was thankfully turned on by the Bundestag member of the Green Bärbel Höhn to verify our criticism. However, his work was unfortunately limited in this case to a substantive copy of the background paper of the Federal Government, which raised some doubts about the professional qualifications of the employee and his independence, especially since the document itself directly contacts the employees of the Commissioners Federal Government for Culture and Media, and thus the creators of the government bill. In this case, the Scientific Service was able to fulfill its task as objective, in the service of Parliament (and not of the Federal Government! ) working auxiliary and control authority in our eyes do not do justice. In the course of the amendment process, the Natural Sciences were also the subject of comments by the Deutscher Museumsbund, which was chaired by its chairman Prof. Dr. med. Eckart Köhne played a decidedly unfortunate role and even on 18.12.2015 in the FAZ under the title"Deficiencies, margins, uncertainty" articulated criticism of the chairpersons of the German Natural Science Research Collections Johanna Eder rejected the law in a letter to the editor at the same place and did everything but represent the interests of the museums organized in the Museumsbund.

It appeared in the winter of 2015/2016 some press articles in several regional newspapers, but also in the FAZ and Stern. The Bavarian Radio reported on the loss of the private loan "drama from prehistoric times" of the Mayor-Müller-Museum in Solnhofen and many newspapers took up on a initiative of Steinkern.de declining press release of the DPA on this same topic. This, as well as numerous e-mails and discussions with regional parliamentarians - in which not a few members of the community participated - contributed to highlighting the criticism regarding their perception by the cultural committee in charge of the cultural affairs committee as relevant. Constructive exchange with the Left Party and the Greens resulted in the first reading in the Bundestag on 18.02.2016, that Sigrid Hupach of the LEFT addressed the problems of paleontology for the first time in the Bundestag plenum. Some private collectors, however, drew loans from scientific work and also the willingness to provide fossils for special exhibitions sank due to the threatened by the novella legal uncertainty noticeable.

After all, the constructive critique presented by several sides allowed discussions to be held with cultural policy-makers about the special problems that the Law on the Protection of Palaeontology in particular and the geological collection and research in general means. For example, conversations with Siegmund Ehrmann (chairman of the cultural committee and chairman of the SPD in the culture committee), Ansgar Heveling (chairman of the CDU / CSU parliamentary group in the culture committee) and Burkhard Blienert (cultural committee member of the SPD) came about. Martin Röper, the scientific director of the Bürgermeister-Müller-Museum - was able to raise awareness of our concerns. Synopses with concrete suggestions for changes were made both by the Aktionsbündnis Kulturgutschutz and by ourselves

That the criticism at the expert hearing on 13.04.2016, to which - also on our initiative - Prof. Dr. med. Johanna Eder of the German Natural Science Research Collections (unfortunately the only representative of the natural sciences among the 12 experts) was invited, once again hardened, was helpful. Parallel attempts to sensitize the provincial governments and state parliaments for the problem, unfortunately, were only limited. Meaningful feedback on our letters we received mainly from Lower Saxony and Bavaria. In NRW and on federal level, the FDP sat down for a fundamental revision and improvements of theCultural Property Protection Act. The General Secretary of the FDP, Nicola Beer, also attacked the scientific criticism. In the state parliament NRW it came on initiative of the FDP parliamentary group on 24.05.2016 to an expert hearing for the amendment of the cultural property protection law, to which also the Munich paleontologist Prof. Dr. med. Alexander Nützel was invited, who represented the interests of paleontology and outlined the need for change. Unfortunately, this parliamentary hearing, despite the fact that the weaknesses and mistakes of the law are clear, remained without influence on the voting behavior of the NRW state government in the Federal Council, which, like the parliamentary factions of the SPD and CDU in the Landtag NRW, showed unfortunate little interest in the topic. Significant lack of interest was also expressed by the Minister for Family, Children, Youth,

 

The deputy parliamentary group leader of the SPD in the Lower Saxony state parliament On the other hand, Gabriela Andretta, on the initiative of a Göttingen paleontologist, asked the Lower Saxony state government (also SPD): "Does the planned Cultural Property Protection Act limit the freedom of scholarship and will it be possible to collect minerals and fossils in the future?" In Lower Saxony, this led to a sensitization of the state government, which in turn made clear that it advocates clarifying changes in favor of paleontology and expressly welcomes the critique of the paleontological society. This was a helpful contribution to the debate, which also helped us to underscore our common criticism in Germany.

 

Ultimately, the music then played largely in the Bundestag, where in addition to the Culture Committee and the Committee on Education, Research and Technology Assessment on the concerns of paleontologists and collectors was informed. Here, too, personal talks with Members of Parliament were held, which in the end were likely to have contributed to changes in the text of the law compared to the government bill, as the important geoscientific component of the criticism was once again strongly emphasized here.

 

On the 23.06.2016 the time had come and the German Bundestag - in spite of the one-year public debate about the law - decided against the largely empty ranks and without dissenting votes in the second and third reading of the Cultural Property Protection Act. However, some changes had been made to the government's first-reading debate. The well-founded criticism of scientists and collectors of fossils and minerals has been taken up in several points. Thanks to the contacts with all parties represented in the Bundestag, some of the stimulated improvements in the deliberations of the Culture Committee had become a cross-party concern. Certainly, paleontology has never provided so much discussion material in federal politics as in the past nine months. Pity, that from the outset priority could be given to damage limitation and not to a law to strengthen research in paleontological and earth science cultural and natural heritage, to which private collecting has always made a significant contribution. For such a law, it would be time, z. For example, to finally redesign contra-productive liability rules for the benefit of active protection of natural resources (or, if you like, the protection of fossil "cultural assets").

 

Unfortunately, due to European law, it was not possible to exclude paleontological and scientific goods entirely from the scope of the law. As a result, the noticeably improved draft as a whole remains problematic and constitutionally problematic. After all, some of the most absurd and particularly pertinent regulations could be decisively modified.

On 8 July 2016, the Federal Council approved a majority of the cultural property protection law and thus approved the law requiring its approval.

At the moment (as of 18.07.2016), the copy of the cultural property protection law by Federal President Joachim Gauck is still pending, which announced months ago to us to want to check the law for its constitutionality and now again the sometimes constitutional concerns expressed by the persons concerned were. His decision remains to be seen.

If cultural property protection comes into force in August, constitutional complaints can be expected from those affected, who have a high chance of success, especially with regard to export restrictions on nationally valuable cultural assets and possibly retrospective regulations. The court could then declare unconstitutional provisions inapplicable and thus still before the planned detailed evaluation five years after entry into force (Lower Saxony, Baden-Württemberg and Hesse had already voted for a comprehensive evaluation in two years, unfortunately the motion did not receive a majority in the Bundesrat) to provide for new legislative action.

 

Changes relevant to paleontology and fossil collectors

Bundestag and Bundesrat have approved the cultural property protection law in the following version:

http://www.bundesrat.de/SharedDocs/drucksachen/2016/0301-0400/346-16.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1

 

The most important changes to the government bill, with its effects on paleontology and fossils collecting as well as the handling of other earth science objects are the following:

 

  - Revised the previously unfit definition of archaeological cultural property (§ 2), which now by a reference to the history of man or man made objects clearly excludes that here all geoscientific objects, such. As fossils and minerals are included.This clarification has ensured that the comprehensive duties of due care which are impossible to maintain for lower value objects are expressly not independent of their value for commercial trade in scientific objects that is important for collections and environmental education, but only from a value limit of 2500 euros per individual object or per collection. For private individuals, however, "simple due diligence" applies, which is violated, for example, when objects are placed on the market that have been stolen or illegally dug up. This is not entirely unproblematic as many operators today only tolerate access to their premises for collection, but for reasons of liability no longer authorize in writing, which is why there are often no documents, with which the legal acquisition of ownership in a transfer (sale, exchange, gift) could be easily demonstrated. Basically, however, such a duty of care would have to be proven in court for objects and collections worth less than 2500 euros according to our reading of the legal text and does not already result from the absence of written documents.

- Restriction of the scope of proof of legality on importation (§ 30).At the time of import, it was initially envisaged that for each cultural asset imported into Germany "suitable documents", in particular export authorizations of the country of origin at the border, were to be presented to the Customs Office without being requested to do so. Through the infinite width of the cultural concept of "every thing or whole" z. For example, of "paleontological value" or of "scientific value", the reversal of the burden of proof at importation in the draft bill and in the government bill, in principle, for any fossil, mineral, or rock. However, the scope of this provision has now been restricted precisely according to our proposals to the effect that proof of legality only has to be provided if the country of origin considers the objects as "national cultural assets". especially protects and thus attributed to his patrimony. Thus, the duty of proof is not always valid, but only exceptionally, if the object is a national cultural asset. The scheme therefore only takes effect if an export from the country of origin is linked there to certain conditions (eg issuing an export license).

This clearly mitigates the situation with regard to collector and scientific unproblematic sample imports from most countries. However, caution should be exercised when importing, if originating states have blanket protection regulations which, for. B. protect any fossils or minerals as a "national treasure". This must be checked in each case. In that case, the reversal of the burden of proof on imports into Germany will continue to apply. The country of origin is the state in which the fossils or minerals originated, not the state from which the object is directly imported. For the import of a fair shopping from Ste. Marie aux Mines from France to Germany is so in future z. Non-French, but Brazilian export law, if you buy a mineral or fossil from Brazil. That is new. In principle, so far there was no reason to bring legal knowledge of more than one hundred UNESCO contracting states with regard to purchases, which is also likely to be relatively difficult, because there is no official German-language source at least bilsnag, which provides full information on relevant regulations. In the future, the Internet portal "Kulturgutschutz" should provide information on the regulations to be observed - but this Internet portal is currently not yet equipped with relevant information. However, in our opinion, this would absolutely have to be a precondition for the entry into force of the Cultural Property Protection Act. There is also no clarification in the law, despite the demands made by the critics of the law, that only regulations that can be read in German at this point should be decisive for the application of the cultural property protection law. This is constitutionally questionable, because this could be particularly in the context of criminal prosecution of violations of a violation of the criminal law principle of determination, especially since the right of all countries of origin can change daily and so far no reason to document in particular low-value objects existed. For example, only a few years ago, some countries changed or even introduced export regulations for fossils. That these are to be observed in new exports or imports, of course, A rubbing off on material that was already legally in Germany prior to the entry into force of such regulations, however, would have been urgently to be avoided. In the archaeological context, it has often been argued that export bans have existed for over 100 years and that imports and imports without documentation have "always been illegal", which certainly is not true for archaeological goods, but at least not at all transferred to fossils can be. From our point of view, there should have been a kind of licensing of all the pieces already in Germany, in order to be able to work for the future without a right turn with the means of reversing the burden of proof. Without this rule, legal and imported property will no longer be as legally secure as before,

 

- Proof of legality for objects already in Germany: small deletion, big impact

In Section 29 it was first stated that the prohibition on the importation of cultural property should not be applied only to such cultural property that " demonstrablyThis would have resulted in some sort of bird-freedom of any non-documentary holdings, at least if they were to be placed on the market, and now the wording "demonstrably lawful" has been changed to "lawful" That would also be absurd, but this represents a departure from the reversal of the burden of proof, at least at the point of importation. The owner's proof of the lawfulness of the property is replaced by the Amtsermittlungsgrundsatz, so anyway summarizes CDU chairman Ansgar Heveling his reading of the paragraph opposite the magazine Münzenwoche in an interview on 14.07.2016together. The "information" appearing in the same interview that fossils were completely removed from the law is, unfortunately, inaccurate. They have been clearly defined out of the strict due diligence for archaeological cultural property (from 0 Euro!) (Ie only from a single, but quite central paragraph of the law).



- Insertion of an exception to the damage and change ban on nationally valuable cultural property for research purposes

Nationally valuable cultural assets, which are registered in a list and are particularly protected (so far applies only to a few objects, eg several Archeopteryx specimens) were subject to the inadequate cultural property protection law draft of the Federal Government a blanket damage prohibition, with a few exceptions (eg B. for restoration). As a result, invasive research would not have been possible. This ban has now been relaxed. If the change or damage serves research purposes and is carried out properly, this no longer constitutes an infringement. The preparation of listed fossils or the invasive investigation of eg. B. by sampling on corresponding objects will thus continue to be possible. This paragraph no longer limits the freedom of scholarship,

 

An example of other changes: the "negative certificate"

The changes for nationally valuable cultural assets and in the area of museum lending are not very central to the fossil collectors. The art trade and art collectors have long struggled, among other things, to increase the age limits for nationally valuable objects. For example, this was raised from 70 to 75 years, which is little more than a symbolic concession for the art trade. Even if it had been an increase from 70 to 75 million years ago, that would not have been a big deal for us as a fossil community. ;-)

In order not to refer to items that are more or less insignificant for our collection area, there is only one positive point that could be relevant in exporting valuable / significant collections. The justified demand for a negative certificate we have not thought up, but included in our catalog of change requests, as it can be basically in the interest of geoscientific collectors:

If you want to have a check whether your collection is nationally valuable cultural property and therefore subject to an export ban, is entitled to a certificate (so-called negative certificate), that it is not nationally valuable cultural assets and he later spend the collection or the individual object abroad without restrictions can. A limitation of the negative decision is not provided in the current draft. Since the export formalities in the field of paleontological collections anyway only for high-quality individual objects or collections (from 50,000 euros worth for export outside the EU internal market or 100,000 euros for export to the EU internal market) apply, this change concerns only a few collectors.

 

Despite these changes should not give the impression that the law has now been successful - it remains constitutionally in many respects questionable and Bundestag and Bundesrat better not have adopted it in this form.

 

recommendations

Recommendations for action for the future are difficult to deduce from the law. The impact depends heavily on the interpretation of the rules by courts. It will take some time for settled case law to develop. Certainly, it is advisable in the future for purchases of particularly valuable objects already in the interest of a legally secure later resellability to pay more attention to a good documentation by the seller, which should then be added to the purchased object when buying. In particular, in the case of objects from such countries in which export restrictions are in force, there is otherwise the risk of being sold or even sanctioned. Most Steinkernleser prefer to collect their own - even in their own travels, who intends to search for fossils and to export or import should more concerned than ever with the provisions of the country of origin. This does not necessarily apply only to trips to foreign countries from the local perspective, but may also affect individual EU states.

We will keep a watchful eye on the developments and ask all collectors, paleontologists and Steinkern members to share their experiences in the forum!

 

News: Revised Background Paper of the Federal Government online

In the meantime, the Federal Government has revised the background paper on paleontology from December 2015 and made it available for download on 13.07.2016 - largely without highlighting the parliamentary amendments.

https://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/_Anlagen/BKM/2016/2016-07-13-hintergrundpapier-palaeonologie.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2

 

We recommend all collectors to print this letter. Although this has no legal force, it can serve as a basis for argumentation and interpretation aid in cases of doubt.

Also interesting is the background paper for coin collector, which was published the same day:

https://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/_Anlagen/BKM/2016/2016-07-13-hintergrundpapier-muenzsammler.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2

In terms of due diligence, which applies to everyone: "In the criterion of reasonability, of course, flows when a coin was purchased: no one can remember after ten or 15 years, nor the employment circumstances of a single coin." This must apply analogously for fossils, but unfortunately this has not been clarified in the law.

 

thanks

Many thanks to all who - each in his / its own way - have contributed to the constructive protest or have supported us in this and to those Poltiker / inside who took this party across and dealt with the arguments put forward content !!!

Thanks to the joint work, the arbitrary potential of the law could be significantly reduced compared to the adventurous starting level. We would like to emphasize the support of numerous members of the Steinkern-Community and the Friends of the Mineral Atlas, of Trilobita.de and the Solnhofen Fossil Atlas as well as of the Fossil Journal, as well as our international partner forums: Fossiel.net, Thefossilforum.com, Ukfossils.co.uk and Palaeofox.com. The VFMG was also heavily involved. We would like to mention Monika Heinlein, Michael Hohl and Dr. med. Diether Gräf a praise for the excellent cooperation, just as Dr. Martin Röper the scientific director of the Bürgermeister-Müller-Museum. Thanks also to the representatives of the Paleontological Society, which, like us, invested a tremendous amount of time and thus helped to better circulate the relevance of criticism in the scientific field than would have been possible without their activity. Last but not least, the thanks of the Steinkern editorial staff also applies to the umbrella organization for geosciences, which also gave us concrete support and lent the criticism from the scientific side the necessary emphasis. A lance for the cooperation of scientists and collectors and for changes of the law broke in the discussion the TU Bergakademie Freiberg, which brought in nationally with success. The Münchener Mineralientage also got involved with the involvement of the specialist lawyer Joachim Walser. We were also very pleased about the positive reception in the Aktionsbündnis Kulturgutschutz,

 

Sönke Simonsen & Johannes Kalbe

 

 

 https://www.steinkern.de/news-updates/1163-kulturgutschutzgesetz.html

If you are seeking to actually go to Germany and hunt fossils there, you have to do extensive research on what or not to do; the link above may help if you can understand German.

 

If you are seeking to buy fossils from Germany, I don't think there is much worry to take as long as you are buying from a well-known and trustable seller. Solnhofen fossils are regularly sold by popular sellers.

If you're a fossil nut from Palos Verdes, San Pedro, Redondo Beach, or Torrance, feel free to shoot me a PM!

 

 

Mosasaurus_hoffmannii_skull_schematic.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry. I can speak German. As you are from California, do you know of any fossil sites in San Diego county that are on private land with land owners who are likely to say yes if you want to go collecting on their land?

 

It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt

 

-Mark Twain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Thecosmilia Trichitoma said:

Don't worry. I can speak German. As you are from California, do you know of any fossil sites in San Diego county that are on private land with land owners who are likely to say yes if you want to go collecting on their land?

Unfortunately, I only hunt locally in the peninsula and in sth. I've never hunted in San Diego, but I have heard that people have found Miocene shark teeth along the beaches.

If you're a fossil nut from Palos Verdes, San Pedro, Redondo Beach, or Torrance, feel free to shoot me a PM!

 

 

Mosasaurus_hoffmannii_skull_schematic.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laws concerning fossil collecting are different from county to county, so you should be more precise in which area of germany you want to hunt. In the Counties of Berlin, Hamburg, Bremen, Mecklenburg-Western Pommerania, Brandenburg und Schleswig-Holstein there is nearly no restiction (except the rights of the land owners, protected areas and the general restrictions concerning active quarries and pits).

 

The Cultural Property Protection Act is mostly about ex- and import of potentional national cultural property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, indeed you need to specify the area.

There's no law for whole germany concerning fossils (except the CPPA) - it depends on the county.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For importing fossils to Germany: I already imported fossils from the USA and had to go to customs office to declaire it. But that was no problem. Had to pay 7 % sales tax (normal sales tax in Germany is 19 %) and no import tax. You have to open your package and let them have a look at it, but there was no trouble with that (some Megalodon tooth, Mosausaur, etc.).

No idea if there are problems, if you want to buy something in Germany and have it shipped to USA.

 

And for finding fossils within Germany:

Here in Bavaria there is simply no fossil law. So anything you find belongs to you.

But what happens is this: Some quarrys especially in Solnhofen region have to sign you a little contract.

From a private quarry in Solnhofen I know it for sure, since I was there a few month ago. It basically says: All you find belongs to you, but if its worth more than 5.000,00 € it belongs to us. If you don't like this, you can't dig there.

 

But all your "usual" suff (little fish, small amonites, shark teeth and so on) is no problem. The region is most know for Archaeopteryx, so it clearly aims for this or other BIG skeletons, like complete Ichthyosaur and stuff like this.

 

And since you speak German:

 

Schau dir mal auf Wikipeida den Bereich "Rechtsfolgen" im Artikel zum Schatz an KLICK. Das wäre dann der rechtliche Hintergrund kurz und bündig zusammengefasst, wenn du in Bayern etwas findest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you ! Danke. Was sind die regeln auf die Schwäbische Alb? 

It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt

 

-Mark Twain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2018 at 8:06 PM, Thecosmilia Trichitoma said:

Don't worry. I can speak German. As you are from California, do you know of any fossil sites in San Diego county that are on private land with land owners who are likely to say yes if you want to go collecting on their land?

 

If you have an iPhone there is an app which can help you locate sites. I think it’s only iPhone specific though. If you have an iPhone you can PM me and I’ll explain how the app works. It’s very cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Thecosmilia Trichitoma said:

Thank you ! Danke. Was sind die regeln auf die Schwäbische Alb? 

Das gleiche wie auch überall wie oben beschrieben. Um Erlaubnis bitten auf Privatbesitz und Baustellen, in Steinbrüche und Tongruben. Grabungsverbote nur in ausgewiesene Naturschutzgebiete. Besondere Funde beim Landesmuseum melden.

 

Greetings from the Lake of Constance. Roger

http://www.steinkern.de/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...