Chinese Fossil Protection Law and the Illegal Export of Vertebrate Fossils from China Author(S): J
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Chinese Fossil Protection Law and the Illegal Export of Vertebrate Fossils from China Author(s): J. J. Liston and Hai-Lu You Source: Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 35(2) Published By: The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1080/02724634.2014.904791 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology e904791 (7 pages) Ó by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology DOI: 10.1080/02724634.2014.904791 ARTICLE CHINESE FOSSIL PROTECTION LAW AND THE ILLEGAL EXPORT OF VERTEBRATE FOSSILS FROM CHINA J. J. LISTON*,1 and HAI-LU YOU2 1Yunnan Key Laboratory for Palaeobiology, Yunnan University, Kunming 650091, Yunnan Province, People’s Republic of China, [email protected]; 2Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Origins of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 142 Xizhimenwai Street, Beijing 100044, People’s Republic of China, [email protected] ABSTRACT—The relevant legislation regarding fossil protection in the People’s Republic of China is reviewed, with particular emphasis on the aspects of illegal excavation and export of vertebrate fossils contained within the 1982 Cultural Relics Protection Law and in the current legislation as of 2010–2013. Guidelines for how to follow procedures to stay within the law are given for the assistance of international researchers wishing to work on Chinese specimens with a collaborating Chinese institution. INTRODUCTION variety of routes is still a major problem. This is timely, because new legislation was put in place in March 2013. Researchers from many institutions around the world Although it is recognized that researchers are still publishing desire to work on fossil vertebrate material from the People’s on material illegally removed from China, it is hoped that Republic of China (PRC), but there are few methods of this guidance will help reduce the possibility of any future clearly disseminating guidance to such parties on what practi- misunderstandings. ces and procedures need to be adopted. The legislative and The full procedure is outlined later in this paper; but as a quick linguistic obstacles mean that there is a problematic lack of shorthand guide, the most effective way to check is to look for knowledge about the very clear restrictions within national the unique Ministry of Land and Resources registration number, legislation regarding both the initial collection of such mate- with which your material should have arrived. If your material rial and also it leaving the country. This makes it all too easy has this number, then it has left the People’s Republic of China for well-intentioned researchers to find themselves inadver- legally. If your Chinese fossil material does not have this num- tently on the wrong side of the law, due to a lack of clear ber, then it is appropriate to be concerned as to just how it came understanding of the pitfalls of such work: as Besterman to leave that country. aptly put it, “Dodgy [specimens] come from ... collectors either ignorant of the law, or who deliberately flout it” (Bes- terman, 2001:200). This is a serious ethical issue—although it CORRUPTION AND WEAK LAW ENFORCEMENT can be difficult, researchers do have a responsibility to make themselves aware of the laws of the lands that their materials One problem that has arisen in the past is a perception that the come from and ensure that they are following these laws. If culture of bribes, and the problem of corruption referred to by one does not take this matter seriously, one’s work is poten- former premier Zhu Rongji (Zhu, 1998 as quoted in Schmidt, tially subject to a later legal claim. This is not simply a his- 2000), is so pervasive that it makes it harder to respect or take torical problem; it is a contemporary situation because fossil protection legislation in China seriously. However, few researchers are still publishing research done on material countries are in a position to claim their government is truly smuggled out of the country (Liston, 2013). ‘corruption-free’ (Winnett and Watt, 2009; Steinhauer, 2010; More than this, there is a human cost: if you have not Gallup, 2013; Mintz Group, 2013), and the use of what some exported it legally, those responsible for getting the material would call ‘bribes’ can in some countries be considered as cul- to you could face severe—and potentially life-threate- tural and traditional in basis. From a purely ethical position, it is ning—sanctions. It can nonetheless be difficult to gain access irrelevant whether one is working in an environment that to the required expertise, whether on the legislation itself or requires ‘supplementary payments’ to progress legitimate activi- as an independent source of translation of the requisite legis- ties according to the law or not: one must at least be seen to be lation. The purpose of this paper is therefore to place in the following the law of the land in which one works. Participating in public domain clear guidance on procedures necessary for a culture of such transactions does not in any way legitimize or work with such material, particularly focusing on require- excuse illegal activity; it is an ethical responsibility to make one- ments for fossil vertebrate material to legally come out of self aware of the relevant legislation in the country where one is China—smuggling material out of the country through a working, and to follow it: Article 12 of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s Member Bylaws (Society of Vertebrate Paleon- tology, 2013) requires that (Article 12.2) “The necessary permits *Corresponding author. on all lands administered by federal, state, and local e904791-2 JOURNAL OF VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY governments, whether domestic or foreign, must be obtained Excavation Control—Restrictions on Excavation from the appropriate agency(ies) before fossil vertebrates are Article 5 of the 1982 legislation (Anonymous, 2000a) sweep- collected.” Other bodies from similar professions have gone fur- ingly brought all vertebrate fossils (‘of scientific value’) under ther. For example, the Institute of Field Archaeologists Code of state ownership as part of “all cultural relics remaining under- Conduct (2009) explicitly stated (Rule 1.6): “A member shall ground” (Schmidt, 2000:202). Although this is somewhat simpler know and comply with all laws applicable to his or her archaeo- and different from the law in other parts of the world (e.g., in logical activities whether as employer or employee, and with Scotland, fossils are treated as minerals in the economic sense national and international agreements relating to the illicit and can be owned by the Crown, the private, public, or voluntary import, export or transfer of ownership of archaeological materi- sector, while the land itself might be owned and managed sepa- al.” This clause makes clear to archaeological field workers that rately by other individuals; MacFadyen, 2008), it is consistent they have to be responsible and ensure independently that they with pre-revolutionary China’s 1930 Law on the Preservation of are working legally within the laws of the country—as well as Ancient Objects, which similarly asserted state control of unex- international law. One cannot simply rely on guidance from one cavated relics (State Cultural Relics Affairs Management of your collaborator organizations on this subject—they are Bureau, 1987; Schmidt, 2000). likely to have vested interests in making the process seem sim- The Cultural Relics Protection Law then went on to specif- pler than it actually is, and if they are working locally, they may ically prohibit any excavations (described broadly as not care too much about the wider external realm of interna- ‘archaeological’) without excavation plans being submitted to tional law. Seek independent counsel, so that you are clear what the State Council for their approval (Article 17; Anonymous, needs to be done in advance. A culture may or may not regard it 2000a). Significantly, Article 33 also explicitly forbade for- as acceptable or even obligatory to bribe whomsoever you need, eigners from prospecting or excavating within China’s bound- but you as a professional still need to have secured all the right aries without a ‘special permission’ from the State Council. approvals, permissions, and paperwork to legally excavate and Again, this was consistent with the 1930 Law on the Preser- then leave the country with the permitted material. vation of Ancient Objects, which declared that excavation There is a further sphere of responsibility beyond the researcher, had to