The International Confederation of Art and Antique Dealers’ Associations (Cinoa) made an announcement in June 2025 that was more than just a normal message. This announcement marks a significant milestone for the global art and antiques trade, indicating a concerted and strategic reaction to a perceived existential threat. A mix of complicated, overlapping, and burdensome rules, mostly in the form of the new
EU Art Market Regulation is forcing a market that has always been known for its fragmentation and lack of rules to enter a new era of public-facing, collective advocacy.
The appointment of Belgian dealer Patrick Mestdagh as Cinoa’s new president, succeeding Clinton Howell from New York, underscores the significance of this pivotal moment. This change in leadership is more than just a gesture; it shows that the company is making a strategic shift to deal with the growing regulatory issues coming from the EU’s political heartland. Cinoa’s main message, a “renewed call for solidarity,” is more than just words. It is a strategic necessity to build a strong and broad coalition. This coalition, which includes dealers, collectors, museums, scholars, and other cultural stakeholders, is being formed to protect the trade’s legitimacy and its important role as a “guardian of global heritage.” The following analysis will look at the reasons behind this call to action, the nature of the regulatory gauntlet, the strategic reasoning behind Cinoa’s response, and the deep effects the proposal will have on the future of the international art market.
I. The Crucible of EU Art Market Regulation: A Challenge on Many LevelsThe rules for the art and antiques business are currently more complicated than ever . The pressures are not just one-off rules; they are part of a larger trend by governments and international organizations to make the market more open, accountable, and controlled. This is a big change from the market’s usual opacity. These problems are complicated and include protecting cultural property, enforcing anti-money laundering laws, and problems with international trade.
A. The “Game-Changer”: EU Import Rule 2019/880
The EU Art Market Regulation 2019/880 is the primary concern for the industry. It will be fully in effect on June 28, 2025. This law is called a “game-changer” because it changes the rules for bringing cultural goods from outside the EU into the EU in a way that many in the trade think makes it impossible to do business legally.
Breaking Down the Requirements
The rule sets up a system of control that is based on the type, age, and value of the cultural goods that are being brought into the EU from other countries. It requires importers to show proof that these goods were legally sent out of their country of origin.
The scope is wide, but certain thresholds set off certain requirements. Most of the time, the rules apply to cultural items that are more than 200 years old and worth more than €18,000. But the rules are much stricter for groups that are considered “particularly endangered.” These include archaeological artifacts and pieces of historical monuments that are more than 250 years old. You need an import license for these items, no matter how much they are worth.
Centralizing and digitizing control is an important part of the new system. The Import of Cultural Goods (ICG) system is a new electronic platform that must be used to process all applications for import licenses and statements from importers. This means that everyone who imports goods, from big businesses to private collectors, needs to get an Economic Operators Registration and Identification (EORI) number to use the system. The ICG system makes it easier for all EU member states’ customs and cultural authorities to store and share information. This creates a complete digital record of cultural imports and makes it much easier for regulatory bodies to track down objects.
The “Evidential Nightmare”: The Difficulty of Keeping Records of Trade Over Centuries
The main and strongest objection from the art trade is that it is practically impossible to meet the documentation requirements of the regulation. The law requires proof that an object was legally exported from its country of origin. However, for many objects that are traded legally, this proof does not exist and may never have existed. A lot of these things left their home countries decades or even centuries ago, long before the modern legal systems and export licensing systems that the regulation assumes were set up.
Experts in the field have been very harsh in their criticism. Antonia Eberwein, vice president of France’s Syndicat National des Antiquaires (SNA), called the rule “absurd” and the need for proof “a total lack of understanding of the realities” of the market. She warned, “We’re being asked to provide things that don’t exist.” Pierre Valentin, an expert in art and heritage law, has called the implementation a possible “evidential nightmare for collectors.” This problem is made worse by a change in the burden of proof. In the past, state authorities had to prove that something was illegal. Regulation 2019/880 states that the importer is now solely in charge of demonstrating its legality. This is a huge and often impossible problem for objects with long and complicated histories.
Article 3 and the Pre-1972 Derogation: A Legal Analysis of the “Catch-22”
A closer look at the EU Art Market Regulation shows that it has a major contradiction in its text that makes the law less certain and puts importers at a lot of risk. Initially, it appears that the rule favors older items. Article 4(4) lets cultural goods that left their country of origin before April 24, 1972 (the date the 1970 UNESCO Convention went into effect) be brought into the country. It also lets goods from countries where the exact country of origin can’t be reliably determined to be brought in. In these cases, proof that the object was legally exported from the last country where it was kept for at least five years may be enough. This part was supposedly meant to make it possible for people to keep trading items that were made before modern cultural property laws came into effect.
But Article 3’s broad power effectively cancels this derogation. It sets up a “general prohibition” on bringing any cultural good into the EU that was illegally exported from its home country, with no set date limit. This creates a perilous situation. An importer could carefully follow the steps in Article 4(4) and get a valid import license based on the pre-1972 derogation. However, if a source country questions the original export, the object could still be seized when it arrives in the EU, possibly because of a retroactive national ownership law. The European Commission’s own advice from April 2025 backs up this risk by making it clear that the five-year derogation only applies during the license application process and doesn’t protect the object once it’s in the EU. This contradiction takes away legal certainty, which means that importers are still breaking the law even if they follow the rules.
The way the regulation is set up and what it requires, no matter what it says it wants to do, works as a strong non-tariff trade barrier. The combination of impossibly high documentation standards, a reversed burden of proof, and harsh penalties for not following the rules, such as criminal liability for false declarations, has a profound chilling effect. This makes even the most honest and diligent importers less likely to take the financial and legal risk. The result is not just the regulation of trade; it is also a de facto ban on whole groups of cultural goods, especially non-European antiques. These restrictions could change the global market by cutting off the EU and making Europe a “fortress” for cultural goods, which would end centuries of legitimate cultural exchange.
The regulation’s goals and the market’s capabilities are very different. The EU clearly says that the law is meant to stop the funding of terrorism and organized crime, and they often point to groups like ISIL in Syria and Iraq, who steal from archaeological sites, as examples. Dealers and market experts, on the other hand, always say that the evidence connecting the legitimate art market to these kinds of activities is “slim, at best.” Ivan Macquisten and other consultants say that the law’s focus has changed from its original purpose of fighting terrorism to a broader goal of regulating the market and making sure the EU’s finances are safe. This idea of a disconnect creates a basic lack of trust between regulators and the trade, which makes people believe that the legitimate market is being targeted with unfair and ineffective measures to fix a problem that mostly happens in the illegal, underground economy.
B. The Transparency Mandate: Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering (AML)
Along with the problems with import controls, financial rules are getting stricter all the time. The goal of this second front in the regulatory war is to make the art market less murky and more like the heavily regulated financial services sector.
The EU’s Toughening Position: From AMLD5 to AMLA
The implementation of the European Union’s 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD5) in 2018 marked a significant shift. For the first time, it brought Art Market Participants (AMPs), such as dealers, galleries, and auction houses, fully under the AML rules for all transactions of €10,000 or more. This directive and its successor, AMLD6, were direct attacks on the culture of privacy and discretion that had been a part of the art trade for centuries.
The market thinks the requirements are too many and too intrusive. AMLD5 requires strict Customer Due Diligence (CDD), which means using Know Your Customer (KYC) procedures to check the identity of everyone involved in a transaction, finding the Ultimate Beneficial Owner (UBO) when a client is acting on behalf of another entity, checking and confirming the source of funds used for purchases, and keeping detailed records for at least five years. It is also essential that AMPs file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) with their national Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) for any transaction that raises red flags, without letting the client know.
This pressure from the government is going to get worse. By 2026, the EU plans to set up a new, centralized Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA) that will make enforcement the same in all member states. This change ends the piecemeal, country-by-country implementation of AML rules and promises stricter, more direct oversight of the art market, bringing it more in line with the banking sector.
Studies of Enforcement
The bad effects of not following the rules are no longer just ideas. Several high-profile cases have made it clear to the trade that the government is ready and able to enforce these rules with harsh punishments, such as jail time.
Nazem Ahmad: Ahmad is a Lebanese financier with connections to the militant group Hezbollah. The U.S. punished him for using a complicated network of shell companies and associates to launder money and get around sanctions by buying expensive art and diamonds. The case had a direct effect on the art trade when UK dealer Oghenochuko Ojiri was sentenced to two years and six months in prison for not doing proper due diligence and not reporting sales of artworks to the person who was under sanctions. This case is a clear warning about how much personal responsibility dealers now have.
The Rotenberg Brothers, Arkady and Boris Rotenberg, Russian oligarchs who were banned from doing business with the U.S. after Russia took over Crimea in 2014, used a complicated plan with an American art advisor and offshore shell companies to buy more than $18 million worth of art, including works by Chagall and Braque. The 2016 Panama Papers revealed a plan that showed how high-value art could be used to move money out of the reach of sanctions.
Matthew Green: British art dealer Matthew Green was charged in the US with allegedly conspiring to launder millions of dollars in profits from securities fraud through the fake sale of a Picasso painting. This case showed how weak the market is. An undercover agent recorded a conversation in which Green bragged that “the art trade is the only market that is this unregulated” and that a client “could even buy the art under a false name with no consequences.” This case gave prosecutors strong proof that people in the trade thought it operated outside of normal financial rules.
The US Difference
The EU and UK have very strict rules, while the US does not. The U.S. is the largest single art market in the world, making up 42% of all sales. However, it has been called the “largest legal unregulated industry in the United States.” The Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 did make the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) apply to dealers in antiques, but the larger, multi-billion-dollar market for fine art is still not required to have AML programs. Critics have referred to the U.S. system of voluntary self-policing as merely a superficial solution to the issue. This big gap in rules between the world’s biggest art centers makes things both risky and possible. It could even push illegal activity toward the U.S. market, which has fewer rules.
These financial rules are so complicated that they have completely changed how the art trade works. It has led to the rise of a new sub-industry of specialized compliance service providers. Companies like ArtAML have been set up to help art businesses deal with these new responsibilities. They do this by providing outsourced services for customer due diligence, risk assessments, sanctions screening, and safe document storage. This change means that the trade will become more professional and bureaucratic for good. It adds a new, fixed layer of operational costs that is manageable for big auction houses and galleries with their own legal teams, but it puts a lot of stress on the smaller businesses that make up the market. This change in structure brings the art trade closer and closer to the financial services sector in terms of how much it has to follow the rules and how it does business.
Also, the use of these rules shows that they have two sides. They are not just tools for stopping crime; they have also become powerful tools of foreign policy. The cases of the Rotenberg brothers and Nazem Ahmad show that Western governments now see the art market as a major way for hostile state actors and terrorist groups to get around sanctions. This makes art dealers and auction houses de facto enforcers of geopolitical strategy. A transaction is no longer just a business deal between a buyer and a seller; it is now a politically charged event that needs to be carefully checked against international sanctions lists and global political risks. The result puts the art trade, which is often unaware of it, at the center of international conflict and finance.
C. The Squeeze of Business: Tariffs, VAT, and Problems with Global Trade
A third layer of pressure on top of the heavy burden of cultural property and financial rules is direct commercial and tax-related problems that make doing business internationally more expensive and complicated.
When the U.S. put tariffs on goods from the EU and the UK, it caused direct financial costs and a lot of administrative confusion. Fine art is usually not subject to these duties because it falls under Chapter 97 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). However, this protection is not always guaranteed. It’s important to note that other types of antiques that are important to the trade, like decorative items, antique furniture, and collectible design pieces, don’t get the same exemption and have to pay tariffs. The situation makes it hard to classify things correctly, and it’s not always clear what their primary purpose is—whether it’s aesthetic or functional.
At the same time, the UK’s exit from the EU has made it harder for people to buy and sell art between two of the world’s three largest art market hubs because of new customs and Value Added Tax (VAT) rules. Brexit has added a lot of new paperwork, duties, and logistical problems for dealers and collectors who move works between London and continental Europe. This has made the process much more “cumbersome and very expensive.”
The EU has tried to make its internal tax system easier to understand, and a 2022 directive aims to bring VAT rates on art down to a minimum of 5% across all member states by January 1, 2025. However, the huge new compliance costs and administrative burdens that come with the import and AML regulations will likely completely outweigh any benefits this measure might have.
The EU Art Market Regulation is the main cause of the current crisis, but it is the combined effects of all these different pressures that are to blame. There is no such thing as a regulation that works on its own. For a dealer, especially a small- or medium-sized business (SME), the challenge is not only dealing with the “evidential nightmare” of Regulation 2019/880 but also putting in place a strong AML program, checking clients against sanctions lists, correctly navigating complicated tariff codes, and dealing with VAT procedures after Brexit. Erika Bochereau, Cinoa’s Secretary General, said, “The burden of all these new rules, especially on micro- to small businesses, is huge. It’s not something a market can build an infrastructure for overnight.” This cumulative effect makes it feel like “death by a thousand cuts.” Independent dealers have a harder time dealing with these costs and problems than larger companies with separate legal, compliance, and logistics departments. This dynamic could lead to a big competitive imbalance, which could hurt the diverse and specialized middle market and lead to industry consolidation. This is why Cinoa is calling for a unified industry response right away.
Cinoa at the Helm: A New Leader for a New Time
The International Confederation of Art and Antique Dealers’ Associations (Cinoa) has stepped up to be the main player in coordinating the industry’s defense against this multi-front regulatory attack. The organization’s history, mission, and recent strategic decisions, especially the change in leadership, show that it is trying to adapt and respond to the current crisis on purpose.
A. The history, mission, and impact of Cinoa: a profile of a federation
CINOA is an international federation of art and antique dealer associations based in Brussels. It was founded in 1935. It is the only global coalition that represents the entire art and antiques market, which gives it a special and powerful place. It has a wide range of members, with 32 associations in 22 countries, including Europe, North America, and Australia, representing more than 5,000 dealers. The members of this group have a wide range of skills, from collecting antiques and tribal art to fine and decorative arts, rare books, and modern design.
Cinoa’s stated mission has three parts: to promote and uphold high ethical standards in the trade, to spread useful information about the changing market, and to make it easier for artworks and cultural objects to move around the world legally. Individual dealers can’t join Cinoa; only national or international trade associations can. These associations have their own strict vetting processes. Being a member of Cinoa is a sign of quality and honesty. Member dealers are expected to follow a strict code of ethics that includes doing thorough research on the items they sell.
Cinoa has long been an important advocate, giving the art market an “international voice to promote and encourage free trade in works of art.” The organization works closely with governments and international organizations like UNESCO and the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (Unidroit) to make policy and solve problems. This history of involvement includes taking strong public positions on important issues. For example, in 2021, it warned members about the circulation of cultural artifacts stolen from Afghanistan to keep the trade from being linked to terrorist financing.
B. The Presidential Pivot: From Howell’s America to Mestdagh’s Europe
The change in Cinoa’s presidency, which was announced at the annual general meeting in Milan in June 2025, is the best sign of the company’s new strategic direction. The organization’s leadership clearly planned this change to address the regulatory storm directly.
Clinton R. Howell, the president who is leaving, has been in office since 2017. He is a well-known dealer in high-end English antique furniture based in New York City. His presidency was a sign of leadership from the world’s largest, most commercially powerful, and least regulated major art market hub.
Patrick Mestdagh, who was elected by everyone, is very different from him in a strategic way. Mestdagh is a well-known dealer in Belgium who works in Brussels, which is the political and regulatory capital of the European Union. He is a tireless supporter of the trade and is currently the president of the Royal Chamber of Art Dealers of Belgium (ROCAD). His gallery, which he runs with his wife, Ondine, is very important because it focuses on tribal, non-European, and ethnographic art from Africa, Oceania, Asia, and the Americas. These are the kinds of art that are most at risk from the new EU import rules, which make it very hard for objects with long, complicated, and often unwritten or orally transmitted histories of provenance to be imported.
This change in leadership is not just a normal succession; it is a planned move of power. Cinoa gets many benefits by putting its main supporter in the middle of the regulatory threat’s geographic and political center. Having a president in Brussels makes it easier than ever to lobby the European Commission, the European Parliament, and all the other EU bodies that are making and carrying out these laws. This closeness makes it easier to build the kind of consistent, informal, and nuanced relationships that are necessary for effective advocacy in the EU’s complicated political system. The organization shifts its focus from New York, the commercial capital, to Brussels, the regulatory capital. This position directly connects its leaders with its most important problem.
In addition, Mestdagh’s election gives Cinoa a spokesperson who is both credible and real. His appointment is like a “poacher-turned-gamekeeper” situation in reverse; he is a dealer whose own business and area of expertise are directly affected by the new laws. When Mestdagh says that requiring written export licenses for 19th-century Oceanic artifacts won’t work, he isn’t just talking about ideas. He discusses the viability of his and his peers’ businesses in the non-European art sector based on his own experience. His candor gives his testimony a sense of urgency, truth, and authority that is much stronger and harder for policymakers to ignore than the self-interested pleading of a general trade lobbyist. He can explain the “evidential nightmare” not as a legal theory but as something that happens every day in business.
C. Cinoa’s lobbying and strategic communications: The Advocacy Machine
Cinoa’s call for solidarity isn’t just a public statement; it’s backed up by a number of real and complex lobbying efforts aimed at getting policymakers to listen and change the laws from the inside.
In 2023, the European Commission set up a subgroup called “Dialogue with the Art Market,” which was a big step forward. This formal channel is a big win for advocates because it sets up a direct line of communication between the trade and the people who are writing the rules that affect it. It changes the industry from being a passive recipient of rules to an active participant in the conversation.
The group is also taking an active role in making broader policies. In May 2025, Cinoa sent the European Commission information for a new strategic framework called the “Culture Compass.” This initiative shows that the EU is taking a long-term approach to cultural policy by including the trade’s point of view, rather than just reacting to each piece of legislation.
Lastly, Cinoa is still working with important intergovernmental organizations to solve some of the market’s most difficult problems. The fact that it is still working with Unidroit to find coordinated solutions for “orphaned cultural goods”—works with incomplete or uncertain provenance—shows that it is committed to creating useful, industry-wide standards that can address real concerns about provenance without hurting the market. These specific actions show that the advocacy strategy is multi-faceted and includes direct lobbying, policy engagement, and working together to solve problems.
Breaking Down Solidarity: From a Call to Action to a Strategic Necessity
The main idea behind Cinoa’s strategic response is its new leadership’s “call for solidarity.” This call is not just a plea for unity; it is a well-thought-out plan to change the way the trade is seen, build a strong defensive coalition, and change the way the regulatory debate is framed.
A. The Importance of Working Together Across Sectors to Build a United Front
The call to action is very clear and broad. In the official press release, Patrick Mestdagh calls for a union of “dealers, curators, scholars, and collectors” to protect the trade. This is a planned effort to break down the barriers that have kept the commercial art world separate from the academic and institutional worlds. The annual general meeting in Milan in 2025 was a real-world example of this coalition-building in action. It brought together representatives from auction houses, art fairs, legal experts, and scholars from 11 countries, as well as dealer associations.
The main goal is to show policymakers a single, strong, and united front. Will Korner, who is in charge of fairs at TEFAF, said, “It is important that we represent the whole art trade’s interests at the highest tables and platforms where decisions are made.” It’s easy to ignore an industry that is divided, and each sector only looks out for its own narrow interests. A broad-based coalition, speaking with a single voice about the problems over-regulation causes for everyone, is a far stronger political force. This unity is needed because the regulatory threats are so widespread that they affect every part of the art ecosystem, creating a common cause.
B. Setting the Scene: The Push for Recognition as “Heritage Professionals”
Cinoa’s strategic communication is all about trying to change how the art and antiques trade is seen by the public and politicians. It is most clear in its active push for the European Union to officially recognize all art and antique dealers, including auctioneers and antiquarian booksellers, as “heritage professionals.”
Cinoa’s official communications use language that carefully supports this story. The press release talks about the trade’s activities in cultural terms rather than commercial ones, calling it a “guardian of global heritage,” a “cultural bridge connecting generations and civilizations,” and an act of “cultural stewardship.” This language goes against the common negative story that regulators and critics often tell, which paints dealers as unregulated, purely commercial people working in a market that is high-risk, hard to see through, and open to shady deals.
This campaign is a complex rebranding effort that aims to change the way policymakers see the trade from “market” to “cultural sector.” The reasoning behind this plan is clear. The main story behind regulation is about the art world’s high prices, its potential for money laundering, its use in funding terrorism, and its natural secrecy. The art trade is weak in politics on this battlefield because it’s hard to argue against the need for national security and financial transparency.
Cinoa’s counter-narrative moves the argument to a new level: the protection of culture. By focusing on non-commercial values like heritage, stewardship, scholarship, connoisseurship, and preservation, the trade fits in with the goals of museums, universities, and other cultural institutions. The main goal of this strategy is to get people to call themselves “heritage professionals.” If this legal and political reclassification works, it will completely change the way lawmakers talk about things. It would be harder for regulators to put in place rules that are only about money or security without being considered hurting culture itself. It would probably require that rules about trade be made with the help of cultural ministries from both the EU and individual countries, not just finance, justice, or customs authorities. This strategic move shifts the focus of the debate from areas where trade is weak, such as finance and security, to areas where culture holds the moral and political sway.
Market Tremors: What the New EU Art Market Regulation Means for You
The combined weight of this regulatory storm is already shaking up the art market around the world. The effects are not the same for everyone; they are making a complicated landscape of risks and opportunities that could break up the market, give more power to a few people, and hurt the larger cultural ecosystem in a big way.
A. The Risk of a Great Migration: Will London and New York Take Advantage of Brussels’ Red Tape?
A growing number of market experts agree that the new EU Art Market Regulation regime, especially the import law, is a huge strategic mistake that will drive a lot of business to places with fewer rules. Ivan Macquisten, a consultant who works with trade groups, said that the law is “an extraordinary act of self-harm for the European art market.” Experts expect London and New York, the other two pillars of the global art market, to be the biggest winners from this change.
The UK got rid of the EU import rule in 2021 after Brexit, which helped its trade. However, the rule still applies in Northern Ireland. At the same time, New York has been known for “ripping up regulations” and questioning the size of money laundering risks in the U.S. art market, which strengthens its reputation as a more business-friendly place. This difference in rules is making it very appealing for international dealers and collectors to move their business away from the EU.
Dealers are already saying that the global market will split in two. Floris van der Ven of Vanderven Oriental Art believes that the world will split into two distinct regions: the UK, Asia, and the Americas on one side, and Europe on the other. This shift in trade could be catastrophic for the big European art fairs, like TEFAF in Maastricht and Brafa in Brussels, which have always done well because they attract people from all over the world. Non-EU dealers may decide that going to these fairs is no longer a beneficial business move because they face the “evidential nightmare” and possible criminal charges for bringing their stock in for display and sale.
B. The Squeezed Middle: How SMEs and Independent Dealers Are Being Hit Harder
Big auction houses and galleries can afford to hire compliance departments, but the small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) and independent dealers that make up the market have to deal with the most rules. Erika Bochereau, Cinoa’s Secretary General, has made it clear that the effect on “micro to small businesses is huge” because they don’t have the money or people to build the compliance infrastructure they need right away.
People think the rules will hurt the middle market the most. This market includes works worth between $18,000 and $100,000, for example. The final sale price of these items often doesn’t make up for the extra time and money needed to fully comply with the rules, such as doing deep provenance research for import licenses and AML checks. Dealers might not want to spend the extra money, and collectors might not want to deal with the extra costs of compliance. Such an outcome could make the market less stable, leaving only two extremes: the very high end, where compliance costs are a rounding error on multi-million-dollar transactions, and the very low end, which is below the regulatory thresholds. The dealers who work in the middle and know a lot about their field are the most at risk.
C. Collateral Damage: What Happens to Museums, Exhibitions, and Art Fairs That They Didn’t Mean to Happen
The rules have effects that go far beyond the business world, and they could seriously hurt public cultural institutions and the larger cultural exchange ecosystem.
Loans from museums
The new EU import rule is likely to make it very hard for EU museums to get loans for temporary exhibitions, especially from private collectors who live outside the EU. One important and harmful part of the law is that the implementing regulation limits the exemption for temporary loans for educational, scientific, or exhibition purposes to loans from other museums or similar institutions. This means that private collectors from outside the EU who want to lend their works to an EU museum exhibition will not be able to take advantage of the exemption. They will have to follow all of the rules for documentation that the regulation requires. Korner from TEFAF says that the amendment makes “new legal and administrative barriers that many private lenders won’t want to deal with.” He calls it “a threat to the diversity of culture in the EU.”
Extra work for institutions
The law makes things harder for everyone, even institutions. Museum directors have said that there is “no administrative infrastructure to implement the regulation properly,” and they are worried that the flood of requests for licenses and verifications will be too much for customs and cultural authorities to handle. Museums can only use the few exemptions they have if they first register on the new ICG database. This introduces an additional layer of bureaucratic burden. Tone Hansen, the director of the Munch Museum in Oslo, said that while he supports the law’s goals, he is worried that the requirements “may hinder international loans and exhibitions,” especially for museums that work with objects that have complicated or incomplete histories.
Art Shows
There is a chance that major international art fairs in the EU will have to deal with a crisis. Their business model depends on getting the best exhibitors from all over the world to come. The new import law makes it very hard for dealers from the UK, the US, and Asia to do business. The head of fairs at TEFAF said he knew how serious the situation was and that he had thought the new law might mean “the end of the fair.” Although he hopes it’s just a temporary setback, there’s a significant likelihood that international dealers may opt to participate in fairs in London, New York, or Switzerland instead.
This chain of events shows a deep and troubling contradiction at the heart of the new rules. The law, which was passed to protect cultural heritage, may actually do a lot of damage to it. The law threatens to limit the cultural exchange it should be promoting by making it impossible for private collectors to lend their works for public display and making it hard for art to move around the world. As a result, the EU could become more cut off from the world’s cultural exchange, and its people would have less access to the rich variety of world heritage held in international collections. This result would be a huge loss for the cultural landscape that the regulation says it wants to protect.
How to Get Through the New Terrain: Strategic Advice for Market Participants
The new rules require everyone in the art market ecosystem to do more than just follow the rules; they need to be proactive and plan ahead. The following suggestions are a guide for staying alive and maybe even thriving in this tough new environment.
A New Compliance and Provenance Playbook for Dealers and Galleries
Put Compliance at the Heart of Your Business: It’s no longer okay to think of compliance as just a back-office job. Dealers and galleries must now see following the rules as a key part of their business strategy. For example, they might hire compliance staff, hire specialized lawyers, or pay for outsourced compliance-as-a-service solutions from companies like ArtAML. As a necessary cost of doing business in the market, this investment should be included in the business model.
Weaponize Provenance: Conducting proactive, thorough, and digital provenance research is now essential for entering the market, particularly in the EU. Dealers should always digitize all of their inventory’s historical records, sales invoices, exhibition histories, and export/import documents. This well-documented history should then be used as a key marketing tool, giving buyers a “compliance premium” that makes them feel safe and sets the gallery’s stock apart in a market that is risk-averse.
Proactive Client Education: Dealers need to be the ones who teach their clients—both buyers and consignors—about the new rules and regulations. This means making it clear why KYC documents and UBO identification are needed to make transactions go smoothly. Dealers can build trust and speed up the compliance process by managing client expectations and showing professionalism. Such an approach stops sales from being lost because of last-minute problems.
B. For auction houses, finding the right balance between being open and keeping client information private
Establish the Industry Standard: As the largest and most well-resourced entities in the industry, major auction houses hold a unique opportunity to set the benchmark for compliance. They can show regulators that the industry can effectively self-regulate when it has the right tools by using their already advanced legal and compliance infrastructure. Such an approach could help them avoid even harsher measures.
Innovate and Grow Private Sales: In a market where sellers may be hesitant to sell at public auctions because they are worried about provenance issues or market volatility, the private sales channel is becoming more and more important. Auction houses should keep improving and expanding their private sales divisions. These divisions give clients more freedom, control over prices, and flexibility—all of which are very valuable in times of uncertainty.
Increase Advocacy Efforts: Auction houses have a lot of market power, brand recognition, and resources. They should use this power to actively support and promote the work of trade groups like Cinoa. When they talk to policymakers, their participation gives the industry’s unified voice a lot of weight.
C. For Collectors and Investors: How to Do Your Homework in a Riskier Time
“Buyer Beware” is a beneficial idea. The change in rules, especially in the EU, puts a lot of pressure on the buyer. Collectors need to be more careful when doing their due diligence before buying something. Asking for complete, well-organized, and digitized provenance documentation should be a must for any big purchase. An object with a thin or questionable provenance file is no longer just a possible value risk; it could also be a legal and liquidity risk.
Consider the Total Cost of Compliance: The true cost of purchasing an artwork now extends beyond the purchase price or gallery bill. When collectors buy something, they need to think about the costs of checking that it meets all the rules and the costs of moving, storing, or eventually selling it.
Strategic Geographic Diversification: Collectors should carefully consider the places where they buy, sell, and store their art. Markets with fewer rules, like the U.S., or safe storage in freeports may be more flexible and private, but they also have their risks, such as the risk to your reputation and the chance that regulators will crack down in the future. It might be best to take various approaches to buying and storing things.
D. For Museums and Institutions: Protecting International Loans and Exhibitions
Advocate for Clear Exemptions: Museums and cultural institutions in the EU need to work together quickly with Cinoa and other groups to push the European Commission to make the EU Art Market Regulation 2019/880’s exemptions broader and clearer. The main goal should be to make sure that the exemption for temporary exhibitions applies to all legal museum loans, even those from private collectors. These loans are important for the quality and variety of public programming.
Proactive System Registration: All EU institutions should sign up for the new ICG electronic system right away so they can use the current, though limited, exemptions without any delays.
Work with and help lenders: Museums should come up with new ways to help potential international lenders so that private loans don’t become less popular. This might mean giving them institutional help to help them deal with the complicated paperwork, which would make effective use of the museum’s knowledge and resources to make things easier for the private collector.
E. A Unified Path Forward: The Long-Term Need for Proactive Advocacy
The main thing we can learn from the current crisis is that the time for quiet, secret, and broken deals is over. The “call for solidarity” can’t just be a response to one law. It has to be the start of a new, long-term, and professional way to advocate for the industry. This sector needs regular funding, professional lobbying, and advanced strategic communication. The industry needs to keep talking to regulators and showing that it is a responsible and important partner in protecting global cultural heritage, not a problem that needs to be solved. The “Dialogue with the Art Market” that the European Commission started is a beneficial way to get involved that should be protected, grown, and expanded. It is important for the long-term health and freedom of the international art market.
Leave a Reply