The destruction, looting, and trafficking of cultural property are heightened during times of political instability and armed conflict. Destruction of cultural property entails intentional or unintentional damage, such as bombing, to sites and objects. In the context of cultural property protection, looting usually refers to the illegal removal of undocumented objects from a structure or site not already excavated. Objects documented as part of a collection may also be stolen from individuals, museums and similar institutions, and other places of origin. Looted and stolen objects may be trafficked or illicitly traded, sometimes outside the location in which the objects were looted or stolen. A Deputy Assistant Secretary of State reported that ISIS has encouraged the looting of archeological sites as a means of erasing the cultural heritage of Iraq and Syria and raising money. The State official noted that the U.S. raid to capture ISIS leader Abu Sayyaf in May 2015 resulted in the discovery of documents that demonstrated ISIS had established an Antiquities Division with units dedicated to researching known archaeological sites, exploring new ones, and marketing antiquities. According to these documents, ISIS’s Antiquities Division collects a 20 percent tax on the proceeds of antiquities looting and issues permits authorizing certain individuals to excavate and supervise excavations of artifacts. Documents found during the raid also indicate ISIS made statements prohibiting others from excavating or giving permits not authorized by ISIS. Sales receipts indicated the terrorist group had earned more than $265,000 in taxes on the sale of antiquities over a 4- month period in late 2014 and early 2015. Figure 1 depicts antiquities recovered during a raid to capture Abu Sayyaf. While documents from the Abu Sayyaf raid show that ISIS has profited from the looting of antiquities, there are no reliable and publicly available estimates of the revenue ISIS earns from trade in stolen cultural property overall, according to the director of a State-funded project on cultural property. However, State officials have also noted that, although profits from trafficking are difficult to quantify, ISIS has increasingly turned to the antiquities trade as access to revenue from other sources, such as oil, has been restricted. In addressing destruction, looting, and trafficking of cultural property, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) adopted conventions in 1954 and 1970 to protect cultural property. The 1954 convention addresses cultural property protection during armed conflict, and the 1970 convention addresses the protection of cultural property against illicit import, export, and transfer of ownership. The United States enacted the CPIA into law in 1983, thereby implementing provisions of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (1970 UNESCO Convention). Through the CPIA, the United States has restricted the importation of certain cultural property. Cultural property is defined in the CPIA by reference to the 1970 UNESCO Convention, that defines the term “cultural property” for purposes of the convention to mean property, which on religious or secular grounds, is specifically designated by each state as being of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art, or science and which belongs to certain categories. According to State officials, the CPIA addresses undocumented looted materials of a State Party by providing the President the authority to enter into a bilateral or multilateral agreement with the State Party to impose import restrictions and by providing the authority to impose import restrictions if an emergency condition applies. As it relates to articles of stolen cultural property from Iraq and Syria, and other Parties to the 1970 Convention, the CPIA also restricts cultural property belonging to the inventory of a museum or a religious or secular public monument or similar institution, which was stolen from such museum, monument, or institution after April 12, 1983 or after the date the country of origin became a party to the Convention. In addition to the 1983 CPIA import restriction on stolen documented property, the United States has implemented other restrictions related to a wider range of cultural property from Iraq and Syria. In response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990, the United States imposed comprehensive sanctions against Iraq. After the 2003 intervention in Iraq, the Iraq National Museum in Baghdad was looted, resulting in the loss of approximately 15,000 items, including ancient amulets, sculptures, ivories, and cylinder seals, some of which were subsequently returned to the museum. In 2007, pursuant to the Emergency Protection for Iraqi Cultural Antiquities Act of 2004, State determined the existence of an emergency condition under the CPIA, and import restrictions for cultural property illegally removed from museums, and monuments, and other locations in Iraq since 1990 were also put in place. DHS’s CBP then issued a regulation on April 30, 2008, to reflect the imposition of the import restrictions. In issuing the regulation, to provide general guidance, CBP also issued the Designated List of Archaeological and Ethnological Material of Iraq that describes the types of articles, which State refers to as objects, to which the import restrictions apply. Furthermore, in February 2015, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2199, which notes, in part, that all member states shall take appropriate steps to prevent the trade in Iraqi and Syrian cultural property illegally removed from Iraq since August 6, 1990, and from Syria since March 15, 2011. In May 2016, the United States passed the International Cultural Property Act, which directs the President to exercise his authority under the CPIA to impose restrictions on any archaeological and ethnological material of Syria (as defined in the Act). In August 2016, CBP issued a regulation to reflect the imposition of import restrictions and issued a Designated List of Archaeological and Ethnological Material of Syria that describes the types of objects or categories of archaeological and ethnological material to which the import restriction applies. Included in the International Cultural Property Act is the sense of Congress that the President should establish an interagency committee to coordinate the efforts of the executive branch to protect and preserve international cultural property at risk from political instability, armed conflict, or natural or other disasters. According to this sense of Congress, such committee should 1. be chaired by a Department of State employee of Assistant Secretary rank or higher, concurrent with that employee’s other duties; 2. include representatives of the Smithsonian and federal agencies with responsibility for the preservation and protection of international cultural property; 3. consult with governmental and nongovernmental organizations, including the United States Committee of the Blue Shield, museums, educational institutions, and research institutions, and participants in the international art and cultural property market on efforts to protect and preserve international cultural property; and 4. coordinate core U.S. interests in—(A) protecting and preserving international cultural property; (B) preventing and disrupting looting and illegal trade and trafficking in international cultural property, particularly exchanges that provide revenue to terrorist and criminal organizations; (C) protecting sites of cultural and archaeological significance; and (D) providing for the lawful exchange of international cultural property. Pursuant to the sense of Congress, State has led the effort to create the CHCC. After State convened an informal interagency meeting in June 2016, State chaired a formal meeting to establish the CHCC in November 2016 and chaired additional CHCC-wide meetings in March and June 2017. At its inception, CHCC participants included officials from nine U.S. federal entities. Appendix I shows these entities’ reported activities related to protecting cultural property. The CHCC has also established three working groups, as follows: 1. Technology, a newly created working group that focuses on the application of new and existing technologies to combat cultural property trafficking. 2. Partnerships and Public Awareness, a newly developed working group that focuses on public outreach and public-private partnerships. 3. The Cultural Antiquities Task Force (CATF), a preexisting group that is now a third working group under the CHCC, focuses on efforts to support local governments, museums, preservationists, and law enforcement to protect, recover, and restore cultural antiquities and sites worldwide, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. Specifically, the CATF has previously funded a broad range of activities in support of law enforcement efforts to combat theft, looting, and trafficking of historically and culturally significant objects worldwide. State asked participants representing nine U.S. federal entities to voluntarily participate in individual working groups. As of June 2017, the newly formed working groups—Technology, and Partnership and Public Awareness—had each held two meetings. The CATF, which held regular meetings prior to the formation of the CHCC, met in June 2017 after the CHCC was established and the CATF became a CHCC working group. Figure 2 shows key events as of June 2017 related to the CHCC and its working groups since the passage of the International Cultural Property Act. In our prior work, we have identified key collaboration practices that could be used to assess collaboration at federal agencies. These practices can help agencies implement actions to operate across boundaries, including fostering open lines of communication. We also found that positive working relationships among participants from different agencies bridge organizational cultures and that these relationships can build trust and foster communication, which facilitates collaboration. Given many federal agencies’ long-standing challenges working across organizational lines, following these practices could help agencies to enhance and sustain collaboration at all organizational levels. Figure 3 depicts these key practices. DHS and DOJ take actions in five key areas to enforce laws and regulations related to restricted Iraqi and Syrian cultural property: (1) monitoring of shipments; (2) detention, seizure, and taking forfeiture actions on items; (3) investigation of objects; (4) repatriation of cultural property; and (5) prosecution of criminal violations to enforce laws and regulations related to restricted Iraqi and Syrian cultural property. According to DHS officials, DHS has the primary role for enforcing import restrictions on Iraqi and Syrian cultural property. CBP conducts monitoring of shipments, cargo, and travelers for illicit cultural property through border interdictions. CBP and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) detain, seize, and obtain forfeiture of suspected items; and ICE-HSI conducts investigations, pursues prosecutions through state and federal courts, and repatriates cultural property to rightful owners. DOJ actions to address restricted Iraqi or Syrian cultural property include detaining, seizing, and taking forfeiture action on items; conducting investigations; repatriating cultural property; and prosecuting criminal violations. According to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials, the FBI conducts investigations; detains, seizes, obtains forfeitures, and repatriates restricted cultural property items; and, according to DOJ officials, the U.S. Attorney’s offices or the Criminal Division within DOJ pursue potential criminal violations. See figure 4 for a list of key actions taken by DHS and DOJ on restricted Iraqi and Syrian cultural property. Monitoring of shipments. According to DHS officials, CBP, within DHS, monitors shipments and travelers to identify items of Iraqi and Syrian cultural property imported in violation of U.S. customs laws. Within DHS, CBP monitors suspected shipments to identify restricted cultural property from Iraq or Syria that may be trafficked in the United States, according to CBP officials. These officials noted that CBP uses information obtained by other U.S. agencies or industry partners to identify high-risk transactions and shipments for further examination. These officials said that CBP may refer cultural property items found during its examinations to ICE-HSI for further investigation if they suspect a violation. Additionally, in collaboration with ICE-HSI, CBP also provides training to its officers at high-risk ports of entry. CBP monitoring activities have led to the discovery of smuggled cultural property. For example, according to DHS officials, a CBP inspection of a shipment exiting a Chicago mail facility led in December 2007 to the discovery of a Babylonian clay foundation cone originating from Iraq from 2100 B.C. (see fig. 5). The person exporting the item had misclassified it using a false country of origin. CBP detained the item and referred it to ICE-HSI for further investigation. According to ICE officials, ICE-HSI ultimately obtained forfeiture of the item and repatriated it to Iraq in February 2010. Detention, seizure, and taking forfeiture actions on items. DHS and the FBI detain, seize, and take forfeiture actions on Iraqi and Syrian cultural property items that are potentially in violation of U.S. law. Within DHS, CBP detains and, if appropriate, seizes Iraqi or Syrian cultural property if that property was potentially imported into the United States contrary to U.S. law, according to CBP officials. When CBP identifies such an item, it detains the property and, if further investigation is warranted, contacts ICE-HSI, which may conduct an investigation. ICE- HSI also receives leads regarding illegally imported cultural property already within the United States from other sources, including auctions, art galleries, and museums. Upon identification by CBP or found through other means, ICE-HSI seeks forfeiture of items of Iraqi and Syrian cultural property that have entered the United States in violation of U.S. customs law. According to ICE-HSI officials, although the import restrictions on Iraqi and Syrian cultural property are not criminal laws, the restrictions provide a legal basis for seizure and forfeiture actions by CBP and ICE- HSI. DHS actions to detain, seize, and pursue forfeiture of items that are suspected to be in violation of U.S. cultural property laws have led to the rescue and return of cultural property to Iraq. For example, according to DHS officials, in 2005 CBP discovered an inscribed stone tablet originating from Iraq during an inspection at a FedEx facility at Newark airport. After CBP detained the item, ICE-HSI consulted with local cultural property experts to determine the authentication and origin of the item, which, according to ICE-HSI officials, was imported using a false country of origin. ICE-HSI seized, took forfeiture action, and ultimately repatriated the item to Iraq in February 2010. When the FBI discovers restricted items of cultural property, the FBI’s Art Crime Team works to obtain or pursue forfeiture of the items, according to FBI officials. The FBI has detained, seized, and taken forfeiture actions on items of Iraqi cultural property. For example, according to FBI officials, the FBI opened an investigation after receiving a tip about an array of ancient artifacts originating from Mesopotamia for sale online (see fig. 6). Most of the items were cuneiform tablets used in Mesopotamia for record keeping, and three of the seized artifacts were inscribed foundation cones. According to an FBI document, the artifacts were looted from present-day Iraq and smuggled into the United States unlawfully. The antiquities dealer in California who held the items surrendered any right he had to the artifacts, which have been forfeited to the U.S. government. According to FBI officials, the government of Iraq asserts ownership over the items, but they have not yet been repatriated. Investigation of objects. ICE-HSI and the FBI conduct investigations into potentially restricted items of cultural property originating from Iraq and Syria. ICE-HSI conducts investigations involving the illicit importation, trafficking, and distribution of cultural property. CBP sometimes originates ICE-HSI cultural property investigations by referring incidents of suspected criminal activity related to illicit cultural property trafficking to ICE-HSI officials. According to ICE officials, most ICE-HSI cultural property investigations are based on other information and involve items of cultural property already in the United States, which may be held in private collections, museums, galleries, auction houses, or by other entities. ICE- HSI investigates potentially related criminal violations such as smuggling or falsely classifying an item. CBP and ICE officials reported collaborating with the FBI and State on investigations into illicit trade of cultural property from Iraq and Syria. According to these officials, CBP and ICE- HSI identify appropriate subject matter experts to examine detained cultural property to make a preliminary determination regarding the authenticity of the artifact or object. ICE-HSI cultural property investigations have led to the return of cultural property to Iraq. For example, ICE-HSI opened an investigation in January 2011 after receiving a tip about an Iraqi ceremonial sword for sale at an auction in the United States (see fig. 7). ICE-HSI found that the item was brought into the United States by a U.S. citizen who had served in the military. ICE-HSI consulted with a cultural property expert to authenticate the origin of the item and seized, obtained forfeiture, and ultimately repatriated the item to Iraq in July 2013. According to FBI officials, the FBI pursues Iraqi and Syrian cultural property items based on information from various sources, including from investigations into related matters. The FBI does not investigate or enforce import restrictions on cultural property, but FBI investigations on other criminal matters sometimes involve items of cultural property. In addition, according to officials, the FBI receives information on cultural property items from a variety of sources, including tips from informants, findings from other criminal investigations, and foreign government contacts. Officials added that, while ICE-HSI and the FBI lead distinct investigations involving cultural property, the two agencies coordinate with each other and outside experts, when appropriate. FBI officials reported sharing information with ICE-HSI and CBP on specific information and cultural property items, when appropriate. FBI officials also told us they regularly consult with outside experts to help identify cultural property items. The FBI has investigated suspected items of cultural property from Iraq that were discovered from investigations into related matters. For example, it discovered Iraqi antiquities during an investigation into public corruption of U.S. contractors in Iraq. According to FBI documents, the artifacts, including two pottery dishes, four vases, an oil lamp, three small statues, and seven terracotta relief plaques, were illegally taken from Iraq by DOD contractors in 2004. Investigators learned that the contractors took the items and used them as gifts and bribes or sold them to other contractors who then smuggled them into the United States. According to an FBI document, two of the contractors were ultimately sentenced to prison for their roles in the fraud scheme, and the items were recovered and returned to Iraq in July 2011. Repatriation of cultural property. ICE and the FBI repatriate cultural property items to the appropriate country, including the return of multiple items to Iraq. ICE works to repatriate the stolen or smuggled cultural property items to the rightful owner after CBP or ICE-HSI detains, seizes, or takes forfeiture action on an item found to have been brought into the United States in violation of U.S. law, according to ICE officials. ICE has repatriated a number of cultural property items to Iraq. For example, in 2008, ICE-HSI opened an investigation into a pair of Neo-Assyrian gold earrings for sale at an auction house in the United States (see fig. 8). ICE-HSI consulted with a cultural property expert to determine the authentication and origin of the item and worked with CBP to seize, obtain forfeiture, and ultimately repatriate the item to Iraq in February 2010. According to FBI officials, when the FBI detains, seizes, or obtains forfeiture of restricted cultural property items, its Art Crime Team works to repatriate the items. The FBI has repatriated a number of cultural property items to Iraq. For example, one FBI-led investigation involved a U.S. soldier serving in Iraq who purchased eight stone seals and brought them back to the United States (see fig. 9). The soldier had the items evaluated by an expert and, upon discovering their historical value, turned the seals over to the FBI, who repatriated them to Iraq in 2005. Prosecution of criminal violations. DOJ considers prosecution for criminal violations relating to investigations involving Iraqi and Syrian cultural property. According to DOJ officials, ICE-HSI and the FBI consult with DOJ’s Criminal Division or local U.S. Attorneys’ offices, and the assigned prosecutor determines whether to pursue criminal prosecution of related violations. State and local prosecutors may also consider whether to pursue prosecution for violations related to cultural property investigations. DOJ has prosecuted criminal violations from investigations involving items of cultural property from Iraq. For example, an FBI-led investigation into a man suspected of selling forged art and fake items led to the discovery of four Iraqi cylinder seals (see fig. 10). The FBI obtained forfeiture of the items and repatriated them to Iraq in 2013. According to FBI officials, the man with the seals was prosecuted and sentenced for conspiracy and mail fraud. The CHCC’s activities during its first year of formation reflected several key practices that can enhance and strengthen collaboration but did not demonstrate others. CHCC participants have demonstrated progress in the key areas of identifying leadership; including relevant participants; bridging organizational cultures, including developing ways to operate across agency boundaries and agreeing on common terminology; and addressing issues related to resources, including funding, staffing, and technology. However, CHCC participants could enhance their collaboration by implementing other key collaboration practices, such as developing goals, clarifying participants’ roles and responsibilities, and documenting agreements within the CHCC and its working groups. Leadership. The CHCC has followed the key collaboration practice of designating leaders, including strengthening the influence of leadership by high-level officials and establishing continuity in leadership. The CHCC has identified leadership in the full committee. Pursuant to the sense of Congress at Section 2(1) of the International Cultural Property Act that the CHCC “be chaired by a Department of State employee of Assistant Secretary rank or higher,” State’s Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) has chaired all of the CHCC’s meetings thus far. According to State officials, the ECA Assistant Secretary will continue to chair CHCC meetings. State officials also noted that senior leadership’s involvement in the committee underscores the importance of the committee and the topic of cultural property protection. We have previously reported that the influence of leadership can be strengthened by high-level officials and that designating one leader is often beneficial because it centralizes accountability and can speed decision making. Each of the CHCC’s three working groups has also identified a primary entity to lead the group’s effort, such as identifying and soliciting input on agenda items for the working group meetings. The CHCC sought volunteers to lead its two newly formed working groups. DOJ’s FBI has volunteered to lead the Technology working group, and the Smithsonian serves as the lead entity of the Partnerships and Public Awareness working group. State continues to lead the preexisting CATF, and different members host regular meetings. For example, DOJ’s Criminal Division hosted the June 2017 CATF meeting. Participants. The CHCC has demonstrated our key collaboration practice of including relevant participants. We previously reported on the importance of ensuring that relevant participants are included in and have the appropriate knowledge and abilities to contribute to the collaborative effort. The CHCC invited and included several entities as participants of the committee and its working groups. For the first CHCC meeting in November 2016, State invited nine federal entities to participate and requested that these participants volunteer for the working groups. Representatives of these nine federal entities all attended and, with the exception of USAID, have attended at least one additional meeting since the committee’s inception. In July 2017, a USAID official informed us that USAID does not expect to participate in the CHCC. Most CHCC participants noted that they are confident that the members have the appropriate knowledge and commitment to contribute and participate in the committee. Most representatives who attended the first CHCC meeting also participated in the committee’s working groups. For instance, officials from six of the nine U.S. federal entities attending the first formal CHCC meeting also participated on a voluntary basis in the newly created Technology and Partnerships and Public Awareness working groups. These federal entities include State, DHS, DOJ, the Interior, the NEH, and the Smithsonian. Officials representing three of the nine federal entities—the Treasury, DOD, and USAID—stated that they did not volunteer for and have not participated in the new working groups because they did not clearly see how their entities could contribute to the topics of focus. In the preexisting CATF working group, four of the nine CHCC federal entities—State, DHS, DOJ, and the Interior—noted that they would continue to participate. State officials explained that DOD had been invited to CATF meetings in the past but had not participated extensively. According to the DOD representative on the CHCC, DOD had not participated in the CATF in years but attended the CATF meeting in June 2017, the first CATF meeting since the formation of the CHCC, after being asked to participate. Figure 11 depicts the participation of the nine U.S. federal entities whose officials attended the first CHCC meeting. One of the CHCC working groups has included participation from additional federal entities. Led by the Smithsonian, the participants in CHCC’s Partnerships and Public Awareness working group agreed to invite other federal entities to the group. The second meeting of the Partnerships and Public Awareness working group in May 2017 included additional federal entities that had not attended prior CHCC meetings. These federal entities included the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Archives and Records Administration, and the President’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities. According to Smithsonian officials, the Smithsonian also invited the Library of Congress, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the National Science Foundation, DOD’s National Defense University, and the Wilson Center to participate in the working group. The CHCC and its working groups have also included the participation of nonfederal stakeholders in their activities. The CHCC has invited external stakeholders to participate in public events led by its Partnerships and Public Awareness working group. For example, State and the Smithsonian co-hosted an event to discuss cultural heritage protection and stabilization in northern Iraq that was open to the public and included a public panel discussion, led by U.S. Committee of the Blue Shield, a nongovernmental organization. Other participants in this event included those representing museums, educational institutions, and research institutions. Smithsonian officials noted the importance of hearing the perspectives of these nongovernmental organizations and participants in the international art and cultural property market—organizations suggested in the sense of Congress in the International Cultural Property Act. However, the full CHCC will not likely include nonfederal stakeholders in its regular interagency meetings. As the lead of CHCC, State officials commented that they intend to keep invitees to the full CHCC limited to U.S. federal entities because this composition facilitates the discussion of U.S. government law enforcement efforts related to cultural property protection. Other CHCC participants also expressed concerns about having nonfederal stakeholders participate in certain CHCC and its working groups’ discussions, particularly when law enforcement agencies need to discuss sensitive matters. Therefore, State officials reported that the CHCC may conduct periodic consultations with external stakeholders without making these stakeholders members of the committee. Bridging organizational cultures. CHCC participants have bridged different organizational cultures among the participating entities by establishing ways to operate across agency boundaries, a key collaboration practice that can involve developing common terminology and sharing information. For example, CHCC participants have generally agreed on common terminology in the cultural property area. Some participants reported that federal entities agree on the definitions of “cultural property” and the “protection and preservation” of such items, even though these terms could be interpreted differently by many in academia and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, most participants stated that they have working relationships with other members of the committee, which facilitates information sharing on an ongoing basis. The missions and cultures of the nine participating federal entities may differ, ranging from those focused on law enforcement to those that fund grants to protect cultural property. Nevertheless, many participants reported that CHCC members all share a common commitment toward the goal of cultural property protection. Furthermore, most participants reported that the committee was a helpful forum for collaborating on international cultural property protection efforts. According to State officials, the formation of CHCC facilitated collaboration of different U.S. federal entities when cultural property protection issues arose internationally. For example, in March 2017, State led an interagency delegation that included DHS, DOJ, and Smithsonian representatives to participate in an international culture ministerial meeting devoted to the topic of cultural property protection. According to a State report, various federal entities also contributed significantly to a UN Security Council resolution to focus on cultural heritage preservation, which the Security Council adopted unanimously in March 2017. Resources. Despite not having dedicated financial resources, the CHCC and its working groups have identified human and technology resources for their collaborative activities. We previously reported that collaborating agencies should identify the human, information technology, physical, and financial resources needed to initiate or sustain their collaborative effort. The CHCC has identified nine U.S. federal entities as participants that expect to participate in meetings of the committee and its working groups without using designated funding. Some participants noted that not having dedicated resources could present certain challenges to CHCC activities. For example, one CHCC participant noted that cultural preservation training programs are resource dependent and are, therefore, difficult to plan without funding. However, this participant also noted that collaborative efforts on the CHCC have helped participants coordinate interagency training, which has helped to mitigate these challenges. Moreover, participants generally noted that even without dedicated financial resources, they were committed to participate in CHCC activities as a collateral duty to their work. Another aspect of managing resources among interagency groups is the development of technological systems and compatible tools. CHCC participants have taken steps to explore the development of technological resources to enhance collaboration. For instance, several Technology working group participants noted that they have discussed the possibilities involved in establishing compatible technological systems among the CHCC’s members. According to one participant, the working group is in the process of obtaining the status of existing technological systems of participants and is planning on vetting new technologies. Outcomes and accountability. The CHCC could benefit from addressing the key collaboration practice of organizational outcomes and accountability, which includes clearly defining short-term and long-term goals, and developing a way to track and monitor progress toward these goals. In the first formal meeting in November 2016, the chair of the committee articulated that the CHCC’s role was to coordinate antitrafficking efforts and to tackle a wide range of cultural heritage challenges worldwide. However, subsequent to that meeting, the CHCC has not produced documents identifying specific CHCC outcomes or goals. CHCC participants also indicated that no clear consensus on the CHCC’s stated goals has emerged from CHCC meetings. Many CHCC participants noted that the CHCC had not developed short-term and long- term goals, with some adding that the CHCC was working on doing so. Other officials had different views of the short-term and long-term goals. For example, one participant stated that a short-term CHCC goal was to establish working groups and understand the roles of the different entities, while another participant said that a long-term goal was to solidify information sharing among participants. The CHCC’s three working groups varied in their development of goals. One participant of the CHCC’s Technology working group noted that the working group has developed short-term, medium-term, and long-term goals, including target time frames for achieving them. For example, the Technology group has a short-term goal to evaluate the technological strengths and weaknesses of the members relative to their mission. However, not all of the participants in that working group were aware of these goals. The other two CHCC working groups—Partnerships and Public Awareness, and Cultural Antiquities Task Force—have not developed goals. As the lead of the Partnerships and Public Awareness working group, the Smithsonian has compiled an inventory list that catalogues all of the programs, activities, and outreach that each of the working group’s participants worked on and planned to undertake. Smithsonian officials noted that the working group could develop outcomes based on the inventory list, such as support for other working group members’ training on cultural property protection. According to State officials, the Senate Appropriations Committee directed the CATF to train U.S. and foreign law enforcement and customs agents, and the CATF continued to fund cultural property training. However, such training has not been developed or documented as goals for the CATF. State officials explained that the full committee and its working groups were still early in their formation. Participants have been focused on other priorities and, therefore, have not yet developed goals. For example, according to Smithsonian officials, the Partnerships and Public Awareness working group has been working on creating goals as it concentrates on holding actual public awareness campaigns, but it has not established or documented any goals to share with other participants. Without clearly developed goals, participants of the CHCC and its working groups may not have the same overall interests and may even have conflicting interests and disagreement among missions while working toward the overall CHCC purpose of protecting and preserving international cultural property. We previously reported that by developing goals and outcomes based on what the group shares in common, a collaborative group can shape its own vision and define its own purpose. When articulated and understood by the members of a group, this shared purpose provides people with a reason to participate in the process. Clarity of roles and responsibilities. While participants seemed to understand each other’s activities related to international cultural property matters, CHCC participants have not clarified each participating entity’s roles and responsibilities on the committee and its working groups, a practice we have identified as helpful in enhancing collaboration. CHCC participants have discussed cultural property initiatives that each entity was carrying out, and the Partnerships and Public Awareness working group is maintaining a list of its participants’ activities. However, we found that there was no consensus and no clear delineation of the specific roles and responsibilities of the entities on the CHCC and its working groups. For example, representatives of one entity leading a working group described their role in initiating working group meetings, and planning and circulating meeting agendas. However, most CHCC participants said that they are unclear about their specific roles and responsibilities for CHCC, including DOD and USAID, whose representatives on the CHCC were unable to describe their roles and responsibilities on the full committee and its working groups. Furthermore, the CHCC has not clarified the roles and responsibilities of the additional federal entities that participated in one of the CHCC’s working groups, including whether these entities would be members of the full committee or participants of only one CHCC working group. The CHCC’s Partnerships and Public Awareness working group invited several other federal entities to attend its May 2017 meeting, but these entities’ roles and responsibilities in the working group had not been identified. As the lead entity of this working group, Smithsonian officials said that they did not know whether the additional participants of or invitees to the May 2017 Partnerships and Public Awareness meeting would be included as members of the full committee. The CHCC full committee meeting in June 2017 did not include these additional federal entities as invitees. According to some CHCC participants, the CHCC and its working groups spent their first year of operation working to set up CHCC meetings and determining which invitees to ask to meetings. As a result of prioritizing these activities and allowing the CHCC to take on a more fluid process, some participants told us that the committee and its working groups have yet to clarify the roles and responsibilities of its participants. However, the CHCC and its working groups could benefit from defining and agreeing upon participants’ respective roles and responsibilities as well as steps for decision making when working on protecting and preserving international cultural property. Without such clarity, CHCC participants could encounter barriers in organizing their joint and individual efforts on the committee and its working groups as the CHCC continues to operate beyond its first year of formation. Written guidance and agreements. Participants have not documented their agreement regarding how the CHCC will be collaborating, including the short-term and long-term goals of the committee and its working groups, as well as members’ roles and responsibilities on the committee and its working groups. The CHCC and at least one of its working groups have produced written notes after its meetings. For example, the Smithsonian produced a document after the May 2017 Partnership and Public Awareness working group meeting that provided details on the activities of its participants, upcoming public events, and a list of task assignments for its participants. However, these written documents did not discuss any collaborative strategies within the CHCC and its working group. State officials said that CHCC participants have not documented written guidance and agreements for the committee and its working groups because it was too early in the formation of the CHCC to make these determinations. Our prior work on key practices for collaboration found that the action of agencies articulating a common outcome and roles and responsibilities into a written document is a powerful tool in collaboration. The destruction of international cultural property causes irreversible damage to our shared heritage, and the trafficking of cultural property could fund ISIS terrorist activities. To protect cultural property from Iraq and Syria at risk of looting and smuggling, the U.S. government has imposed import restrictions, and DHS and DOJ have taken a number of actions to enforce the laws and regulations on restricted cultural property from these countries. Further, a law passed to protect and preserve international cultural property included a sense of Congress that the President should establish an interagency coordinating committee to coordinate the efforts of the executive branch. State has taken steps to establish the CHCC, and the committee’s efforts reflect several of the key practices that can enhance and strengthen collaboration. However, the CHCC could benefit from following additional practices as it moves beyond its first year. These practices include developing goals for the CHCC and all of its working groups, clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the committee’s and its working groups’ participants, and documenting these agreements among the participants. CHCC participants have noted that the CHCC is still in the early stages of establishment and have, therefore, yet to follow these additional collaboration practices. Given participants’ receptivity and commitment to the committee’s work, the CHCC could augment its current efforts as it moves forward. Using key collaboration practices could help the CHCC’s members to work collectively to better understand and respond to the destruction, looting, and trafficking of international cultural property, especially as such activities may persist with the ongoing instability in Iraq and Syria. We are making a total of three recommendations to State. Specifically: The Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs should work with other U.S. federal entities participating in the CHCC to develop goals for the CHCC and its working groups. (Recommendation 1) The Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs should work with other U.S. federal entities participating in the CHCC to clarify participants’ roles and responsibilities in the CHCC and its working groups. (Recommendation 2) The Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs should work with other U.S. federal entities participating in the CHCC to document agreement about how the CHCC and its working groups will collaborate, such as their goals and participants’ roles and responsibilities. (Recommendation 3) We provided a draft copy of this report to State, DHS, DOJ, the Treasury, DOD, the Interior, USAID, the NEH, and the Smithsonian for review and comments. State provided written comments that are reproduced in appendix II. State, DHS, the Treasury, the Interior, and the Smithsonian also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. DOJ, DOD, USAID, and the NEH had no comments. In its written comments on our report, State concurred with all three of our recommendations. State noted its agreement with the need for outcomes and accountability and stated that CHCC working groups aim to draft mission statements and objectives. Following the adoption of such statements and objectives, State also foresees clarifying roles and responsibilities of CHCC participants, and documenting such goals through a memorandum of understanding. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Secretaries of State, Homeland Security, the Treasury, Defense, the Interior, and the Smithsonian; the Attorney General of the United States; the Administrator of USAID; the Chairman of the NEH; and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9601, or melitot@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix III. At the first formal Cultural Heritage Coordinating Committee (CHCC) meeting, participants included officials from nine U.S. federal entities: the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Justice, the Treasury, Defense, and the Interior; the U.S. Agency for International Development; the National Endowment for the Humanities; and the Smithsonian Institution. Figures 12, 13, and 14 show these entities’ reported activities related to protecting cultural property. In addition to the contact named above, Elizabeth Repko (Assistant Director), Kim Frankena (Assistant Director), Victoria Lin (Analyst-in- Charge), and Diana Blumenfeld made key contributions to this report. The team benefited from the expert advice and assistance of Lynn Cothern, Neil Doherty, Justin Fisher, Grace Lui, Marc Molino, and Sarah Veale.

Summary: The conflicts in Iraq and Syria that began in 2003 and 2011, respectively, have led to the destruction, looting, and trafficking of cultural property by Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and others. The United Nations called these events the worst cultural heritage crisis since World War II and reported that ISIS has used the sale of looted Iraqi and Syrian cultural property to support its terrorist activities. Congress authorized and the President imposed import restrictions on archaeological or ethnological material of Iraq in 2008 and Syria in 2016. The act directing Syrian restrictions also includes a sense of Congress that the President should establish an interagency committee to coordinate executive branch efforts on international cultural property protection. GAO was asked to review U.S. efforts to protect Iraqi and Syrian cultural property. This report examines (1) actions DHS and DOJ have taken to enforce U.S. laws and regulations involving restrictions on such property and (2) the extent to which CHCC participants collaborate to protect cultural property. GAO reviewed documents related to 17 DHS- or DOJ-led cultural property investigations, interviewed officials, and assessed the extent of CHCC collaboration using GAO's key practices. GAO's examination of 17 cultural property investigations shows that the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and Justice (DOJ) have taken a number of actions to enforce laws and regulations related to restricted Iraqi and Syrian cultural property. DHS's Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has taken actions such as monitoring shipments and detaining and seizing suspected items of restricted cultural property. CBP coordinates with DHS's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which investigates objects; detains, seizes, and obtains forfeiture of items found to be in violation of U.S. law; and repatriates cultural property to its rightful owner. For example, ICE conducted an investigation into an Iraqi ceremonial sword for sale at an auction in the United States and then seized, obtained forfeiture of, and repatriated it to Iraq in July 2013 (see fig.). DOJ actions to address restricted Iraqi and Syrian cultural property include activities by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and DOJ attorneys to investigate and prosecute criminal violations, as well as actions related to the forfeiture and repatriation of cultural property items. Ceremonial Sword Repatriated to Iraq by Department of Homeland Security in 2013 The Cultural Heritage Coordinating Committee (CHCC), established in November 2016 with nine participating federal entities and led by the Department of State (State), has followed several of the key collaboration practices identified by GAO but has not demonstrated others. GAO has previously identified key practices for organizations to enhance and sustain their collaborative efforts. The CHCC has followed key practices of identifying leadership; including relevant participants; bridging organizational cultures, such as agreeing on common terminology; and addressing resource issues. Most participants also reported that the CHCC was a helpful forum for sharing information. However, the CHCC has not fully demonstrated other key practices for enhancing collaboration. First, the CHCC and two of its three working groups have not developed short- and long-term goals. Moreover, the CHCC has not clarified participants' roles and responsibilities on the committee or its working groups. Finally, CHCC participants have not documented agreements related to collaboration, such as developing written materials to articulate common objectives. Incorporating these practices could help participants work collectively, focus on common goals, and organize joint and individual efforts to protect cultural property as the CHCC continues its efforts beyond its first year. GAO recommends that State work with other CHCC participants to (1) develop goals, (2) clarify participants' roles and responsibilities, and (3) document collaborative agreement in the CHCC and its working groups. State concurs with GAO's recommendations.