Sanat Eserleri ve Müze Sigortaları

Year 2012, Issue: 27, 75 - 86, 01.02.2012

Feride H. Baştürk İrini Dimitriyadis İsmail Yardımcı Ensar Taçyıldız

Abstract

Eserlerin korunmasıiçin, olasıriskler göz önüne alınarak çevresel koşulların düzenlenmesi hayati önem taşımaktadır. Bu anlamda müzelerde, sergilerde veya kişisel/kurumsal koleksiyonlarda eserlere ait risklerin nasıl ve kimler tarafından üstlenileceği ve buna uygun olarak nasıl bir planlama yapılacağıfarklılık göstermektedir. Eserler müzede veya sergiler sırasında Devlet Garantisi Devlet Tazminat Sistemi-DTS , özel sigorta, sigortasız veya personel korumalısistemler ile korunmaktadır. DTS’de sergiler sırasında bir hasar veya eser kaybıdurumunda, serginin bulunduğu ülkedeki kamu otoriteleri tarafından eser sahiplerine tazminat ödenmesi veya hasarın restorasyon maliyetlerinin karşılanmasısöz konusudur. Özel Sigorta da ise, “Fine Arts Insurance” olarak anılan ve “Sanat Eserlerine Yapılan Paket Sigorta Sözleşmeleri” olarak ifade edilebilen ve bir kısım genel şartların ışığıaltında paketlenmişteminatlarıiçeren uygulamalar mevcuttur. Sigorta şirketi açısından olaya bakıldığında, yangın sigortasıgenel şartlarına göre bina içerisinde eşya olmasıile sanat eseri olmasıaçısından işleme alınan riskler ve bunlara paralel verilen teminatlar arasında fark görülememektedir. Oysa sanat eserlerini çok yakından ilgilendiren ve poliçelerde kapsam dışında kalan çok sayıda risk grubu; belirsizliğini sürdürmektedir. Sanat eserlerinin kendilerine has riskleri dikkate alınarak genel şartlar oluşturulabileceği akla gelmektedir. Sigortasızlık durumunda ise; eserler, kurumlar self-insurance veya kurum çalışanlarıtarafından korunmaktadır. Eserlerin kaybıveya hasara uğramasıdurumunda hiçbir teminat durumu söz konusu değildir. Türkiye’de de aynen AB ve diğer ülkelerin çoğunda olduğu gibi kamuya ait müzelerde koleksiyonlar müzede iken sigorta kapsamında değildir.

Keywords

Sanat Eserlerinin Riskleri, Sanat Eserlerinin Sigortalanması, Devlet Garantisi, Sigortasızlık

Fine Arts and Museum Insurances

Abstract

One of the most standard ways to cover risks is insurance. However when it comes to insuring collections via commercial insurance, expensive premiums have to be paid. We may talk of three different methods within this context, namely state indemnity schemes, private insurance or self insurance. Whatever the insurance coverage might be, a proper risk management that will minimize the probability of a loss has to be considered since the loss will be to present and future generations. Risk management for cultural heritage goods needs a higher level of expertise. Besides the ordinary risk assessment measures it is of utmost importance to consider the regulation of environmental conditions. This introduces the need for large scale follow up controls and hence a risk management program for basic conservation and environmental monitoring has to be set. These measures should be taken both on their own right as an action towards more affordable insurance premiums. State Indemnity schemes are especially functional when lending a certain collection. In a state indemnity scheme, the government supports the organization of major exhibitions by taking over part of the risk in connection with the loss or damage to the cultural items granted on loan. The state, without the need of an insurance company as a mediator, is committed to providing compensation for damage directly. When a museum, gallery or library borrows from an institution that is not a national one, then under a state indemnity scheme, the government will compensate for any loss over a predetermined value. Thus the government assumes the risk just like an insurance company would. The first countries to adopt a state indemnity scheme were Sweden 1974 and the United States of America 1975 . Great Britain created an indemnity scheme in 1980, Germany in 1992 and France has had such a system since 1993. Other countries followed in the 80s and 90s. In Norway there are two state indemnity schemes: one is for incoming loans and is run by the Ministry of Culture and Church Affairs; the other is for outgoing loans and comes under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In our day, out of the 31 states in the EU there are only 8 that are not within the scope of a state indemnity scheme. Besides State Indemnity Schemes cultural objects and collections may be insured under a standart property insurance policy or a fine art insurance policy. Chubb has developed a package policy to cover museums and cultural institutions and is considered to be one the broadest policies in the insurance market. Some of the fine art insurance policies are seen to be including terms of guarantees for fire, theft, national and international transportation, earthquake…just as the regular property insurance policies, and these are quite standard over the world. Galleries, works of art sellers, exhibitions, museums, individual and institutional collection owners can benefit from these insurance applications. The problem with these policies is that they do not cover major risks that are special to cultural objects. Package policies designed for cultural goods are expected to be priced over “agreed value”, “all risk” or “nail to nail” guarantees. We should point out that “all risk” does not necessarily imply “all loss”. Cultural objects are exposed to different risks depending on their nature. Usually classification is done based on the material they are made of ceramic, glass, china, paintings, books, statues, precious metals, textiles, stone, mosaic, marble, leather, wood, etc , and each one of these is exposed to risks at different levels. Possible risks are temperature, humidity, light, method of exposition, moths and other environmental factors, which lead to change of colour, cracks, oxidation, salianation, etc . Losses like wearing, tearing, damage caused by insects and rodents, damage during maintenance and restorations are usually not covered by these policies so we cannot talk of a fully efficient insurance system. Collection policies usually insure each object on the basis of its "fair market value" at the time of the loss. Conventional policies insure on the basis of actual cash value replacement cost less depreciation or replacement cost, if a certain percentage to value is written. Museum collections are written on a blanket basis due to the difficulty of agreeing upon the value of an object ahead of time. On the other extreme, collectors or museums may choose to be self insured. It is known that national museums in Europe have no insurance. Likewise in Turkey, cultural objects are not insured while on permanent exhibit in a public museum. There is no legal obligation for state collections to be insured, the idea being that the state is at all times capable of subsidizing any loss. It is only when these are to be exhibited elsewhere that insurance becomes an issue. The Turkish state guarantees that it will not levy any collection on loan, and requires the same guarantee from other states at time of lending. In case a museum decides to function uninsured, museum management expects the museum staff to take all protective measures and this approach may give rise to disputes between the two parties. There are two basic points that must be stressed. One is the need for setting up a developed risk control mechanism to mitigate and minimize the risks that the objects are exposed to. There are recently computer follow up tools that have been developed in this respect and every museum must make sure to put this into practice The other point is the need of developing an insurance product that will be specially designed for the particular purpose and will be more affordable. This article besides giving a review of insurance for cultural heritage as is exercised in most countries in the world gives also a detailed account about Turkey with specific instances of application.

Keywords

Risks of Fine Arts, Fine Arts Insurance, Government Indemnity, Uninsurance

References

• Baştürk,F. İ.Dimitriyadis, İ.Yardımcı, E.Taçyıldız, (2009), “Sanat Eserlerinin Sigortalanmasına Yeni Bir Bakış Açısı Gerekiyor” Sigorta Araştırmaları Dergisi, Sayı: 6, Aralık, 2009, Türk Sigorta Eğitim Vakfı Yayını., ss.111-121.
• Bauer, Hillary, Frank Bergevoet, Rosanna Binacchi, “Final Reports and Recommendations to The Cultural Affairs Committee on İmproving the Means of Increasing the Mobility of Collections”, OMC Expert Working Group on the Mobility of Collections, June 2010, www.ne-mo.org./index php?id/=130
• Bergevoet,F. “Lecture for The International Exhibition Organisers Meeting, April 15, 2010, Hermitage Amsterdam, http://www.lending-for-europe.eu/fileadmin/ CM/public/ documents/ indemnity/Lecture_ IEO_15_April website_transcription.pdf
• Bergevoet,F. “The Collectie Nederland”, Online, http://www.lending-foreurope.eu/fileadmin/CM/public/documents/references/Collectie_Nederland.pdf(erişim tarihi 18.10.2010)
• Congreskrant.nl, “Museum Collection on the Move Conference Report, published by the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage October, 28-29, 2004, Netherlands, pp.15
• De Brabander, S, Collinet, U., Gille, S., “An Inventory of National Systems of Public Guarantees in 31 European Countries” (June 2004) (Study n° 2003-4879) (pp.1-186) (full text)
• Online,http://ec.europa.eu/culture/key-documents/doc915_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/culture/pdf/doc920_en.pdf , pp.17(erişilme tarihi 18.10.2010)
• De Brabander, S, Collinet, U., Gille, S., “An Inventory of National Systems of Public Guarantees in 31 European Countries” (June 2004) (Study n° 2003-4879) (pp.1-186) (summary)
• Online,http://ec.europa.eu/culture/key-documents/doc915_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/culture/pdf/doc920_en.pdf , pp.17(erişilme tarihi 18.10.2010)
• Dik, Joris Koen Janssens, Geert Van Der Snickt, Luuk van der Loeff, Karen Rickers,|and Marine Cotte, (2008), “Visualization of a Lost Painting by Vincent Van Gogh Using Synchrotron Radiation Based X-ray Fluorescence Elemental Mapping” Analytical Chemistry, Vol:80, No:16, August 15, 2008, pp.6436-6442
• Dimitriyadis,İ. F.Baştürk, İ.Yardımcı, E.Taçyıldız (2011), “Kültürel Miras Değerlemelerinde İstatistiğin Yeri” Uluslar arası 7.İstatistik Kongresi, Antalya Frey, B.S., S. Meir (2006), “The Economics of Museums”, in Handbook of Economics of Art and Culture, Ginsberg and Throsby(ed), North Holland, ss 1017-1042.
• Graham, Robert Adam Prideaux, 2004, Insurance for Museum, Museum, Libraries, Archives(MLA), www.mla.gov.uk
• Indemnity Resolutions, Bizot Group –2009, Online, http://www.lending-foreurope.eu/fileadmin/CM/public/documents/indemnity/Indemnity_Resolution.
• Insurance and Indemnity Management, Spectrum: The UK Museum Documentation Standard,http://www.mla.gov.uk/website/programmes/cultural_property/govt_indemnity_scheme/00gi s/