Security in Museums in The Netherlands HANNA PENNOCK

Inspector, State Inspectorate for Cultural Heritage, Collections Division, The Hague. ABSTRACT: In The Netherlands we have had many developments in the field of risk management in museums. In my presentation I’ll give an introduction on the history, starting with the Dutch Delta Plan for Preservation. I talk about the role of the State Inspectorate for Cultural Heritage, where I work, and about the researches we have done. One of the main developments was, that the privatised State museums were obliged by the minister to make a disaster plan especially for their collections. We inspected these plans, and I’ll tell about the way we did this. I describe several disasters that happened in Holland, and what measures were taken. By now the privatised State museums must have an integrated risk management, which again we inspect. A database for the registration of incidents in cultural heritage was erected, and in January 2008 an expertise centre for the protection of cultural heritage was opened. I hope these Dutch activities can work as an example of good practice.

Introduction I will inform you about my work with the State Inspectorate for Cultural Heritage in my country, The Netherlands. And I will tell you about all the activities in The Netherlands of risk management in museums. There are about 25 former State museums in Holland, some of which you will undoubtedly know by name. They are beautiful museums with splendid collections. I will name a few: The Rijksmuseum and the Van Gogh Museum, both in Amsterdam; the Kröller-Müller Museum in the national park near Arnhem; the Open Air Museum in Arnhem; the Museum of Antiquities and the Museum of Ethnology, both in Leiden; and the national museum of religious art, the Catharijne Convent in Utrecht. The collections in these and other museums are still State property, they are now managed by Foundations.

History: the Delta Plan for the Preservation In the 1980s it became apparent that the management of these collections was not up to standard. When the Dutch Court of Audit issued a devastating report on conservation management in 1988, the time came to take serious measures. The Minister of Culture opted for privatisation as the best way forward. Before this could happen, however, the collections had to be brought to a state of order. A unique subsidy plan was established to achieve this goal. Called the Delta Plan for the Preservation of the Cultural Heritage, it made funds available to museums to bring the collections and their storage up to international standard. New concepts such as preventative and active preservation became buzzwords; old storage spaces were adapted and new ones built; collections were rid of acidic materials, dust, and other pests, and were stored in an orderly fashion. In addition to this improved preservation, another important procedure was the registration of all collection items, which, after all, is the basis on which the nature and scope of a collection can be determined. Thus, collection managers, registrars and conservation specialists became vital additions to museum staff. It was clear with the approaching independence of the national museums that the conservation management of the collections would require supervision. The collections themselves would remain State property; it was only their management that would be transferred to Foundations. Thus, the Inspectorate was created in 1993. The regulations for inspection were appended to the managerial agreement between the State and the museums. The museums committed themselves to providing all possible cooperation during an inspection. The Inspectorate’s reports are sent to the Minister of Culture.

The Inspectorate

The State Inspectorate for Cultural Heritage is an independent division of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. Our office is in The Hague. Two years ago we ‘fused’ with three other Inspectorates. Now there are four sections: Archaeology, Archives, Collections and Monuments. I work in the Collections section, together with five other inspectors and our chief inspector – we are a small group, and only two of us work full time. In our regular inspections we assess the quality of the registration and the actual care of the collections. Aspects vital to the conservation of a collection, of good housekeeping, are: a good registration of the collection, suitable storage, a stable and suitable climate, pest control, and so forth – and adequate risk management of the collection. In order to maintain certain objectivity, we do a random selection of objects from each collection every two or three years. Since most of us are art historians and not specialised in statistics, we get the help of a professional statistician. He gives us lessons now and then, and helps to carry out a random sample survey in the museum. From the population of registered museum items, we select 43 objects. We search for the object which belongs to the inventory number. Then we go ‘the same way back’: we choose an object at random, write down its inventory number and its location, and search it afterwards in the inventory. According to statistics, this selection of 86 items should be enough to give a fairly reliable judgement on the quality of registration and conservation. We judge six aspects: o Does the object have an inventory number? o Is its location correct? o Is its juridical status known? o Does it have a description? o Are the materials which it is made of described? o Is the protection of the object sufficient – in other words does the object ‘feel okay’? During an inspection we visit all the rooms where objects are: the museum rooms and storages. (Of course there are never objects in the offices of the director or the curator…) Then we look at the climate (temperature and relative humidity), pest management, cleaning regime, et cetera. And we look at the risk management concerning the collections. So here I arrive at the main topic of my speech, risk management. By this we understand the precautionary measures that demonstrate a museum’s preparedness for the various disasters that could happen to its collection. These measures must be aimed at preventing or controlling a disastrous situation, but they must also anticipate the aftermath, including the care of the objects and eventual contact with the press. Research on risk management at 20 museums A few years ago, I researched risk management at 20 former State museums. I made a long list of questions, which were submitted in interview form to those responsible for risk management in the museums. The research was intended to provide an overview of the level of risk management. Consequently, interviews were carried out during the period 1997 to 1999. They were aimed at shedding light on the circumstances and procedures, and not on the technical or financial considerations. Regardless of how modern technical installations may be, good risk management depends entirely on their appropriate use. It is of utmost importance that procedures followed in the event of an incident are documented in detail, and made available to the staff. I always started my interviews by asking if the museum had a disaster plan, to which the invariable answer was, “Yes”. But when I asked if their disaster plan also included their collection, in 17 out of 20 cases, the answer was “No”. The extensive provisions of the Delta Plan may have significantly improved the conditions for preserving a collection, but it had not made them any ‘safer’. The first questionnaire The interviews lasted between two and three hours. All possible threats to the collection were covered in approximately one hundred questions. Subjects included the museum’s attitude to risks such as water, fire, evacuation of objects and their after-care, break-ins and theft, the use of electrical equipment and heaters, procedures when the alarm goes off, vandalism and damage to objects, transportation, cleaning procedures, mildew and pests, catering, scientific research and, last but not least, operational procedures in the event of working with open fire. While the questions were mainly about procedures, they were also very practical. Is staff aware of the location of the gas and water mains? How efficient is contact with the emergency services? Are there emergency drills, and so forth? My colleagues and I transcribed the interviews, and we also included our own observations. They were then sent directly to the museum directors, who were asked to provide written reactions, amendments and additions.

I compiled these twenty separate reports into a composite document that did not include the names of the museums. It was published in the year 2000. I thought it unnecessary to compare the museums because of the vast differences in the scope of their collections, which vary in number from 350 (The Prison Gate in The Hague) to ten million (Naturalis, the museum of natural history in Leiden). Additionally, the museum buildings and storage spaces are widely divergent, as are their locations. The report was intended both as a synopsis of the current situation and as a basis for future policy. It concluded with a number of recommendations, a few of which I would like to detail here. 1) Security is an essential part of the conservation management of a museum’s collection. It must therefore always have highest priority at directorial level. The supervision in the museums is partly in the hands of qualified emergency personnel, but too often use is made of attendants, hosts and hostesses, temporary employees, museum guides and volunteers. An adequate response to a calamity cannot and should not be expected of them. 2) Each museum should keep an incident log and register all near-incidents. These can provide greater insight into risks. This is most important. Writing a disaster plan should always be preceded by a risk analysis. 3) Often, part of a collection is temporarily stored elsewhere during building works or for other reasons. These ‘temporary’ solutions can sometimes last as long as two years and are highly risky. In most cases, insufficient measures were taken to protect the collections in an adequate way. That this is a necessity has, unfortunately, been proved more than once. Now I’ll briefly discuss a few disasters which occurred in Dutch museums in the recent past. Theft In 2002, two paintings by Vincent van Gogh were stolen from the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam, by putting up a ladder and breaking a window. The first impression was that it was a students’ joke, because of the apparent simplicity. But the paintings have not reappeared. In the same year, a large quantity of diamonds was stolen from an exhibit in the Museon in The Hague. Last year a great number of paintings were stolen from Westfries Museum, a museum with an important regional collection; here the alarm system was sabotaged. Another, ‘slow’ disaster was the theft of rare prints and books from the Military Museum in Delft. The curator of the museum – the culprit – stole these objects over a long period of time. Vandalism Eleven 17th-century paintings in the Dordrecht Museum were slashed with a knife by a mentally disturbed man. This has also happened a couple of times at the Stedelijk Museum, the museum of modern art in Amsterdam. Rembrandt’s Night Watch has been damaged three times, twice with acid. And recently a painting by Van der Helst in the Rijksmuseum was attacked, again by a mentally disturbed man. Fire A historic farm at the Open Air Museum in Arnhem was devastated by fire. To make matters worse, an important part of the collection had been ‘temporarily’ stored there while waiting for storage space. Those pieces are now lost forever. The explosion of a fireworks factory in Enschede in the east of Holland, which claimed twenty lives, was a terrible catastrophe that shook the whole country. The nearby museum suffered considerable damage. Only a few weeks ago there was a devastating fire in the Armando Museum in Amersfoort. The collection of the artist Armando, who is still alive, was housed in a monument, a 19th century church. The church, the collection and several loans were completely destroyed. Only one painting, although damaged, survived. The fire was so devastating that the cause cannot be determined anymore.

Water Luckily, we do not experience violent natural phenomena such as hurricanes or devastating earthquakes in The Netherlands. But we do suffer from an excess of water from the sea, rivers, and our many rain showers. Thus far, the system of dykes has largely succeeded in preventing the flooding of the rivers. Notwithstanding, a number of museums have wet basements, caused by high water levels or heavy rainfall. Collections were actually being stored in these basements. Two examples are the Boijmans Van Beuningen Museum in Rotterdam and the Groninger Museum in the north of the country. The regional archive of Wijk bij Duurstede was flooded. During work near the archive, pumps that were supposed to remove the groundwater, failed. Of course this happened in the middle of the night, as most disasters do. The basement of the archive flooded; the water detectors failed. The alarm only went off when the water was two metres high and reached the smoke detectors, which were triggered by a short circuit. The entire archive, going back to the thirteenth century, drowned. Bad summers in Holland are characterised by much rain and extreme humidity. The heating or air-conditioning systems only have to break down temporarily, and there will be an outbreak of mould in the storage areas. Unfortunately, this has occurred on several occasions. Disaster plans for the collections Based on this initial research, which I talked about earlier, the Minister of Culture demanded that all former State museums complete a disaster plan for their collections before 2003. We were to inspect these plans. The second questionnaire: 49 Questions Reading the plans is not enough – discussions often yield more information and provide a better idea of the quality. To this end, I developed another list, now consisting of 49 questions. They were aimed at shedding light on the contents of the plan and the way it was compiled. We asked about preventative measures, how responsibilities are assigned, and procedures. I visited all the former State museums to conduct interviews. Before I discuss the questionnaire and the aspects I consider vital to good risk management, I would like to explain how museums approach such an overwhelming task. It is striking how the disaster plans differ from each other. Some museums outsourced to specialists, but most compiled it themselves as collaborative efforts between staff members from the Security and Collection Management departments. Results varied from a concrete plan ready in a short time, to a rough sketch, to … nothing for a long, long time. Je t’adore! I would like to tell you a joke at this point. After a long absence, a Frenchman sees his English girlfriend again. He throws open the door, falls on his knees in front of her and says passionately: ‘Je t’adore!’ (I adore you). To which she replies tartly: ‘Shut the door yourself!’ For me, this short joke contains two things that concern risk management. Firstly: Do we understand each other? In other words: Is the communication okay? And secondly: Who closes the door? Are the tasks well allocated? I believe a good plan has to have a good layout, with plain diagrams and lists which make it a clear and comprehensible document. If the language (Dutch in our case) is messy and full of errors, I cannot stop myself from criticising it. After all, a plan of such importance must be compiled with care and precision. Without coherent form, language and presentation, it will be useless. Several plans for one museum It is even more difficult for museums having their collections spread over several locations. If objects are stored elsewhere, separate disaster plans must be compiled for each of these spaces. The same applies to substantial external loans: of course they are insured, but does the receiving museum have an adequate disaster plan for these objects as well? The interview The main threats to the collection were covered in the interviews. Subjects include the organisation of the museum and the procedures to be followed during a disaster; the risks of water, fire, vandalism, burglary and theft; and the evacuation of the collection. Several museums had enormous difficulties indicating the priorities in their collections. By this I mean those objects that have to be evacuated first. Sometimes the underlying problem was that several departments run the organisation, like small islands, with curators who think ‘their’ collection the most important. If the disaster plan was well organised, the interview lasted one to one and a half hours. In such cases, the answers were clear and unambiguous and generally written down in the plan. Longer interviews often meant that some subjects

had to be clarified. During the interviews, we made recommendations and, if necessary, reached an agreement, with a set date, regarding arrangements that had to be made. Recommendations I will tell you some of these recommendations. They make clear what is important to the Inspectorate. Two conditions are at the base of a disaster plan. First, risk analysis: only when the threats are known, can a realistic plan be compiled. Then, tasks and responsibilities must be made explicit, so that afterwards, after that disaster we hoped would never occur, one can confidently say: ‘We were prepared, and we did all we could to control the disaster.’ This brings me to another recommendation we often made. If disaster strikes, who talks to the press? Who writes the press release that must be issued as quickly as possible? The chapter Contact with the press is an essential part of a disaster plan. It will not surprise you that museums that experienced such a disaster, pay much attention to this chapter. One of the most common causes of fire is working with open fire: welding or using a grinding machine, for instance. Hence the recommendation that all instructions are clearly visible and known to the staff. They should not only be made available to the technical staff but included in the disaster plan as well. And have the members of the crisis team (often members of the management) ever followed a course on how to handle fire extinguishers? If you have never exercised with one, you probably have no idea how they work or even how heavy they are. What about restorers? They work with open fire and hazardous materials – do they know how to react if something goes wrong? Evacuation of the collections A crucial part of the plan is evacuating the collections. At this point we often hear ‘Yes, but it is impossible to think of everything!’ You cannot. And you do not have to. Of course, disasters are always unannounced and impossible to predict. Nevertheless, you can be prepared for several situations. You can make sure that a ‘calamity kit’ is placed at strategic points throughout the museum, with tools, materials and first aid equipment. You can compile a list of priorities for each room, compartment, floor or storage space. It is better to have specified the most important objects beforehand, instead of thinking about it on the spot when the worst comes to the worst. Apart from the Fire Department, who should be well informed, who has been appointed to rescue objects and who should know where the most important ones are? Objects that have been damaged by water, for example from a leak or extinguishing a fire, must be taken to safety. Is there a contract with a cold storage facility where wet works of art on paper or books can be taken? Is there transport? Is there alternative storage that can be used in emergencies? And who supervises the evacuation? If the director of Collection Management is absent, who replaces him or her? Who handles the objects during an evacuation? We strongly suggest that staff members – and not only those from Collection Management, but security staff too – follow a course on handling objects in an emergency situation. Such a course can be organised with other museums – no one has to re-invent the wheel by themselves. Thus: collaboration. We stimulate the museums to work together, to help each other and to learn from each other. Integrity There are some sad statistics about theft: some 80% is from within. I think it is important to remember this, and to protect staff members by putting up clear procedures. Unfortunately, the honesty of the staff is an issue that cannot be taboo. Drills Finally, about the disaster plans – it is important to have live drills, but it is also important to sit together around a table and have each person act out his or her role during an emergency. I believe running through the procedures in thought is as important as practising them in deed. Other initiatives There are also several other initiatives in the field of risk management in The Netherlands. Prevention networks A prevention network was started in The Hague a few years ago. With the assistance of the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage and guided by an expert, 19 cultural organisations wrote their disaster plans together. Not only museums, but also archives and libraries participated, as well as the Police and the Fire department. They met frequently, and openly discussed their safety and security problems, thereby learning much from each other. Even though their plans are in place, they still meet once or twice a year. By now, many other cities participate in the prevention programme. This formula, which is again stimulated by the Minister of Culture, is now applied country wide.

All together there will be 60 networks covering 60 regions. Even abroad, in Belgium, for instance, this approach has been adopted. And of course I would strongly recommend you to adopt it as well. National Committee for Museum Security Apart from that, in 2005 a National Committee on Museum Security was finally founded, as a committee of the Dutch Museums Association. It promotes the interests of museums in museum security and facility management. Thus, another network for information and exchange was created. Other developments In The Netherlands, the focus is on museum security in other ways as well. The Dutch government offers the possibility of indemnity for the organiser of important and expensive exhibitions. A condition for acquiring indemnity is adequate risk management. For the salvage of museum objects, books and archives, private initiatives were raised to respond to disasters. 1) Restorers have developed a mobile ‘calamity kit’ to save objects in an emergency. 2) Another group of restorers is developing guidelines on how to treat damaged objects in an emergency, on the spot. 3) Transportation firms and restoration companies offer their services with packaging materials and vans, as well as cold-storage facilities where wet paper can be frozen to prevent further damage pending restoration work. Incident registration Another project is a database for the registration of incidents in cultural heritage. It was started as a pilot project by the Royal Library in The Hague, funded by the Ministry. Intended for museums, archives, libraries, monuments and places of worship, incidents and near-incidents will be registered in this database. Registering incidents will highlight trends and make scientific analysis possible. It will also register those measures that helped reduce the impact of the incident or even prevent it, as well as what went wrong. In this way, best practice and worst practice – mistakes as well as successes – find their place in the database. End users will have access to this information, though some of it will remain confidential. It will be an extremely useful platform for museums to exchange information. A potential flaw is that museums or other organisations may not be willing to provide information on incidents or nearincidents. Yet, since the topic of risks and risk management is becoming increasingly accepted in Holland, we hope that our cultural institutions will not hesitate to share their knowledge, be it worrying or positive, thereby creating helpful new perspectives. Research on museum perimeters As a result of the burglaries in the Van Gogh Museum and the Museon, our Minister of Culture demanded research on the outer structures of museum buildings of former State museums. How easily could they be penetrated? What are the security standards of the buildings themselves? In other words: how well are the museums physically protected? To answer these questions, a pilot project examined three museums in detail. This project reached several conclusions. The main outcome was that there are no universally applicable criteria; the protection of museums is necessarily madeto-measure. All museums are different: the building might be new or an historic monument; it might be in the city centre, in a national park, or near an embassy. Also, the collections vary widely: from paintings by Rembrandt and Van Gogh to humble objects in the Open Air Museum, from tiny insects and huge elephants in the Museum of Natural History to fragile feather decorations in the Museum of Ethnology. All these objects are vulnerable in different ways, and require different types of protection. Another conclusion was that the resistance time – which incorporates detection together with the time a building can withstand fire, water, extreme weather or thieves before the arrival of the relevant emergency services – was often inadequate. For example, if the resistance time of the building is 15 minutes – which seems to be an ‘official’ standard – but the police or private security service can only arrive in 30 minutes, then the fire, water or intruder detection system is sub-standard. Museums need earlier, early warning systems. Of course, detection systems and the strength of the building perimeter are not the only factors. They are integral to good organisational management of the museum: a clear policy and accurate procedures. Integrated risk management Responding to these conclusions, the Minister of Culture requested privatised museums to define their needs for better protection against potential risks and their catastrophic consequences. An inventory of each museum was made highlighting the shortcomings in the impregnability of the building perimeter, in detection and in personnel. The Minister then allocated funds to improve the quality of structural, electronic and organisational measures in the coming years. These measures mean that former State museums, other museums, archives and libraries can receive a subsidy for a risk analysis and for the compilation of an integrated disaster plan.

Again, the State Inspectorate for Cultural Heritage inspects these plans. I hope I have made it clear that the inspection of the disaster plans in the former State museums is not a one-way street. In reviewing the plans, the Inspectorate hopes to contribute to the quality of integrated risk management in the museums. Moreover, the museums have to write their plans themselves. And in an emergency, museum employees are the ones who have to implement it. Information centre At the beginning of next year, 2008, an information centre will be set up, specialised in the protection of cultural heritage. It will spread its knowledge to museums, archives, libraries, monuments and churches over the whole country. It is subsidised, again, by the Ministry of Culture. I am very happy with it: it is very important to have one place where all knowledge is concentrated, and where the whole field of cultural heritage can get help and information. I hope that all these Dutch activities in the field of risk management in museums can work as examples of good practice. I am sure this conference will be a great help to improve the quality of your risk management. It is a lot of work, but it is worth it.

About the author Hanna Pennock studied Art History and Italian Language & Literature at the University of Utrecht. Her field of specialisation is Dutch and Italian 19th century art. She worked as a researcher and organiser of exhibitions in several Dutch museums. Since 1995 she has worked as an inspector at the State Inspectorate for Cultural Heritage, which is part of the Ministry of Culture, Science and Education. The main task of the Inspectorate is the inspection of the privatised State museums to ensure cultural property preservation. Within this organisation Hanna is specialised in museums risk management. She is currently on the board of the International Committee on Museum Security, and is also a member of the Executive Council of ICOM.

Hanna PENNOCK State Inspectorate for Cultural Heritage Collections Division, The Hague, Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]