Museum collection repositories are not just for museums — they're for all of us. Museums safeguard the objects entrusted to them on behalf of everyone, not for their own amusement. These collections are a shared national treasure, carefully and thoughtfully assembled to preserve the past and help us make sense of the present and the future. That mission is especially vital today, in a world where maintaining perspective requires effort on every front. So when the state fails to properly care for museum collections, it's not just the museums that suffer — it's all of us. And when it comes to this issue, we are certainly not doing well.

The only way to keep the past alive in the future

Once at Kumu, I overheard a conversation where someone asked, "So this is the exhibition part, but why do they need the rest of the building?" Museums are often equated with their exhibitions, but it's the quieter, behind-the-scenes work of collecting and preserving that not only makes exhibitions possible but also safeguards cultural value for future generations. This work is done in museums with love and without much fanfare, though such an essential task certainly deserves more attention and better conditions. At Kumu, the situation is almost good in terms of conditions — except that storage space is already running out.

It's a very positive sign that museums and the state have initiated and invested in the heritage repository project. The state has already poured hundreds of thousands of euros and work hours into analyzing the current condition of storage facilities. Such a large-scale undertaking requires thorough preparation, but without a comprehensive solution, it becomes just another cost to society. This preparation includes comparing different types of repositories, mapping the state of museum collections and storage facilities, assessing risks, analyzing services, preparing architectural competitions and more. Paradoxically, part of the money has gone toward convincing politicians — who, as we know, change. The recommendation here is to move more boldly toward implementation so that all this time and effort won't have been wasted.

What if bombs should fall?

One aspect we've had to analyze when it comes to preserving the national cultural heritage is risk. Although this topic deserves a more in-depth piece of its own, I'll address it here as well due to its current relevance. Broadly speaking, risks can be divided into two major categories: wartime risks and peacetime risks. We talk a lot about the first — especially in the context of heritage repositories — where the concern is often raised that "a single bomb could wipe out all our valuable cultural heritage."

But looking at the facts, that's simply not true. Even today, some of the most valuable museum items — held by the Art Museum of Estonia, the Estonian History Museum and the Estonian National Museum — are stored separately in three large repositories. Just the collections of the Estonian National Museum alone account for a quarter of all state-owned collections. While the planned heritage repository will house two million items, Estonia's museums collectively hold 6.9 million. The plan includes two larger repositories and a smaller one on Hiiumaa, with the Saaremaa Museum's collections remaining on Saaremaa.

The facts show that the situation is far more varied and complex than one bomb could destroy. Yes, an explosion is a risk — but it's far from the only one. If the state fails to provide adequate conditions for museums, and if the Kanut Conservation and Digitization Center does not receive new workspaces, the collections we own will remain at significant risk, even without war. In addition, every museum needs to hire a full team of conservators to truly preserve its collections. So far, only a few large museums have been able to afford this, but the repository project involves 24 different museums.

It's true that heritage repositories are the best and most rational solution for mitigating peacetime risks. But they also make it easier and more effective to implement wartime contingency plans from a centralized and well-organized location. We must prepare seriously for threats, but risks must be weighed strategically — so we don't lose sight of what we've worked so hard to protect.

Let us approach the matter strategically

Building heritage repositories is a strategic approach to preserving property that belongs to all of us. The responsibility for safeguarding this heritage is ours alone — not any other country's — because these objects are essential for the continuity of Estonia's memory and identity.

Beyond protecting our priceless heritage, shared repositories make it possible to organize collections and reduce duplication, thereby improving their quality. What we keep should truly be the crème de la crème!

Estonia's central conservation and digitization center for museums could move from the Old Town of Tallinn into modern working conditions. There would no longer be a need to deal with the smell of pancakes from the ventilation system or to perform risky feats of strength to move objects through cramped, tall rooms.

It is far more efficient to develop preservation expertise in specialized repository centers, where the proper equipment and climate controls are available. This is how we can also train the next generation of preservation specialists. Such centers would also support research in the field, enabling Estonia to contribute internationally and serve as a key practical training base in the region.

Right now, it is extremely important for the state to be able to effectively manage the risks associated with safeguarding cultural heritage — including in the event of war. In this context, efficiency means a better chance of saving objects when danger strikes. In times of crisis, the importance of these collections only increases. There is a reason why "memory" is in the name of memory institutions — they exist so that a nation remembers.

As we can see, this is not just another concrete construction project, but a carefully planned solution that, in the end, saves taxpayers money while addressing a wide range of challenges. At least 95 percent of collections are kept in storage at all times (and this is not unique to Estonia); they can only be viewed daily in digital form on the website muis.ee. Safeguarding the physical collections of museums is a fundamental need for the state and the people — something that must be done, regardless of how difficult the circumstances. Even if it has to be step by step.

Key figures and facts:

• Planning for a heritage repository for Tallinn's museums began as early as 2004; nationwide heritage repositories have been in the works since 2016.
• In 2018, the government at the time approved the plan and recognized it as a worthy endeavor.
• Estonia's museums house 6.9 million items; about 30 percent of these are slated to be stored in heritage repositories.
• Last year, the estimated cost of the project was €60 million (excluding VAT).
• Since 2016, over €200,000 has been invested in the heritage repository project.

The author is a master's student in the University of Tartu's "Managing Societal Change" program.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!