While museums are working hard to reduce their carbon footprint, fine art insurers are doing their part to support greener museum practices—but with a caveat. Physical protection and preservation of the insured objects must come first.

Insurers expect museums to prioritize object protection and act in their best interest. But what happens when sustainability goals come into tension with preservation risks? I surveyed fine art insurance underwriters on this topic to find out how insurers are responding to museum sustainability initiatives. Underwriters generally support museum efforts to reduce their environmental impact, which often—but not always—come in tandem with advancements in object preservation and protection.

Tailoring Environmental Conditions

Over the past several decades, museum professionals have done extensive research evaluating climate parameters beyond the rigid 50/70 rule (50 percent ±5 percent relative humidity [RH] and 70° F ±2°). The data is clear: shifting to more flexible, tailored climate strategies benefits both the objects and the planet.

In tailoring their approach to climate control, museums should consider the following:

Type of collections: Different materials (e.g., paper, textiles, metals) have varying sensitivities to temperature and humidity.

Microclimate potential: Using microclimates to create controlled environments within display cases or specific areas within the museum can protect sensitive artifacts.

Environmental conditions: Regional climate and seasonal variation influence indoor control needs.

Building infrastructure: The design and insulation of the museum building affect its ability to maintain stable environmental conditions.

When underwriting museum risk, fine art insurers review facility reports, focusing on HVAC systems—such as their age, monitoring protocols, and response procedures for temperature or humidity deviations.

While underwriters are interested in the long-term preservation of cultural objects, their main concern is the risk of sudden events that cause damage to the objects. This is because most property insurance policies exclude coverage for gradual deterioration. In the context of insurance, gradual deterioration refers to damage that occurs slowly over time, in contrast to a sudden, unexpected event. Insurance is designed for sudden, accidental losses, such as an HVAC system breaking down or a hurricane causing the building to lose power.

Therefore, a shift in a museum’s overall climate control strategy generally does not affect an underwriter’s assessment. What matters most is the museum’s ability to monitor and respond quickly to deviations. That said, a museum’s efforts to properly maintain and continually improve its climate control system demonstrates its commitment to due diligence and long-term preservation of the collection, which is something that underwriters seek when assessing risks.

Art Out at Sea

The second element of the Bizot Green Protocol is the preference for greener transit methods—finding alternatives to air freight wherever possible. According to the Gallery Climate Coalition: “for every ton of artwork, air freight produces around 10 times more CO2e [carbon dioxide equivalent] than freighting the same distance by road, and around 60 times more CO2e than the same distance by sea.” However, while sending art out to sea may seem like an obvious way for museums to reduce their CO2 emissions, the risks to objects make this a much less desirable transportation method.

Artwork is particularly vulnerable to potential damage when transported. Approximately 60 percent of fine art claims are related to artwork damaged while in transit and vulnerable to inadequate packing, being dropped, or improper temperature controls during shipment. Historically, the higher risk of sea freight compared to air freight has made both the art market and art insurers wary of the transit method for three significant reasons.

First, there is very limited oversight of artwork-packed containers at ports and onboard. Even if specific container placement directions are requested on the bill of lading, there is no guarantee that these directions will be followed at the port during freight loading. While tracking and climate monitoring devices can be placed in crates, they are less accurate when ships are out at sea. Furthermore, there is very little action that can realistically be taken if a tracker senses trouble.

Second, most artwork is highly sensitive to changes in temperature and humidity. According to studies on ocean cargo transit, the typical temperature range inside a shipping container can fluctuate between -21° F and 135° F, while relative humidity can vary from 40 percent to 90 percent. A museum can use a climate-controlled shipping container, but, again, if there are issues with the climate system, there is little that can be done when the ship is out at sea.

Finally, there is the issue of time. Rather than a few days, shipment by sea can take weeks, prolonging the period in which the objects are at risk and outside of the owner’s control. Unpredictable delays are also common once a voyage has begun.

Fine art insurance policies typically do not prohibit sea freight, but museums should be in touch with their broker if they plan to use this method of transit so that insurers are notified. Although sea freight is not a recommended mode of transport for artwork, underwriters know that it is sometimes the only option for very large artworks that cannot fit in air cargo holds. Fine art insurers overwhelmingly indicated that they generally do not support the use of sea freight unless air transport is not feasible. In addition, the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Program, administered by the National Endowment for the Arts, does not allow indemnified exhibitions to be transported by sea freight.

Ocean Transport Tips

• Consult with a conservator to determine if an object’s condition is stable enough to withstand ocean transit. An “object-first” approach prioritizes the object’s preservation and protection when planning transportation, exhibition, and display.
• Use temperature-controlled reefer Grade A containers, and ensure that artworks are packed in exclusive FCL (full container load) containers. FCL containers minimize handling, improve security, and reduce the risk of contamination inherent in LCL (less than container load) shipments, where multiple cargoes share space in the same container. Ensure the container is packed properly to allow for adequate airflow.
• Work with conservators to determine the appropriate amount of absorption materials, such as absorption poles and desiccants, to include inside the container. These materials help manage humidity and reduce condensation during the voyage.

Packing and Couriering

“Approximately 60 percent of fine art claims are related to artwork damaged while in transit and vulnerable to inadequate packing, being dropped, or improper temperature controls during shipment.”

Reusable crates and components could become the new gold standard. In addition to their sustainability, they can reduce costs and improve performance over time. Traditional wood crates and plastic heavy packaging materials are often designed for single use and then discarded. This practice has been under scrutiny for decades, and creative solutions abound for greener alternatives.

However, a crate that reduces CO2 emissions but increases art damage is not a viable solution. Key considerations on art crating include the following.

Deterioration is cumulative. Like damage from light exposure, vibration- and shock-related deterioration in objects is cumulative. No molecular or structural bonds are restored by resting an object between exhibitions and travel. Effective packing helps manage the remaining “vibration life” of an object—that is, the extent to which it can safely withstand movement before sustaining damage.

Aim to dampen vibrations. As chronicled in the Crating 101 webinar (see Resources at right), studies by conservators and engineers at the Georgia O’Keeffe Museum revealed that reducing an object’s vibration amplitude by only 50 percent using proper packing technologies extends the remaining travel-life of that object up to 16 times. For this reason, the primary goal of good packing is reducing the vibration amplitudes.

Build a box within a box. According to a 2020 technical bulletin from the Canadian Conservation Institute, a “box within a box” approach for managing shock, vibration, and climate control is best practice. Properly isolating the object helps reduce the likelihood and severity of damage.

Mass matters. Heavier, large crates that carry multiple items are more efficient; they also lower carbon, waste, and persistent toxicity, per object transported. Larger crates are much harder to vibrate, have a much lower frequency of drops and collisions, and are generally better built. They are also easier to reuse when properly refitted with new inner compartments.

Underwriters support the use of more sustainable packing materials—if there is no reduction in the level of protection for the objects being transported. If reusable materials do not sufficiently isolate the object from shock, climate, and vibration, they should be reconsidered.

Transit Oversight

For oversight of art movement, fine art insurers still prefer physical couriers, especially for very-high-value transits. A courier’s function is best executed when they are physically present with the object, both in transit and during installation/deinstallation. Not only do they actively prevent accidents, but they also advocate for the object during travel challenges and changes. Alternatives such as virtual, bookend, or shared couriers are great tools to use when the museum deems them appropriate and can reduce costs and carbon footprint. In assessing the requirement for any kind of courier, the museum should base their decision on a risk assessment for the object and staff involved.

Object protection aside, couriering has incredible value for museum professional development and training. Virtual couriering is relatively new and relies on the accumulated experience of registrars—professionals who have been on the tarmacs, worked directly with borrowing institutions, and handled unexpected transit challenges. What happens when new generations of museum staff don’t get that experience and lose out on that professional development? It’s too early to see any impact in museum claim data now, but fine art insurers will always reinforce the critical importance of a well-seasoned registrar when it comes to protecting art.

As museums strive to balance sustainability initiatives with the preservation of cultural heritage, collaboration between fine art insurers and cultural institutions becomes increasingly vital. While museums are innovating with tailored climate strategies and exploring sustainable transit options, insurers remain focused on the physical protection and preservation of objects. Easy sustainability wins include longer exhibitions, consolidating shipments, and switching to more eco-friendly packing materials. Other practices, such as transit methods and oversight, require museums to take a more tailored approach.

In all sustainability initiatives, museums should adopt an object-first approach that seeks to prioritize the protection and preservation of cultural heritage while minimizing environmental impact. This ensures that future generations can continue to appreciate and protect our shared cultural heritage.

Resources

“The Bizot Green Protocol,” Bizot Group, September 2023 – Access the PDF

“Crating 101” (online webinar), American Institute for Conservation, Foundation for Advancement in Conservation – More details

“Insurance for Sea Freight,” Gallery Climate Coalition – Access the resource

---

Adrienne F. Reid, CIC, is Senior Vice President at Huntington T. Block Insurance Agency in Houston, Texas, and has been working in fine art insurance for over 20 years. She currently provides fine art insurance broker services for museums, universities, collectors, and art shippers. Find her on LinkedIn at linkedin.com/in/adriennereidcic.