On February 27, 2002, the Riigikogu adopted a new Conservation Act that, in essence, was the 1994 version with some changes. The act was amended on March 21, 2011 to include clauses concerning underwater heritage and the use of a search devices for searching monuments of cultural value.
The Republic of Estonia has acceded to several international, inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations dealing with matters of heritage protection, such as UNESCO, ICOMOS, ICOM, ICCROM, DOCOMOMO, the Council of Europe, the European Commission (projects), EAC (archaeology), EAA (archaeologists) and ASCE (cemeteries). Every autumn, Estonia celebrates together with the rest of Europe the European Heritage Days. Tallinn Old Town was included in the list of UNESCO World Heritage Sites in 1997 and the Struve Geodetic Arc with three main station points in Estonia was included in the same list in 2005. The Kihnu Cultural Space (in 2003), Seto Culture (in 2009) and the Baltic Song and Dance Celebrations (in 2003) have been included in the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists.
In addition to the Estonian Heritage Society, several other organisations have been established aiming toprotect and oversee the use of monuments, including the Association of Estonian Manor Schools, the Estonian Manor Association, the non-profit organisation MTÜ Eesti Veskivaramu uniting people treasuring Estonian mills and the Estonian Heritage Protection Roundtable. Following the example of the centres for building maintenance in Sweden and with direct help from the Kingdom of Sweden, Information Centre for Sustainable Renovation (SRIK) was established.
The Government of the Republic has approved several state programmes for preserving various monuments. The development agenda of the National Heritage Board has been approved stemming from the notion that intangible and tangible heritage are inseparable and that there should be a move from the protection of individual monuments towards environmental protection. There is nothing new in this notion, however, as it was in 1966 that this approach was first adopted.
As of December 1, 2012 the number of monuments under protection amounted to 26,727, including 1,267 historical, 6,624 archaeological, 5,254 architectural, 13,516 artistic and 50 technological monuments and 12 conservation areas. The main issue posing problems is, and most likely will be in the nearest future, the lack of resources, including lack of human recourses. In addition to the administrative agreements with Haapsalu and Tallinn, similar agreements have been concluded with Tartu and Pärnu. Cooperation agreements with universities, other civil services, NGOs, etc. have also been concluded.
Ülo Puustak is the former Head of the Conservation Department of the National Heritage Board
Epp Lankots, Leele Välja
MAPPING AND ANALYSING VALUABLE 20TH – CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN ESTONIA
In 2007 the Ministry of Culture and the National Heritage Board initiated a programme “Mapping and analysing valuable 20th-century architecture in Estonia” in order to survey the most important and still existing sites that represent the 20th century architectural heritage in the whole country. The main idea was to point out the most eminent and valuable of it in order to avoid the situation where valuable buildings are demolished for pragmatic reasons or due to politics of the day without perceiving their eternal values.
The vulnerability of the 20th-century architecture has been an undisguised problem since Estonia restored its independence. So far, it has been mainly expressed by careless rebuilding of houses and replacement of windows. The true trigger that initiated a national survey and informed the general public about the value of recent heritage was the demolition of the only twenty-years-old Sakala Centre (former House of Political Education) that symbolised outstandingly the times it was built. This sort of recklessness has its own background. The 20th-century architecture, especially from the second half of the century, is new for heritage: common people perceive it as ordinary, not as an historical structure. In addition to that, the assessment of the post-WW II i.e. the Soviet time architecture is complicated because of ideological and personal reasons.
The programme focused on the period from 1870 to 1991. Why this period? Since the general influence of industrial and technological development to the 20th-century manmade environment and the specific changes and qualities in the architecture and urban development characteristic of the last century appeared already before the turn of the century the year 1870 as an initial date was chosen. This was the year of the establishment of the railway system that influenced substantially the development of Estonia. The year 1991 marks the end of one era: the environment created during the period of the restoration of independence in Estonia is too young for evaluating it from the heritage point of view.
During the period from 2007 to 2009 the first stage of the project funded by the Ministry of Culture and the Cultural Endowment of Estonia was carried out under the leadership of the National Heritage Board. As a result, a total of 20 comprehensive fieldwork reports covering all counties (15) and larger towns (Tallinn, Tartu, Pärnu) were prepared. The aim of this stage was to get an idea about the preserved heritage built in different places in Estonia and to find out in what state it was. If eventually only few samples located in counties will be listed as national cultural heritage the database of the 20th-century buildings will remain, offering wide range of opportunities for local governments and promoters of tourism.
An important benchmark for the initiators of the programme was the idea that the 20th-century architectural heritage in Estonia is extremely diverse and it needs to be protected and recorded according to its typological diversity: starting from urban planning and landscaping to summer houses and micro architecture.
The most important aspect of the mapping was probably the methodological shift that differentiates between the “out of date” treatment of heritage and the contemporary approach when it comes to the selection of buildings and areas to be protected. Just like in general history, including the history of art and architecture, the attention has been shifting from important events, persons and buildings to common people and the everyday environment and, therefore, the list of cultural heritage cannot be based on the “cult of monuments”. It means that the choices made during the fieldwork in counties were not based only on the purity of style and uniqueness of buildings or the name of an architect but the vernacular architecture and civil engineering, as well as typical buildings and environments were considered as important.
The sites to be listed as cultural heritage in the future should reflect different (space specific) identities, i.e. the values cannot be absolute but depend on the location, region and other factors.
The principle of vitality was the other important aspect taken into account. It means that new sites should be protected in places where the building has a future and where it is needed. The protection only helps to retain the main characteristics of buildings during the possible renovation. Authenticity of a building was the third principle kept in mind during the mapping. This was important even in the case when a site did not represent the best architecture of its time but had retained most of the characteristic details.
Sindi hydroelectric power station established in 1930 is a good example of an authentic industrial facility that has been preserved since the first independence period. Within the framework of the project an expert report was drawn up on the building. Photo by Leele Välja
The Art Nouveau-Neo Classical officers’ casino built near the Rohuküla military port is an exciting find in terms of architectural history. Its original design is deposited in the Estonian Historical Archives. Photo by Tõnis Padu
Massiaru school in Pärnu County designed by architect Märt Merivälja has