Festivals and interesting contradictions go hand in hand, in fact, this may be critical to their fundamental appeal. One of their most compelling contradictions, for me, has been the endless dilemma between their undeniable environmental impact and the effect of the ‘green-tinted glasses’ through which it often seems tempting to view them.
How do you get to know more about what kinds of people attended an event?
Two fairly common quantitative approaches to this question are surveys and segmentation. Regarding the latter, we’re talking specifically about geodemographic segmentation, rather than sales or marketing based segmentation.
What if someone was able to do both and compare the difference in results?
Or is this more like a Ghostbusters ‘don’t cross the streams’ kind of thing? Read on and find out.
(Note this is a longer version of an article originally published on Arts Professional : link)
Leicester Arts Festivals (LAF) is a support network consisting of twenty-four arts festivals and a number of supporting organisations, established in 2014. The festivals range in audience size from the hundreds to the hundreds of thousands, from the recently established to the decades old, and between them covering almost every art form, organisational type and event format imaginable in one of the most demographically plural cities in the UK. Amongst other activities, the network completed a year-long research project, collating baseline data and a comparative analysis of audiences from participating members. From twenty-four festivals, eighteen participated in an organisation survey and six participated in a survey of their audiences. Some interesting highlights and relevant issues for the wider festival and event community to consider are suggested below.
I have been experimenting with cheap, small cameras that could be used to capture lots of footage over a long period of time.
This is what I call a BOAFP (Back Of A Fag Packet) Research paper, quickly put together for the Face Your Elephant project.
That’s a picture of Rudolf Diesel y’know. Anyway…
I estimate the fuel bill for Latitude festival is at least £80,000 – £90,000 on a typical year. (inc VAT & Delivery)
They use an average of 97,000 litres (over 4 years data 2009-2012 from the JB report) – or 107,000 litres if we include biodiesel.
The price of Red diesel I have assumed at an average of 66.90 per litre (not including VAT) as provided by this price aggregator (surprisingly this has fallen nearly 10p a litre from 2012-2014)
This is a ‘1000 litre’ price so takes into account bulk purchasing effects. I have elsewhere been quoted on a 20,000 litre price – I don’t know if this is a factor of oil tankers generally being about 20,000 capacity or suppliers only having so much available. Anyway the savings from 1000 to 20,000 are not substantial and could even be offset by the trouble perhaps of sourcing from a number of different suppliers, many deliveries.
Biodiesel is a bit harder to figure out, especially if we’re looking for Waste Veg Oil / Used Cooking Oil rather than Biodiesel produced from feedstock / ‘new’ crops. Overall I think it is quite a bit more expensive than regular diesel, probably as there is lower demand and fewer suppliers. It is harder to find an average price but from some browsing £1.00 a litre seems a target price that suppliers advertise (and this includes VAT+Delivery). Even if it is the greener option, there’s still a strong cost motive to encourage efficiency and reduce demand first of all.
The headline estimate above doesn’t take biodiesel into account, as it is hard to establish an average price, but for the sake of completion, Latitude uses an average of 13,500 liters of biodiesel a year – at £1 a liter would add around £10,000 to the estimates above, even taking into account the red diesel it replaces.
Shambala uses an average of 17,000 litres (5 year average) and the vast majority of it is Biodiesel. So their bill is £10,000-£12,000 based on red diesel prices, or £17,000 based on biodiesel. While it is approx. 2.5 times smaller than Latitude (based on ‘person-days), Shambala also appears to be approx. 2.5 more efficient in terms of diesel used ‘per head’. To put it another way, if Latitude could match Shambalas efficiency, their fuel bill could be around £30,000. Are bigger events naturally more inefficient? Frankly I always thought the opposite was true; economies of scale and so on.
Finally there is also bottled gas: 2500 lt average for shambala vs 15,000 lt for Latitude. Canisters are rated in kg though, which translates into roughly double that amount in litres (a 50kg gas bottle = 100 litres). Don’t know if this is propane or butane- or if that makes much of a difference. More quick browsing suggests that 25-40p a liter is about what a domestic customer can buy gas for. So an additional £700-£1100 for Shambala and £4400-£7000 to Latitude. Not much by comparison and for other reasons certainly preferable for heating large amounts of water.
In terms of who is using the power at festivals, the JB report breaks down total consumption to core/production/site and concessions/traders. This ratio varies quite a bit across years, but generally the core consumption is higher than the traders. At Latitude, it’s approx. 6:1 whereas at Shambala 3:1 . Therefore at a smaller festival, the traders make up a larger proportion of consumption than at a larger festival. Of course the stages are physically bigger and higher specced (more lights!) – could also speculate that bigger names = bigger tour buses = bigger backstage/production village. Or perhaps many of the smaller stages at Shambala are ‘lumped in’ with the concession consumption.
Ultimately in terms of pitching the work needed to make energy savings to festival organisers I think we are close to the “1% saving = £1000 saving” mark – even what seems like a small reduction would pay off.
Aside from addition carbon savings (which is obviously a good thing) there could also be delivery breaks – if you can save an entire tankers-worth (10-20%) or downscale one 20,000 litre tanker to a 10,000 – there’s maybe another few hundred pounds or so in delivery costs alone. No one wants to have to order 20,001 litres!
Assuming it’s similar at Festival Republics’ six other main events (of which there are 3x in the UK 1x in Ireland, 1x in Norway and 1x in Germany) – this makes a yearly cost of £480,000- £540,000. That 1% = ~ £1000 saving per festival becomes 1% = ~£5000 per year. And that’s saved every year, for the foreseeable future, while energy prices presumably continue to rise (although as pointed out earlier, red diesel is falling in the short term at least)
So – implement solution XYZ, save 1% of energy used, save £25,000 in 5 years?
Or have a target to save 1% year-on-year for 5 years – that’s £75,000 over 5 years?
(NB: if you have an idea for solution XYZ please let us know!)
Richard Fletcher – firstname.lastname@example.org
Here’s a chunk from a book chapter I’ve written, about festivals and sustainability, to go in a text book “Festivals in Focus” due to be published some time in early 2015 by Goodfellows. I will post more info about the full book here when it’s actually on shelves. If you really want to read more of my work-related writings, then check out my Portfolio page, a lot of them are downloadable.
“Festivals of Transition: Greenlight Festival, Leicester”
The Brundtland Commission in its report “Our Common Future” is widely credited with setting down the first policy definition of sustainable development. In 2017 this report will be thirty years old yet it seems we are still a long way from living sustainably:
“If, as of 2017, there is not a start of a major wave of new and clean investments, the door to 2 degrees [global temperature increase] will be closed.” (Birol, 2011)
Green policies have been ‘adapted and adopted’ by mainstream parties across Europe, despite Green parties being a relatively small political force (Carter, 2013). The European Commission has become a worldwide driver of green policy (Judge, 1993) and market-based innovations such as the Emissions Trading System , despite being celebrated and criticised in seemingly equal measure. Media coverage of ‘outsider’ party growth in the UK has swung towards the libertarian and anti-Europe UKIP recently, despite comparable and longer term growth in support for the Greens (Goodwin & Ford, 2013) Efforts have been made to disassociate Green voices from older clichés of self-deprivation:
“The Green party has changed: partly the personalities within it, partly in response to the changing world outside it….At the same time, ideas that were mainly theoretical 25 years ago – solar and wind technology- have been demonstrably workable…The Greens have become the party of possibilities, not catastrophes.” (Williams, 2014)
One attempt to imagine a sustainable future can be found in ‘The World We Made’, written by Johnathon Porritt from the perspective of a school teacher in the year 2050. The positives of huge renewable investments, progressive economic policies and a panoply of exciting new technologies are matched with equally plausible negatives of stubborn inequality, famines and riots. In the postscript, Porritt states:
“If we can’t deliver the necessarily limited vision of a better world mapped out in ‘The World We Made’, then the hard truth is that no other vision will be available to us anyway, on any terms.” (Porritt, 2013)
This sentiment captures the outlook of many contemporary green voices. There will be a shift away from a carbon-driven economy, and it is one we can meet with shock and collapse or with prescience and resilience. This essay aims to discuss how a proactive approach to sustainability is reflected in the UK’s festivals sector and in the views of the Transition Network in Leicester and its Greenlight Festival (GLF) of which the author is a founder member. The eponymous ‘transition’ refers to a world not only without cheap access to fossil fuels and the avoidance of (further) catastrophic climate change; but also to wider socio-economic changes culminating in a more equitable, enjoyable and even enlightened future.
Nationally, the Transition Network was formed in late 2006 . At the time of writing, the Transition website lists 475 officially registered Transition Initiatives (Transition Network, 2014a) while the Draft Transition Network Strategy gives a figure of 1,120 across 43 countries. (Transition Network, 2014b) A further estimate of local, community-based groups focusing on climate action in 13 EU countries gave a total of 1999, of which 841 were identified as Transition initiatives, 367 being based in the UK. (O’Hara, 2013) Transition Initiatives are characterised by their community-led approach to organisation. These voluntary initiatives are set up by individuals, with information and advice from the larger network, and commonly span geographic areas such as towns, cities, neighbourhoods and national hubs. The implications of this emergent, small scale yet direct approach embodied by Transition are summarized on their website:
“We’re not saying that national governments are irrelevant or that institutions like businesses aren’t important…What we are saying is that for most people, their own local community is where they can have the quickest and greatest impact…when governments see what communities can do…it’ll be easier for them to make decisions that support this work.” (Transition Network, 2014c)
Transition Leicester, the 45th official Transition initiative, was set up in 2008 and to date has acted as an umbrella organisation, or launching pad, for a number of sustainability projects. Practical projects include community supported agriculture (providing around 30 co-op members with a weekly organic veg-box) community owned renewable energy schemes (with £550,000 in shares invested) and a “swap shop” offering clothes, books and communally owned tools and bicycles. Educational projects include accredited Permaculture design courses, ‘Footpaths’ group meetings and a number of informal skill sharing sessions. While here we have divided these projects into ‘practical’ and ‘educational’, the reality is that the majority of activities retain a strong social learning and community building focus. What role do festivals take in this scenario?
Festivals are commonly defined as periodic events that have as their core function, the embodiment of a defined community’s identity and its historical continuity (Falassi, 1987); this does not have to be explicitly stated as an aim or desired outcome. A festival can also more directly act as a platform for promotion, experimentation, recruitment, networking, trade and leisure. The community-building dimensions of festivals are clearly appealing to Transition groups. We could even suggest that more formal Transition events such as workshops, annual general meetings commonly exhibit certain festival characteristics; a blend of entertainment, information, participatory activities, frequently free of charge and open in some way to the general public. We are not suggesting that festivals are unique to this context, but we may consider what particular relevance they have in the wider discourse of culture and sustainability.
Sustainability has been addressed by cultural festivals and the wider events sector principally as an environmental issue, and it cannot be denied that these temporary cities, commonly fuelled by diesel generators on the one hand and hedonism on the other, have substantial direct and indirect impacts on the natural environment. Non-profit organisations targeting environmental impacts such as Julie’s Bicycle and A Greener Festival have emerged in the UK in the late 2000s, though we may assume longer established festivals and networks will have considered environmental issues prior to this. In Europe, Yourope and GO Events perform a similar role. These groups promote self-regulation and best practice via conferences, online resources and various award schemes; we may identify personal vindications and good PR value as key drivers alongside financial savings. The increasing costs related to energy and/or fuel, waste management (particularly landfill) is a trend likely to continue.
Harder regulations affecting festivals vary across local authority boundaries, although authorities may also see the balance of benefits outweighing the costs; the benefits principally being economic, media coverage and loosely defined social dimensions of cohesion or civic pride and the costs principally being environmental, also social (crime, congestion) and potentially economic whether the authority is invested directly or only via the indirect costs of licensing, policing and other essential services. The development of British Standard BS8901, since replaced by International Standard ISO20121, for Event Sustainability Management, has raised awareness at a corporate level but it is predicted that its impact may increase if it is included as a ‘hard’ criteria for applications for an event licence or public funding. There are currently no cases to the author’s knowledge where this has actually been enforced, however large-scale event organisers agree that certification offers substantial real world and ‘prestige’ benefits. (International Standards Organisation, 2013). Importantly, and notably unlike the industry-led schemes, ISO20121 treats sustainability as an economic, social and environmental objective, not solely an environmental one.
Additionally, Arts Council England recently became the first arts funding body in the world to make environmental reporting a pre-requisite of its larger funding schemes. In the first year 90% of organisations engaged in the programme and 63% were able to provide data sufficient for reliable analysis (Julie’s Bicycle, 2014). Festivals commonly span private, public and voluntary sectors, and with results from only one year to date, it is difficult to estimate how much this specific change has affected them, but it is a further sign to other funders and local authorities on how regulation can be put into effect.
The physical space in which any festival occurs, is arguably of less importance than the wider cultural and social factors associated with this geography. In 1986, Leicester was the first city in the UK to launch a city-wide Ecology Strategy. The ‘Eco House’, an environmental show home was opened in 1989 and in 1990 the city was designated as Britain’s first Environment City  and in 1996 was one of five awarded a European Sustainable City Award . The city continued to engage with national and international campaigns; it became a Fairtrade city in 2002, joined the 10:10 campaign and was ranked second on the “Sustainable cities index” (Forum for the Future, 2010). The city’s parks and open spaces frequently win awards such as the Green Flag. It is worth noting that Leicester City Council has been under Labour control, essentially without interruption, from 1979. The centre-left modern Labour party may be to the right of most European Green parties, at least at a national level. However, its general stance has been broadly pro-environmental regulation (particularly the Climate Change Act, 2008) and pro-localism; albeit within the context of a free-market.
In the author’s experience, the environmental side of Leicester’s civic heritage does not seem to have played a great part within the city’s modern identity . The relationship of environmentalism and the natural environment to civic identity is a subject of debate in its own right. Place attachment and pro-environmental action has been found in some cases to be more associated with natural, rather than civic dimensions of place (Scannell & Gifford, 2010), whilst at the same time, civic and political engagement has been identified as a key pre-cursor to pro-environmental action (Chawla & Cushing, 2007)
—- continued in the book ! —–