Guest Blog: Museum Loans and Climate Change by Simon Lambert

Climate change reduction is top priority for everyone. Many museums worldwide are taking significant steps to reduce waste and utilities use. The museum loans industry is also investigating how it can make a positive contribution. The International Exhibitions Organisation (IEO) is leading discussions on how museums can reduce their carbon footprint by relaxing the acceptable relative humidity and temperature ranges. The International Convention of Exhibition and Fine Art Transporters (ICEFAT) has adopted guidelines to encourage its members to ‘green’ their operations. However, all this comes with its share of contradictions.

While museums aim to lessen their impact on the environment, they also face growing demands to increase their loan activities. Meanwhile, exhibition budgets everywhere are being slashed. The UK Museums Association’s 2009 report on Sustainability and Museums showed the growing interest of the museum sector in the “triple-bottom-line” approach, which considers the social, environmental and economic impacts of decisions and actions. But how do museums balance the environmental impact with the social and economic benefits from lending collections?

Through a close and fruitful collaboration with the National Museum Wales, UK, a new carbon footprinting tool for museum loans was developed in 2009. It allows museums to quantify the impact of their use of wrapping materials, packing cases, transport and couriering and offset this against the number of loans made. The Museum’s Art Department kindly granted full access to its loan documentation, enabling the calculation of its 2006 loans carbon footprint along with several evidence-based recommendations to reduce it.

This pilot project defined a performance indicator for sustainable loans (SLpi), allowing museums to rate the triple-bottom-line alignment of their loan activities themselves. With this indicator, it is possible to determine how well a museum is using its carbon footprint to increase access to its collection through loans. For the time being, the loan carbon footprinting tool focuses on outward loans of single institutions, but it could be used for entire travelling exhibitions (several institutions and venues).

The results of this study and the user-friendly calculation tools will be made available in 2011 but any museums wishing to trial the method should contact the author at simonlambert9@gmail.com.

Simon recently received his MSc Care of Collections from Cardiff University, UK. He also has a BA in art history and Italian literature (Canada) and a Laurea in paintings conservation (Italy). He currently works as a consultant for the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property in Rome (ICCROM).

Quadruple Bottom Line: People, Planet, Profit AND Program

Believe it or not, the world is beginning to get used to a Triple Bottom Line, not just the usual single one of cold hard cash.

The Triple Bottom Line is the 'valuation' of the good an activity does for three important criteria: the people (staff, customers, community, the world). the planet (from the immediate surroundings, to your bio region, to the world), and for profits.

Well now it's time for a Quadruple Bottom Line - add a fourth "P" - Program.

For museums this is critical. We always consider our mission - our program - in decision-making. Well when you're considering a green practice, it matters how green affects, supports, or interferes with programming. So add it to your equation as you try to balance it all.

Here's an example: Someone has suggested that when you replace the roof membrane on your building, that you consider a green roof. After you get through sorting out whether or not your structure is appropriate for a green roof, consider the good it does for each of the four "Ps".

People: With a sturdy fence around it, and the right construction, the green roof can be good for People because it provides a green outdoor space far more pleasant than a classroom, more flexible than an exhibit, and way more relaxing than a picnic table by the loading dock.

Planet: It's good for the Planet insofar as it reduces energy use: by reducing heat-island effects it reduces the cooling needs inside your building and in the area around your building, and it provides more insulation in winter. It also creates a teeny bit of natural habitat, and helps manage stormwater runoff by slowing down the runoff and cleaning it up. If you capture and reuse the runoff you help the Planet even more.

Profit: Up front the green roof may not help profit, but if you have to replace parts of the roof anyway, the first-costs are well under control; and since a green roof by nature protects the membrane from sun degradation, you'll get a longer life out of your entire roof. So by saving energy, reducing water use, making the roof last longer, and timing the build with a necessary renovation, it's sounding like a great investment.

Program: And if you can use this space for educational programs like growing a Victory Garden or teaching about bugs and butterflies; or you can use it for financial sustainability: to compliment your cafe (like the one at the MCA Denver in the photo) or to host fundraising events, or as a setting for yoga for mom's while kids play, you're on the plus side again.

So, when you make that next decision about a green practice or project, consider the whole bottom line, QBL, so your choice makes sense for the whole museum, not just one quarter of it.