Introduction

The Youth Olympic Games (YOG) officially began as an unanimous decision at the IOC Session in Guatemala in 2007. The President of the IOC at the time, Dr Jacques Rogge, was the initiator of the first new global Olympic event since the introduction of the Winter Games in 1924. The establishment of YOG stands out as one of the most important legacies of the Rogge presidency. The motives for establishing this new event were manifold, including the objectives to attract young people to Olympism and the Olympic Games, to strengthen the Olympic Movement’s position in relation to other sports competitions, and to make a significant contribution towards addressing problems facing the youth worldwide, like obesity. The result was IOC’s setting up a multi-sport competition for the best athletes in the age group of 15 to 18 years that could both develop their skills as role models for youth in their communities and educate them as upcoming Olympians.

There may be some debate about how well suited the YOG is for reaching these goals, but it seems clear that one should consider the establishment of the YOG as a step towards a significant attempt to revive Olympic values. President Rogge has stated that he had this initiative in mind from early on. As the successor of President Samaranch and his “Olympic revolution”, he not only inherited the predecessor’s successes creating a wealthy organisation, but also the problems of legitimacy connected with the growing image of a greedy institution. Therefore, the time was right for recovering the Movement’s roots and producing a vision connecting the original values with ongoing global discourses.The vision, then, was to educate young people according to the values of Olympism through sport and culture, and thereby to stimulate the youth to adopt healthy lifestyles and to strive for a better, peaceful world.

Against the accusations of commercialization and gigantism, the IOC wanted to create a downsized event, more modest in scope, that would make it possible for smaller nations to host an Olympic event. An important element in the new concept was the policy of using established infrastructure and venues for the competitions for the sake of keeping costs under control and establishing a tradition of following principles of sustainable development.

There have hitherto been four YOGs: two summer Games (Singapore 2010 and Nanjing 2014) and two winter Games (Innsbruck 2012 and Lillehammer 2016). Lillehammer, Norway was the only bidding city for the 2016 YOG, but was clearly a favourable solution for the IOC. The return of an Olympic competition to Lillehammer was like a homecoming because of the successful Winter Games in 1994. Among the most important symbols of the Lillehammer ’94 Games was the establishment of environmental sustainability as one of the key slogans hosting the Olympic Games.

The Olympics and environmental legacy

The Winter Olympics have been ahead of the Summer Games with regard to the focus on environmental issues in the Olympics (Chappelet 2008). Of course, this has much to do with the sites’ locations in more sensitive mountain and alpine areas, where the construction of new infrastructure as well as new venues have long been controversial public issues. The first environmental controversies over land use occurred during the planning for the Games in Lake Placidin the 1930s.The 1970s was a period of general ecological awareness, and this to some extent affected the decision of Denver, Colorado not to host the 1976 Winter Games. The activists in Citizens for Colorado’s Future won the referendum with arguments connected to costs for the tax payers and the damaging impact on the mountains. The breakthrough for environmental issues came first in the 1990s, with the Games in Albertville and Lillehammer.

Albertville 1992 had a real concern for the environment in their planning, including the plan to build a new motorway in the Savoie region up to Albertville. They also had to deal with some troublesome sports venues. In particular, the proposals for the ski-jump, bobsleigh and luge venues were very controversial with a protest march taking place before the Opening Ceremony. This protest received the attention of President Samaranch and the IOC leadership, and demonstrated that environmental issues could threaten the Games.

Lillehammer’s hosting of the Games only two years later involved a promise of hosting an environmentally friendly event to the IOC. In a speech to the IOC that finalized the Lillehammer campaign, Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland stated that her country wanted to make the event a showcase for environmental sustainability. Brundtland here drew from her prestige as the former leader of the UN Commission of Environment and Development, known for introducing the concept “sustainable development”.

The OCOG (LOOC) did not implement these plans through their own initiative, however. The fact is that grassroots activists were the force that most energetically put the environmental issue on the agenda. They were originally against the hosting of the Olympics, and after the IOC’s decision in September 1988 to let Lillehammer host the Games, they organised Project Environment-Friendly Olympics in order to influence the planning process (Lesjø 2000). The IOC leadership received this group sympathetically, and they eventually collaborated with the OCOG and the local government. This alliance was the basis of a strong and important symbol of environmental commitment connected to the ’94 Winter Games.

After Lillehammer the IOC had to transform its policies from supporting local initiatives to developing its own environmental policy (Cantelon and Letters 2000). They had already been involved in the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and encouraged all NOCs to sign the Earth Pledge of making the planet a better home for future generations. At the centennial congress in Paris in July 1994,The Congress of Unity, the IOC declared the protection of the environment to be an important part of Olympism. The Congress defined the environment as the third pillar of Olympism, alongside sport and culture. The establishment of an Environment Commission in the Olympic Movement followed, as well as a close affiliation with the UN’s work for sustainable development.

Lillehammer YOG 2016

Lillehammer hosted the second Winter Youth Olympic Games from 12 to 21 February, 2016. Leading up to this event, there was a phase for acquiring national support (the state guarantee), then the bidding for the YOG, and this was followed by a period of planning and management. In the application for a state guarantee, the national sport federation and the applicant city wrote that Lillehammer 1994 shaped a new standard for the Winter Olympics. The ambition now was that the YOG should resemble the successful ’94 Games, “especially when it comes to popular engagement, the environment and resource management, as well as participation by the youth in the preparation and implementation” (p. 3, my translation). In the following sections, I shall focus on five aspects of the implementation of these objectives.

i. The re-use of venues and infrastructure

In harmony with the IOC’s main intentions with the YOG, Lillehammer as a winter sports site offered good conditions for re-using existing venues and infrastructure. Most of the sport competitions in 2016 took place at the venues used at the 1994 Olympic Winter Games. The 2016 YOG hosted 70 sport events in total, located in the Olympic Park, and four other sites and municipalities. Out of the eleven venues used for competitions, eight were built in connection to the Games in 1994. An important local and regional strategy, however, was to renew and develop the venues in accordance with new standards in order to maintain their ability to host international events. As part of this strategy, they were upgraded with new equipment, and some were further developed to maintain a world-class standard.

Two new venues were, however, established in the Olympic Park: a new Curling Hall and a new Youth Hall for ice hockey. The Curling Hall opened in 2012 (by J. Rogge) and was integrated into the old hockey hall. It was originally a joint initiative by the local club and the National Curling Association to improve the status for the sport in the region as well as nationally. The Youth Hall was built in 2013 as a training hall for ice hockey and was used as a competition venue for 2016. The Youth Hall was the culmination of a much-wanted expansion of the training facilities for the youth in the region. The third one, Oslo Vinterpark Halfpipe, came into the program late, because the LYOGOC learned that establishing a halfpipe in the existing Olympic venues in the region would be very difficult. This is the largest alpine venue in the Oslo area and dates back to the late 1930s. In recent times, it is probably best known for hosting the Arctic Challenge and a world championship in snowboarding.

ii. YOV – Youth Olympic Village

The largest new investment for the 2016 event was the building of the Youth Olympic Village, located in the Lillehammer Olympic Park. The village, located close to the sport venues and the site for the Learn & Share program, consisted of both the new houses and the nearby Birkebeineren hotel and apartments. Together they housed 1,760 participants: the young athletes, their coaches and other support personnel from their native countries. The plan was to use the buildings as student apartments just before and after the event. A total of 300 students from Lillehammer University College and 60 from the Norwegian Gymnasium for Elite Sport have been the users of the new dormitories.

A partnership comprising the hosts and the Student Foundation (SOPP) and a local cooperative housing association (USBL) organised this project. The total cost of the new YOV was 310 million NOK, approximately 38 million US dollars, of which IOC contributed with 108 million (13.5 million US dollars). This contribution was important for obtaining a state guarantee for the total event, motivated by the intention of increasing the capacity for young athletes in the future to use sports facilities in the Olympic park.

The construction of the new buildings in the village treated environmental sustainability as a priority. The construction was built as a “passive house”, which means less energy for heating the rooms than usually the case. Bioenergy is the main heating method. The buildings are covered with Kebony wood, a treated pinewood that is highly durable and is a demonstration of a Norwegian patent known for its environmentally friendly qualities. The YOV also imple- mented a waste-management program in cooperation with the local firm Glør, which specialises in the waste and environment industry.

iii. Transportation

The main strategy was to provide public transport for all participants, as well as leaders and accredited personnel. The goals of sustainability were to decrease transport-related emissions during the planning and execution of the event, and then to utilise public transport and especially the train as the main alternative. The train was the main means of transportation to the towns of Hamar and Lillehammer for all group, hence a partnership with NSB (Norwegian State Railway) was established to achieve this goal.

LYOGOC established agreements with Norwegian bus companies and regions in order to ensure the capacity necessary for transportation town were also tested and to the venues in Lillehammer and the region. Three gas-driven buses, with the extra costs absorbed by LYOGOC’s partner, Glør. A sponsor delivered one hundred cars for the LYOGOC in special periods, which were to be sold in the market after the event. The hosts had the ambition to minimise private driving, and the parking lots were also designed to reach this goal.

iv. Management system: ISO certification

LYOGOC was the first event in Norway to achieve an ISO 20121 certification. This is a standard management system for all kinds of events, sporting, business as well as cultural and political. ISO standards represent a global consensus of the state of the art in this field. This standard is meant to be a practical tool for managing the events and combines three dimensions of sustainability: economic, social and environmental. The goal is to cover and stimulate the best practices in the field, with a focus on all the actors involved in the planning and implementing the event. The sustainability team of the London 2012 Organising Committee provided input to the standard where as the London Olympic Games in 2012 was the first to test it.

The LYOGOC wanted to use the process of certification to find environmentally friendly solutions and to lay the foundation for a sustainable legacy after the Games in February 2016. Their sustainability project consisted of eight sub-themes, which covered the three dimensions in the certification: economic, social and environmental sustainability. The eight sub-fields were transport and logistics, ceremony, waste management, procurement, venues, budget, legacy and guidelines (for future events).

The ceremony employed a gimmick for which the school youth produced the energy by being physically active, while the calories they burned were converted to kWh. The waste-management system implemented in close cooperation with Glør focused on encouraging athletes and audience to recycle waste in as many areas as possible. Procurement was equally important and suppliers and service providers with the best green practices were preferred if they could compete with-in a 10-percent margin. Procurements that minimised damaged the environment both during production and during the event and waste handling should be preferred when possible according to financial sustainability. Budgetary transparency was also recognized as an important area, both for the stakeholders and the public, since a lack of transparency could affect the legacy of the event.

v. Learn and share: Keep the YOG Green

An important and integrated part of the YOG is the Learn & Share program, distinguishing the YOG from other international sports competitions for youth. LYOGOC provided the design and implementation of this educational and learning element of the event priority. They arranged to hold this program at two sites, Håkons Hall in the Olympic Park in Lillehammer and at the YOV Hamar, the host town for figure skating and speed skating.

As a part of an extensive program and exhibition, the organisers set up the Keep YOG Green stand. This was organised as an interactive booth where the participants could test their knowledge about sustainability and its different meanings. They could further learn how to improve their practices on recycling, environmental protection and energy saving. This program was organised in cooperation with voluntary organisations from civil society like POW (Protect Our Winter), the youth organisation (Natur og Ungdom) of the Norwegian Society for the Conservation of Nature, as well as Matvett (a non-profit organisation dedicated to reducing the waste of food), as well as their sponsor Coca Cola. Out of in total of 1100 participating athletes 572 visited this stand during the ten days it was open.

Reflections on sustainability

Ideas about sustainability have circulated in several interconnected fields for some 30 years. Environmental experts, grassroots activists and established organisations have put these important issues at the forefront of many agendas. The leadership of the Olympic Movement responded to the voice of outsiders and learned that they had to deal with environmental issues to secure the future of the Games. When Lillehammer hosted the Games in 1994 environmental sustainability became an important symbolic brand for the event – the first “green” Winter Games.

From then on sustainability has been an integral part of the Olympic ideology and the fields’ regime of regulation. In the Olympic context, the regulatory body is the Olympic Charter, followed with rules and regulations in Event Manuals, the Evaluation Commission, Legacy considerations etc. Since the Paris Congress of 1994, sustainability has been an increasingly important part of these regulations. Today the IOC would not accept an applicant city for the Olympic Games that does not in principle and in upcoming plans address the challenges connected to sustainability. Contested ideas still exist when it comes to solving conflicting interests in practical planning, not to mention in ecological thinking. Nevertheless, the main guidelines for modern organisations’ adaption to their environment have to befollowed.

Of course, the YOG, as the newcomer in the Olympic family, established long since the doctrine of sustainability considered an important part of Olympic ideology, has to adapt to the expectation of hosting environmentally friendly events. The YOG, in some ways, also has a better starting point because ofits mandate to host simpler and more downsized events, using mostly venues and infrastructure already in place, and with the educational element of young people higher on the agenda.

Standardisation follows the institutionalisation of sustainability. The ISO standards for sustainable event management is a clear example of this principle. The core ideas here are the transfer of knowledge, learning from best practices and the three-dimensional understanding of sustainability. Not regarding environmental issues in isolation must obviously be a good thing, since social and economic sustainability are also important, but if these two sets of objectives obscure the focus on the environment, this is a potential danger. LYOGOC was, however, a proud first implementerof the ISO event standard in Norway and believed that the time had come to match the symbolic significance of environmental sustainability with the actual hard work of practice. They probably succeeded in minimising the negative environmental impact and “the ecological footprint”, which was one of the objectives of the bidding process.

Concluding remarks

It is too early fully to determine the legacy of the YOG 2016 in Lillehammer, Norway. We need some distance to judge their implications for youth sports, the YOG and the Olympic Movement – and managing of events according to the principles of sustainability. There are, however, good reasons to believe that LYOGOC handled the event in accordance with the best practices of the day for environmental sustainability. They complied with recognised standards in the field of event management, without applying an innovative interpretation to these standards.

There is also reason to believe that the most important legacy of this event will not be an image of the “green games”, but more of an image of social sustainability. That story has not been fully told here, but Lillehammer 2016 will probably be seen as a success because it provided a new dimension to the YOG by emphasising the social and cultural festival that took place alongside the sporting events. There is also widespread agreement that the host succeeded in including youngsters in the organizing and accomplishing of this event with the active involvement of young leadership and voluntary work. By doing so, they took an important step in the direction of producing an event for and by the youth themselves.

How, if and in what way exactly the YOG can influence the Olympic Movement’s implementation of its Agenda 2020 is unknown. Perhaps the legacy of Lillehammer 2016 will turn out to be that the newcomer in the family, the YOG, will appear in a favourable light when the IOC evaluates in the future if its gains exceed the costs.

‍

References

Cantelon, H. & M. Letters (2000). The Making of the IOC Environmental Policy as the Third Dimension of the Olympic Movement. International Review for the Sociology of Sport. Vol. 35/3, 294–308.

Chappelet, J.-L. (2000). Olympic Environmental Concerns as a Legacy of the Winter Games. The International Journal of the History of Sport. Vol. 25/14, 1884–1902.

Hanstad, D.V., M.M. Parent & B. Houlihan (Eds.) (2014). The Youth Olympic Games. London: Routledge.

Lesjø, J.H. (2000). Lillehammer 1994. Planning, Figurations and the “Green” Winter Games. International Review for the Sociology of Sport. Vol. 35/3, 282–293.

Lillehammer 2016. Youth Olympic Games (2015). Sustainability Report. ISO: 20121. October.

Norges Idrettsforbund og Olympiske og Paralympiske komite (2010). Søknadomstatsgarantivedr. YOG 2016. (The Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation for Sport. Application for state guarantee).

‍

LESJØ Jon Helge, "Environment and Youth Olympic Games: The case of Lillehammer and its contribution to sustainability",in:K. Georgiadis (ed.), Olympic values-based learning as an effective tool forenvironmental protection, 56th International Session for Young Participants (AncientOlympia,11-25/6/2016), International Olympic Academy, Athens,2017, pp.129-138.

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍