South Pole Measures Carbon Footprint for FIFA World Cup, UEFA Euro Championships; Helps Members of Auto Racing’s FIA Offset Emissions

 

Mega-sports events like the Olympics, FIFA World Cup and Super Bowl have been greening in some way, shape or form for more than a decade. Waste reduction, LEED (or BREEAM or CASBEE) certification, measuring carbon footprint, and more. I got to thinking it would be interesting to talk to one of the companies that does the carbon footprint accounting — to understand how it works, what gets measured, what decisions, if any, are made to reduce emissions. So we were very happy to chat with Natalia Gorina and Franka Bosman of South Pole, a very interesting company that is one part sustainability consulting firm and one part emissions reduction project developer. There may be even more parts but this is good enough for now.

 

Natalia Gorina and Franka Bosman have very cool job titles and even cooler missions at South Pole.

Geneva, Switzerland-based Natalia’s is Sales Director, Carbon and Renewables. Sounds like a good fit for someone who describes her career as being “devoted to using economic incentives to solve the climate crisis.” With South Pole since 2014, Natalia helps corporations understand that it is good business to measure and reduce carbon emissions. She helps corporations talk the sustainability talk and walk the sustainability walk.

 

Natalia Gorina 1

Natalia Gorina, South Pole (Photo credit: South Pole)

 

Franka wants to “devote my life to improving the world by helping companies and people to take action against climate change.” Prior to coming to South Pole, Franka worked in finance, trying to disrupt it from the inside out.

 

Franka Bosman

Franka Bosman, South Pole (Photo credit: South Pole)

 

Natalia and Franka sure seem like they are in the right place.

 

SOUTH POLE: MATCHMAKING CARBON REDUCTION PROJECTS WITH CORPORATE FUNDERS

South Pole was founded in 2006 as a climate change fighting/sustainable business spinoff from ETH, a technical university in Switzerland. The company has since grown to over 200 employees with 16 offices around the world, with several located in Latin America, China and the Indian sub-continent where many emissions reductions projects are located.

Those employees 1) help corporate clients source and develop emissions reductions and renewable energy development projects, 2) consult on sustainability strategy for corporations and, 3) manage their own carbon emissions projects that generate carbon credits that they then try sell to corporations.

“We are more than emissions reduction credit providers,” explained Natalia. “We come in at an earlier stage than most sustainability consulting firms by investing our own funds to cover carbon certification costs and leading projects through the entire certification cycle. We serve as the project developer for renewable energy companies and local organizations that produce and distribute water filtration systems and cook stoves, for example.”

“South Pole is a matchmaker of sorts,” added Franka. “We currently have over 500 emissions projects underway that we match with corporate funders. Then we measure results in a way that is linked to the UN Sustainable Development Goals: biodiversity gains, jobs created, and more.”

 

HANDLING FAN ENGAGEMENT FOR UEFA 2016 CHAMPIONSHIP

South Pole has partnered with UEFA, the governing body of European soccer/football, since 2012. They started by calculating the greenhouse gas emissions generated from flights taken by UEFA referees and staff and offering Gold Standard certified carbon credits to offset those emissions. “We make it easy for them,” offered Natalia. “We give them a choice of projects and they choose one per year.”

Given that UEFA governs European soccer and manages Euro Championships, it makes sense that they would want to invest in European projects. Thing is, there aren’t that many to choose from because the Kyoto Protocol mandated that the lions’ share of emissions reductions projects be in the developing world. “So we have to work outside the box a bit,” advised Natalia. “Turkey, a UEFA member, has some projects. For example, last year UEFA supported the Gold Standard Cakirlar Hydro Project. And then we offer projects from countries that have a connection to a UEFA country.  For example, UEFA chose to support the Prony Windfarm project because it is located in New Caledonia, a French territory overseas. The wind turbines installed there are very innovative because they tilt downward during hurricanes which leads to significant reductions in damage.”

 

Prony Windfarm Vergnet

Prony wind farm in New Caledonia (Photo credit: Vergnet)

 

South Pole and UEFA ramped up their sustainability efforts at Euro 2016, the quadrennial continent-wide tournament by engaging fans. Fans traveling to the month-long soccer-fest held throughout France had the opportunity to offset their travel via an easy-to-use carbon calculator. “We aimed to make it fun for fans to take environmental action,” said Natalia. “Committing to measure and offset their travel entered fans into a sweepstakes; the grand prize offered a ticket to the final game.”

Fan participation levels were not as high as envisioned. Natalia attributes this to the complexity of the entry process: “Fans had to go through several steps to compensate for their emissions. It needs to be a super easy, one click process. Or, even better, have the offsetting option as the default position in the ticket purchasing process, from which fans can opt-out if they don’t want to participate.” South Pole will have the opportunity to collaborate with UEFA further on environmental issues, including hopefully improving upon fan engagement participation, with a four-year extension of its contract. That will take it through Euro 2020, the first tournament to be played across the continent rather than in one or two countries.

 

MEASURING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FOR 2018 FIFA WORLD CUPTM IN RUSSIA

FIFA, the governing body of world soccer, hired South Pole to measure greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the 2018 men’s World Cup in Russia.

The company issued a report that offered a broad estimate of GHG emissions for 2018 FIFA World Cup Russia, from the preparation phase — per Natalia: “The organizers committed to ‘green certification’ for all 12 venues; as of now, at least 3 have achieved BREEAM^ certification” — through the World Cup itself. They projected Scope 1 (direct emissions from owned or controlled sources), Scope 2 (indirect emissions from the generation of purchased energy), and Scope 3 (value/supply chain emissions). Fan travel to and from Russia, the by far the largest GHG emissions component, falls within Scope 3. According to Natalia, “More than two thirds of all GHG emissions associated with 2018 FIFA World Cup Russia are linked to international air travel of attendees.”

 

Volvograd Arena Guardian

The BREEAM-certified Volgograd Arena (Photo credit: The Guardian)

 

Not surprisingly, it says here, the organizers of the 2018 FIFA World Cup feel fan travel to get to and from Russia is not under its control and are focusing on Scopes 1 and 2. But wouldn’t emissions from travel within a country as vast as Russia be massive? Not so, said Natalia: “Emissions from travel within Russia will be much lower, in large part because the venues are concentrated in the European, west-of-the-Ural-Mountains section of the country.”

Will South Pole do an accounting of actual 2018 FIFA World Cup Russia emissions to see how they compare to the estimate? “Our assignment was just to do the estimate,” reported Natalia.

If South Pole is engaged by FIFA and the organizers of the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, here’s hoping they get to report on the actual GHG emissions, and not just estimate them. Lord knows, a World Cup in Qatarian summer will be a massive environmental challenge (and that’s putting it mildly).

 

HELPING FIA MEMBERS OFFSET EMISSIONS FROM MOTOR SPORTS

Turning to motor sports, South Pole is helping members of FIA (Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile), the governing body for Formula 1, auto rallies, Formula E and more, to achieve carbon neutrality.

Similar to UEFA, South Pole is finding offset projects for FIA members to support in the areas where races take place. “Rally Australia, a long-distance auto race in Coff’s Harbour off the country’s east coast, wanted projects that benefitted wildlife and the environment in Australia,” asserted Franka. “We helped them offset unavoidable emissions by connecting them with a project that protects the habitats of the Tasmanian Devil.”

Franka also notes that, “While European projects would be desirable for sports events taking place in Europe because of their proximity, most are happy to support programs in the developing world. One, because that’s where the need is the greatest and, two, there’s a sexiness to them given the huge positive impact these projects have for local people and the environment.”

 

WHAT’S NEXT? TELLING THE STORY TO FANS MORE CONSISTENTLY

GreenSportsBlog readers certainly know that my biggest pet peeve about the sports-greening world is that the fantastic stories about its greatest advances are not being told to fans and other stakeholders with a loud enough voice. Natalia and Franka agree.

What will change this dynamic? Franka believes the impetus will come from sponsors: “Organizers of greener sports events fear that if they tout how sustainable they are, they will be criticized for what they don’t do. But their sponsors are urging them to talk about what they are doing — commitments to renewables, recycling and to offset programs that preserve at-risk species, or help people in the developing world to source clean water.”

Since sponsor dollars are almost as vital as clean water to sports teams and leagues, Franka may be on to something.

Watch this space. And keep your eyes on South Pole.

 

^ BREEAM is a British version of LEED

 


Please comment below!
Email us: lew@greensportsblog.com
Friend us on Facebook: http://facebook.com/greensportsblog
Tweet us @GreenSportsBlog

 

The GSB Interview: David Muller, Green-Sports-Corporate Partner Matchmaker

David Muller has successfully shown sports teams, venues, and leagues, as well as corporations large and small, the value of attaching themselves to the Green-Sports Movement. After playing a key role in building the Green Sports Alliance from start up to mature force, Muller went off on his own to increase his impact. We sat down with Muller to get his take on the Movement, where it’s going and what he sees his role as being.

 

GreenSportsBlog: David, how did a kid from Springfield, IL find his way to the epicenter of the Green-Sports Movement?

David Muller: Things certainly didn’t start out that way. Yes, I am from Springfield. Grew up a Bulls fan during the Jordan Years, and of course love the Bears and White Sox too. But I didn’t intend to work in sports at all. I wanted to move west and went to Lewis & Clark College in Portland, OR as a Religious Studies major. Thought I would go the academia route but you know what? Whenever I looked at an academic, they seemed so unhappy—bored, really, and removed from the real world. So I ditched that plan and wandered—worked in education and journalism, taught English in Argentina, then worked in software project management. Over time I came to the conclusion that I needed to work in sustainability in some way, shape or form. Ended up going to the Bainbridge Graduate Institute’s (BGI) Graduate Business School for Sustainability in Seattle. Now part of Presidio Graduate School, I was attracted to it because it embedded sustainability in every aspect of the curriculum with the goal of making the world a better place through business, or “changing business for good” as the motto goes.

GSB: That’s a lofty goal, indeed…

DM: No doubt about it. They really want to change business from the inside out.

GSB: So how did you go from BGI to the Green Sports Alliance?

DM: During my time at BGI, Jason Twill came to speak. He was working at Vulcan

GSB: …Vulcan is Paul Allen’s company, Allen being one of the co-founders of Microsoft.

DM: Correct. Included among Vulcan’s assets at the time were the Seattle Seahawks, Seattle Sounders and the Portland Trail Blazers. Twill worked for Allen at Vulcan and was one of the co-founders of the GSA. He made the point that sports can change the world; that it can be a powerful platform for social change. I got it immediately, being an avid sports fan, having experienced in person and up close the power of sports to be a great unifier. Twill also said, “If you hear someone speak that inspires you, reach out to him/her.” So I took him at his word and did just that. The GSA hadn’t even launched yet, but Jason invited me to a board meeting/workshop. Soon enough I was an intern, there for its birth. And 9 months later, I was the second-ever staffer behind the original Executive Director Martin Tull.

GSB: What was your role there?

DM: I started out as a Jack-of-all-Trades, handling communications, writing blogs, and researching the ‘state of the state’ of the fledgling Green Sports Movement. I developed and managed the webinar program from its inception, focusing on the key identified impact areas of waste, energy, water, purchasing, transportation, and fan engagement, and featuring leading practitioners and successful case studies. We secured some terrific speakers early on, including several GMs and Directors of Operations of major professional sports venues, executives from international corporations like Aramark and Waste Management, as well as leading environmental NGOS and the U.S. EPA—and we quickly built a solid audience.

muller-matt-cohen

David Muller (Photo credit: Matt Cohen)

 

GSB: How many people attend those webinars?

DM: We started with an audience of 20-30; as of the spring 2016, we were getting 150-200 people per webinar. And then I took on generating memberships among teams, venues and leagues.

GSB: How did you do there?

DM: Well, from about 20 members when I came on board in 2011 as Membership Director, the GSA grew to nearly 400 members as of 2016.

GSB: That’s really impressive, David. Congratulations! How much did the memberships go for?

DM: There were two levels: Basic was $500/year and Premier went for $2,500. Premier members got a deeper level of direct support on greening initiatives from myself and other staff, as well as more significant promotion through the GSA website, public communications, and events.

GSB: What kind of services did the GSA offer its members?

DM: As far as the team and venue members were concerned, the we helped them reach their sustainability commitments and goals, whether it be recycling, composting, energy efficiency, etc. We really became sustainability consultants for stadium operators who increasingly were getting the direction from team management that they needed to take smart and fiscally responsible actions to reduce environmental impacts.

GSB: And they weren’t equipped to do so…

DM: Well, we provided the sustainability expertise they needed by reviewing their operations, examining their supply chain, researching available grants and incentives, etc.

GSB: At $500-$2,500 per year, that’s a great bargain!

DM: We thought so. And the spirit of collaboration among GSA members and staff was incredible.

GSB: Can you share a specific example of how you and the GSA worked with a team?

DM: Ah, it’s tough to pick out just one…

GSB: That’s why I ask the tough questions!

DM: OK, I really enjoyed working with the Baltimore Ravens, M&T Bank Stadium and the Maryland Stadium Authority. My key contact was Jeff Provenzano, who at the time was running Stadium Operations at M&T Bank Stadium. When we first met in Baltimore, we spoke for almost three hours about how Jeff and his team, who already helped make the operations more efficient, needed to secure the investments to take their greening program to the next level. It was invigorating, really.

GSB: Did the Ravens buy in?

DM: The Ravens owners challenged the stadium ops team to prove greening measures could save them money. So, Jeff and his team showed them how this could work with a modest investment and a terrific pay off. The entire staff at the stadium was engaged in a massive effort to lower its energy usage. It started off with little things like closing doors when leaving the office, turning lights off, reporting spaces that were being heated/cooled even though no one spent any significant time there (e.g. supply closets). Over several months, they reduced their energy usage by some 40-50%, which translated to an annual savings of ~$500,000—or about the cost of a rookie contract at the time.

GSB: I bet that got their attention.

DM: No doubt about it. Ownership embraced this and agreed to invest some capital in the program. They decided to go for LEED certification for existing buildings, but in order to achieve it, they needed access to a substantial amount of comparison data from other stadiums. In the spirit of collaboration that really defined the GSA at the time, I was able to work with other GSA members and obtain the relevant, sensitive data the crew in Baltimore needed for their LEED application, and they were able to attain Gold status a year or two later.

mt-bank-stadium-balt-sun

M&T Bank Stadium, now the LEED Gold certified home of the Baltimore Ravens, thanks in part to the work of David Muller and the Green Sports Alliance. (Photo credit: Baltimore Sun)

 

GSB: That’s a great story; one that the NFL should’ve told. Turning to the annual GSA Summit; that must also have been part of your responsibilities, no?

DM: Absolutely. The GSA was a very a small team the first few years, so everyone had to pitch in. We only had about three or four months of planning time for the first summit in Portland in 2011. Despite the short lead-time it turned out to be a big success—and we surprisingly turned a meaningful profit, mainly through getting the sports supply chain as sponsors/exhibitors–the Aramarks and Waste Managements of the world.

GSB: Did you manage that as well?

DM: No, sponsorships were mainly the responsibility of Martin Tull at the time, while I handled the memberships and communications.

GSB: As the Summit grew over time, with 700-800 attendees, the responsibilities must’ve grown with it.

DM: No doubt about it. I played a central role in designing the program, securing speakers, writing up session descriptions, coordinating volunteers, that sort of thing. And everyone else on the GSA team was multi-tasking as well. It was lots of work but it was also a lot of fun as we were all mission-driven and riding this rapidly-rising wave of engagement and activity.

muller-chicago-gsa

David Muller (l) presenting University of California, Berkeley with the Pac-12 Zero-Waste Award, at the 2015 Green Sports Alliance Summit in Chicago. (Photo credit: David Muller)

 

GSB: I can imagine. Why did you end up leaving GSA?

DM: Well, over time, in large part because of how many members we brought in while still maintaining a very small staff, the GSA became more focused on PR and storytelling—which they’re good at and is important—while moving away from the consulting, advisory, and operations support work. We simply didn’t have the capacity to continue the same level of service to individual members.

GSB: …Like what you did with the Ravens?

DM: Yes. And that’s what I was most interested in doing. Plus, I was also interested in the health and wellness aspects of sustainability and seeing how sports venues, and everyone who spends time in them, could benefit by focusing on people’s health and wellness within their operations, be it that of staff, fans, the active roster, etc. So, I left GSA last summer and became a sustainability-focused consultant. I’ve worked with small-to-medium sized health and wellness organizations including Green Seal, Delos/International WELL Building Institute (IWBI), and AtmosAir—to help them with market research and also how to compellingly present what they offer to sports venues.

GSB: I gotta believe sports venues and teams want to keep their athletes healthy—and their fans, for that matter. Good niche. Talk about your involvement in Sport and Sustainability International or SandSI.

DM: SandSI is an outgrowth of work I did in Europe in the spring of 2015 with Allen Hershkowitz…

GSB: Then the President of GSA.

DM: Yes. Allen, as well as Alice Henly, who also worked with Allen at the NRDC before coming to the GSA. I had connected in late 2014 with Neil Beecroft, who was the Sustainability Manager of UEFA at the time.

GSB: And, shameless plug, Neil’s a GreenSportsBlog interviewee.

DM: Yes. So in conversation with Neil, we kind of realized that while Europe is ahead of the U.S. in terms of environmental concern and government action, it was behind in Green-Sports. So, we accepted Neil’s invitation to meet with him and other leaders of the European Green-Sports Movement in Lausanne, Switzerland, as well as in Paris and London.

GSB: Lausanne is the capital of European sports, home of the IOC, FIFA and UEFA.

DM: The European sports entities, to a person, said “we need help” with greening. We were excited about sharing the knowledge we had gained over the previous few years, and making the GSA a truly global organization. But the GSA felt, at the time, that there was still a lot more to do in North America, and didn’t see an immediate ROI, so the European work was put on the back burner.

GSB: And, Allen, having left GSA, became one of the prime movers of SandSI.

DM: Yes. It’s still early days but things have really heated up over the past six months or so. I am an Organizing Committee member, and am helping develop the membership program for sports entities as well as corporations and NGOs.

GSB: Aside from the geographic differences, what do you see as the main distinctions between SandSI and GSA?

DM: I’d say the main differentiator is that SandSI takes a broader view of sustainability than the GSA. SandSI takes a “Triple Bottom Line” approach, considering social sustainability and ethics on an equal level with environmental and economic sustainability. The GSA made a strategic decision very early to become experts on the environmental side only, which made good sense at the time as a start-up trying to gain relevance. But I think an environmental-only approach puts a ceiling on what you can accomplish, because legitimate sustainability is comprehensive at its core, and the best environmental policies are always at risk of backsliding or discontinuation if the people responsible for carrying them out aren’t well-taken care of themselves.

GSB: I think that’s smart overall but my fear is that environment, and in particular, climate change, could be de-emphasized—just when the opposite is necessary.

DM: Oh don’t worry, SandSI places great priority on taking on climate change! But I think people often forgot that environmentalism is still ultimately about people, about keeping the environment clean and stable in order for humans to thrive. It’s not about saving the Earth for Earth’s sake (in the geologic timeframe, all of human history is but a blip), it’s about keeping the Earth livable so that our children, grandchildren, and grandchildren’s grandchildren have the opportunity to lead healthy, happy, meaningful lives as well. It is for them, as well as those already suffering from its impacts right now, that we confront climate change with all our resolve and ingenuity.

GSB: Amen!

 

 


Please comment below!
Email us: lew@greensportsblog.com
Friend us on Facebook: http://facebook.com/greensportsblog
Tweet us: @GreenSportsBlog

 

 

 

The GSB Interview: Neil Beecroft, Reporting on UEFA’s Euro 2016’s Sustainability Scorecard

UEFA, the governing body of European soccer, set high sustainability targets for the EURO 2016 (the biggest event in soccer aside from the FIFA World Cup) championships in France. How did they make out? Neil Beecroft, UEFA EURO 2016’s Sustainability Project Leader, was so keen to tell the event’s story that he took a break from a hiking trip through Colombia to talk with GreenSportsBlog.

 

GreenSportsBlog: First of all, Neil, thank you for taking time away from your vacation to talk with us.

Neil Beecroft: Greetings from Cartagena, Colombia! It is my pleasure!

GSB: Since you’re on holiday, let’s cut to the chase: If I recall correctly, you divided the environmental sustainability elements into four priorities: 1. Public Transport/Mobility, 2. Waste Management, 3. Energy and Water Optimization, and 4. Responsible sourcing. How did EURO 2016 make out vs. its sustainability targets?

NB: Well, that’s a big question. For those with the time and interest, you can read our sustainability report (click HERE for link). For those who don’t, the short answer is we did well for the most part in meeting our stiff targets, with some lessons learned mixed in. Despite the tournament growing from 31 matches for EURO 2012 in Poland and Ukraine to 51 matches in France this year as the number of teams increased from 16 to 24, in many cases, we actually reduced our overall environmental impact vs. 2012. I’m confident in saying we set an ambitious sustainability standard for mega-sports events. Hopefully future Olympics, World Cups, Euros and more, will replicate some of our initiatives—I expect that most will, by the way. Now, let’s look specifically at each environmental sustainability priority for EURO 2016. On Public Transport/Mobility, one area in which we were not successful was on “Combi Tickets”…

euro2016-sust-report

The EURO 2016 post-event Sustainability Report can be read here.

 

GSB: By Combi Tickets, you mean that a fan could use his or her EURO 2016 match ticket as a train or bus ticket, right? How come you weren’t able to make that happen?

NB: France was different than Austria and Switzerland, which co-hosted EURO 2008, and Poland and Ukraine, which jointly hosted the event in 2012. Combi Tickets were made available on an international basis in 2008 then in 2012 on city-by-city basis. In France for 2016, negotiations with state, host cities and public transport providers didn’t succeed in the end. On the other hand, we had in and towards France 300,000 additional available public transport seats (international and local, combined), which meant fans benefited from an increased and extensive mass transport capacity.

GSB: EURO 2020 is going to break the mold by being hosted in mega cities across Europe rather than in one or two countries, as has always been the case. Will Combi Tickets be a part of that much more spread out tournament?

NB: It’s still too early to know for sure but I do believe that there will be negotiations between the host cities and UEFA. We could study the InterRail system for instance for discounted train tickets. Beyond trains, we also tried to develop a carpooling and ride sharing infrastructure, as well as “Hop On, Hop Off” buses for the future. We could’ve done better, gotten more traction, but it was a good start.

neil-beecroft

Neil Beecroft, Sustainability Project Leader for UEFA’s EURO 2016 (Photo credit: COP21 Paris)

 

GSB: How did EURO 2016 fare in terms of offsetting carbon emissions from flights?

NB: Here we did well. All 24 teams decided, on a voluntary basis, to offset their flight-based emissions. UEFA offset all of its flight-related emissions as well…

GSB: What kind of offsets did UEFA use?

NB: We developed renewable energy projects in New Caledonia. Additionally, all UEFA official travel within 4.5 hours of the tournament had to be done by train. As for fans, there was an eco-calculator, which allowed them to determine their emissions and offset them if they so chose.

GSB: Do you have data on how many fans chose to offset their travel to-from France?

NB: Even though fans could win 10 tickets to the EURO 2016 Final, participation to the offsetting was lower than expected, in part because offsetting is new to many people and can be a bit complex. This is something to improve upon in 2020 for sure by integrating opt-in solutions directly within the ticketing purchasing system.

GSB: I would think improving on transportation related emissions in 2020, when the tournament will be continent-wide, vs. 2016 in which the tournament was played in one country, will be a challenge. But technology and willpower will no doubt improve over the next four years so challenges like this can be surmounted. Let’s turn to Waste Management. How did EURO 2016 make out?

NB: Overall, we reduced the volume of waste at the games vs. 2012, again despite playing 20 more games. We saved significantly on packaging, paper use and signage.

GSB: What about recycling?

NB: For recycling, our target was a 50 percent rate. And, while we did more than double the 18 percent recycling rate achieved in Poland and Ukraine, our 38 percent just didn’t quite make it.

GSB: What caused the shortfall?

NB: A combination of lack of local recycling infrastructure and expertise in some of the 10 French cities in which the tournament was played and expense.

GSB: Was composting in the mix?

NB: Yes. Within stadium kitchens, 12 tonnes (T) of organic waste and cooking oil were segregated for composting. Stadiums did not offer fans a compost bin as they went with a dual bin system; recycling and trash. Fan-generated organic waste was sorted out by stadium staff after the event.

GSB: Adding a composting bin for fans to dispose of organic waste—something for EURO 2020 to strongly consider…

NB: For sure. Back to 2016, our caterer followed a strict sustainability policy within its central kitchen and reached a 66 percent recycling rate which included segregation such as organic (47T), oil (2T), glass (4,5T), etc. In addition, we focused a lot of attention on redistributing unused food and were able to divert over 10 tonnes, including 50,000 sandwiches. For instance in Marseille, food donations went directly to refugees, which was a big deal.

GSB: That’s more than a big deal. Now let’s look at Priority #3, Energy and Water Use Optimization…

NB: A big factor in energy usage at a mega event like EURO 2016 was backup generation capability. Mega sports events often experience energy usage spikes and thus use backup generators to ensure the lights do not cut out in case of unexpected events such as storms…

GSB And these generators are often very energy intense, very dirty, right?

NB: Exactly. At EURO 2016, we used state-of-the-art generators that saved 30,000 liters of fuel vs. 2012, again despite many more games being played. On non-match days, we shut down unnecessary Media Centres since the evolution of technology now enables media to work remotely.

GSB: I imagine that the stadiums in France are more technologically advanced than those of Poland and Ukraine such that energy usage would be significantly less than in 2012…

NB: Actually Poland’s and Ukraine’s stadium infrastructure was more advanced than expected so there was no big advantage for France in 2016. The weather, on the other hand, did favor France, as it was cooler than projected, which resulted in lower energy consumption.

GSB: I remember it being cool during the tournament. What was the on-site solar situation like?

NB: Seven of the ten stadiums had some sort of on-site renewable presence such as micro-wind, or geothermal. In the South of France—for example, in Nice and Bordeaux—solar predominated, in the parking lots and on roofs. In the north, the emphasis was on water harvesting. Three of the ten stadiums also purchased Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) and/or carbon offsets. The target for 2020 is 50 percent of the stadiums.

nouveau-stade-de-bordeaux

Nouveau Stade de Bordeaux, with solar panels on the roof and in the parking areas, hosted several EURO 2016 matches. (Photo credit: Iwan Baan/Architect Magazine)

 

GSB: You mentioned water briefly. Talk more about how EURO 2016 managed water consumption.

NB: Thanks to MTD Pure Water, a water management company expert at working with mega events, our water usage was optimized. The company proposed solutions aimed at monitoring and minimizing water use, such as timed OW valves for drinking water taps. There were some initiatives that we didn’t undertake. We looked at pumping water from the canal next to the Stade de France, site of the final, for the stadium’s water supply as well as using rain-harvesting systems on the hospitality tents. But both used more energy: the first to pump the water, and the second to install the harvesting systems, so we declined.

GSB: Some of the best actions are the ones you don’t take. Let’s look at the last of the four priorities; Responsible Sourcing.

NB: We did well in many aspects. 2.5 million tickets were printed on FSC paper, as were the 100,000 media and other accreditations. Even more important, an addendum was put into all supplier contracts that they and their supply chain should adhere to UN Global Compact Principles. Our catering company had a sustainability policy so they adhered to sustainability standards. And Kuoni, our accommodations management company, challenged hotels that housed the teams and sponsors for instance on sustainability measures, both environmental and social, including strong child labor protections.

GSB: Did all of the suppliers sign the addendum?

NB: Yes, but it was a challenge to monitor all of them. For 2020 we need to up our game in terms of supplier and supply chain compliance on environmental, labor, corruption and human rights standards.

GSB: So it sounds like, overall, UEFA and EURO 2016 made good sustainability progress vs. 2012. How do you see the big picture?

NB: In terms of overall carbon assessment, the biggest source of emissions for EURO 2016 was new stadium construction…

GSB:…Really? I would’ve thought that fan transportation would be the #1 emissions source. That is certainly the case in the US.

NB: Not in Europe. Mass transit plays a bigger role and the public transport system is efficient, travel distances are shorter, vehicles are more efficient and UEFA shuts down public parking at the stadiums.

GSB: WHOA!!! There was no public parking in stadium parking lots? How did the fans react to that?

NB: Positively, which is probably a surprise to an American reader. But in Europe, we have more comprehensive mass transit systems that are used by a bigger percentage of the people. Since EURO 2016 drew a good percentage of fans from other EU countries, most were happy to use mass transit to get to one of the ten city centers. Local municipalities then developed local mass transit to get fans from the train stations, airports and city centers to the stadiums and back.

GSB: We need to import that system, that pro-mass transit attitude to the states!

NB: Well, I’ll leave that to you, Lew. Back to our biggest source of emissions, stadium construction: The good news is that EURO 2020 is being contested in major cities across the continent in stadiums that, for the most part, already exist.

GSB: Finally, how did UEFA and EURO 2016 communicate its sustainability initiatives to the fans?

NB: Fans were encouraged when purchasing their tickets online to offset their carbon emissions via our eco-calculator. Only a small number did so; this has to improve for 2020.

GSB: That would be great for attendees but I’m more interested in how you’re communicating sustainability to the biggest cohort of fans—the millions watching in Europe and around the world. I mean, the 2016 Super Bowl (Super Bowl 50) was the greenest ever by far. Yet, aside from some folks in the San Francisco Bay Area where the game was held, virtually no one knew about the sustainability aspects of the event. A huge opportunity missed

NB: Yes, this is something we must do better at going forward. As said, we did air videos—”Celebrate Football” and “Respect“—promoting notably diversity, but in terms of environmental sustainability, we can do more at EURO 2020.

 

Please comment below!
Email us: lew@greensportsblog.com
Friend us on Facebook: http://facebook.com/greensportsblog
Tweet us: @GreenSportsBlog