As we have seen, there is a substantial body of literature which explores the social benefit claims of sports mega-events. In contrast, the environmental concerns surrounding sports mega-events have a relatively short history. Environmental concerns first arose in the 1992 Winter Olympics in Albertville and mainstream media considered this event an environmental disaster. Chappelet (2008) suggests the Winter Olympics were more susceptible to environmental criticism as they are largely located on
35 mountain resorts and therefore are ‘close’ to nature. Therefore, it was the pressure from commentators concerned by the Winter Olympics which started the Olympic movement toward environmental
considerations. Nevertheless, the following Winter Olympics were held in 1994 in Lillehammer, without a centralised environmental programme. The Olympic organisers in Lillehammer did have an
environmental agenda, although this was locally organised and perhaps more influenced by global politics. The main author of the newly released, UN commissioned, Brundtland report, Gro Harlem Brundtland, was Norwegian and provided impetus for the Norwegian government to become a global leader in environmental protection. The first Winter Olympics to have an IOC driven environmental programme was the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano, Japan (Leonardsen, 2007, Mallen et al., 2011, Schmidt, 2006, Cantelon, 2000). At the time, the IOC had been tarnished by accusations of corruption and drug use, adopting a new ‘green’ paradigm therefore was seen by some as a tool to reduce public pressure (Hayes and Karamichas, 2012). Since this first environmentally focused event, the environment has been embraced as the third pillar to the Olympic movement to complement the existing pillars, sport and culture (Schmidt, 2006).
Arguably, due to the urban location of the World Cup, FIFA were slower to develop an environmental charter. Their response was the ‘Green Goal’ programme which aims to push the green agenda onto organisers of FIFA’s World Cup event and is created on the premise that the World Cup tournament can be environmentally neutral, if not friendly (Mander and Roberts, 2010, Mol, 2010, O’Brien and Chalip, 2008). This is based on the assumption that technological innovation can overcome environmental problems (Fisher and Freudenburg, 2001, Mol and Sonnenfeld, 2000, Mol and Spaargaren, 1993) and was created within the ecological modernisation paradigm.
Today, organising committees of both the FIFA World Cup and Olympic Games are required to address environmental impacts as part of the bidding process, but to the extent these environmental projects are implemented is a contested issue. Preuss (2013) points to the time pressures associated with
36 hosting a sports mega-event. He argues it is often a matter of four years between hosts being selected and staging the event, therefore, environmental projects can be abandoned in favour of construction and infrastructure projects. Reis and DaCosta (2012: 60) also claim that ‘there is still a significant gap between the written commitment of host governments and organizing committees, and the actual implementation of environmentally responsible events’.
Reis and DaCosta’s (2012) assertion has little support in the academic literature on the Olympic Games. The majority of this literature is quantitative in nature and within the ecological modernisation
paradigm (Andranovich et al., 2001, Essex and Chalkley, 1998, Malfas et al., 2004, Mol, 2010, Paquette et al., 2011, Samuel and Stubbs, 2012, Tomlinson and Young, 2006, Tian and Brimblecombe, 2008, Waitt, 2003). Hollins (2013) doctoral thesis is perhaps the only publication which studies the economy,
environment and locality in relation to the 2012 London Olympics. Although Reis and DaCosta (2012) suggest there is a gap between what is said and achieved, there is no literature which explicitly addresses this gap. This trend in literature is similar to that which covers the World Cup.
Germany was the first FIFA host to systematically incorporate the ‘Green Goal’ into its planning for the 2006 tournament, resulting in a pledge to stage a carbon neutral event (Schmidt, 2006). The ‘Green Goal’ forms part of the wider ‘Football for the Planet’ programme which was also created within the
ecological modernisation paradigm. Central to these claims is carbon offsetting, as it is assumed emitting behaviours can be offset through emissions savings elsewhere (Bumpus and Liverman, 2008). Both Germany and South Africa had carbon offsetting projects as part of their ‘Green Goal’ programme, which are now explored further.
There are three academic articles and one official document produced by the Local Organising
Committee that explicitly address carbon offsetting at the World Cup in Germany. Subsequent articles have discussed the results of these four key publications. Dolles and Söderman (2010) published in the ‘Journal of Management and Organisation’, Mitchell (2007) published in ‘Sustainable Development, Law
37 and Policy’ and Schmidt (2006) published in ‘Environmental Health Perspectives’. These three
publications came from management and policy level journals, which, by nature, would not address the socio-political implications of sustainability.
These publications did not question the claims made in the name of these projects; that is, they did not study how they have been implemented on the ground. For example, Mitchell (2007) summarises the claimed achievements of the project, not the results. Writing on a bio-gas project, he argues that ‘not only will the eco-friendly biogas protect the local forests and decrease global greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, but it will reduce the number of respiratory illnesses associated with traditional wood and kerosene-burning stoves’ (Ibid:5). Schmidt (2006:287) is vague and outlines the claims of the project organisers: ‘organizers of the 2006 World Cup…are striving for “climate neutrality” (i.e., zero impact), which they hope to achieve by offsetting the expected 100,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions with investments in renewable energy and energy-efficient technology.’ A fourth article produced by Stahl et al. (2004) is the official document of the Local Organising Committee, hence providing the claims made by project officials. They describe one of three projects used to offset emissions that delivered cooking stoves to rural families: The ‘Family Clean Energy Packages’ project in Tamil Nadu, India, will ‘ensure an environmentally compatible and secure energy source for several thousand villagers...in addition, needy families are also given cows’ (Stahl et al., 2004:90). Being very descriptive, these publications do not engage qualitatively or critically with the offsetting projects and their implications.
The only publication to criticise the offsetting projects is Hayes and Karamichas (2012). Their main argument centres on the methodology for calculating the emissions from the World Cup and how many tonnes of carbon would be needed to offset these emissions. They do hint at decentralisation of the projects: ‘it is evident that national and transnational environmental NGO’s have been instrumental in establishing and legitimising such schemes, and in measuring carbon offsets’ (Ibid:12). They also hint at
38 some project issues: ‘local land-use conflicts are common’ (Ibid:12). However, they do not detail these potential problems.
The ‘Green Goal’ initiative for the South Africa World Cup was organised by individual host cities. Unlike Germany, South Africa did not incorporate the ‘Green Goal’ principles into centralised plans. Instead, each host city assumed responsibility for their projects and funding was privately sourced. Death (2011) and Ozinsky (2010) suggested this led to many projects that failed to complete, or did not even start. This is also acknowledged in the official literature of the World Cup organisers (Mokua, 2012:22).
Scholars have tended to consider these implications more than the offsetting programmes (Death, 2011, Ozinsky, 2010).
One of the carbon offsetting projects used to offset emissions from the 2010 World Cup in South Africa was the ‘Buffelsdraai Landfill Site Community Reforestation’ project in eThekwini municipality. Mander and Roberts (2010) produced an official document for the eThekwini municipality on the project and describes the project aim to ‘sequester some of the carbon emissions associated with hosting the 2010 FIFA World Cup’ in Durban (Ibid:23). Throughout the publication it is not quantified how much carbon will be sequestered. Ozinsky (2010), in a conference paper, suggests that the eThekwini project has the potential to offset 12,000 CO2e over 20 years by planting 650ha of trees. He then describes the number of project participants, both employed and voluntary, but gives no qualitative analysis of participants’ experiences. Witt and Loots (2011) produce an academic article on the project from a gender studies perspective, focusing on analysing the roles of men and women. For example, the ‘local community members have been trained how to collect seeds, plant trees and how to maintain them….men were selected for the digging of holes and women for the bagging of trees in the nursery’ (Ibid:132).
Perhaps the most engaged description of these projects is made by Diederichs and Roberts (2015). They suggest the Buffelsdraai Landfill site project had a focus on community benefits and created 81
39 permanent jobs. Project participants also received credits for planting trees and are said to have been exchanged for school fees, driving lessons, food and clothing in ‘tree shops’. At the time of the
publication, the total value of trades was reported to be more than US $293,000. Finally, they claimed the landfill project would sequester 61,008 tonnes CO2e over a 20 year period, which was 20% of Durban’s calculated carbon footprint from the 2010 FIFA World Cup. The only critical reflections from Diederichs and Roberts (2015) are that they suggest that not all carbon offsetting projects are
synonymous with sustainability. This a reflection of Durban’s failed attempt to find a suitable offsetting project for the UNFCCC-COP17 meeting. Second, that participants and spectators of sports mega-events do not see themselves financially responsible for contributing to their carbon footprint offset. This was in relation to a comparison between participation of the COP 17 offsetting programme where
participants were asked to pay US$11 and the London 2012 offset programme, which was free (Diederichs and Roberts, 2015).
Common characteristics of the publications that cover carbon offsetting at the World Cup can be identified. First, the authors who produce these publications work within the ecological modernisation paradigm. Second, they do not question power relations or qualitatively investigate the claims project elites make. Hence, the gap I wish to address in this body of literature is by providing an independent, qualitatively embedded, critical analysis of claims surrounding a carbon offsetting project associated with a sports mega-event.