Objective: Minimise the carbon footprint of the 2010 event

One of the key overarching aims of Host City Cape Town’s Green Goal effort was to ensure that the 2010 FIFA World Cup TM is a low-carbon event. This specifically related to ensuring low climate change impact through the reduction of Green House Gas (GHG) emissions. Where GHG emissions could not be avoided, they were mitigated through a range of Green Goal 2010 carbon mitigation projects. The objective of the carbon mitigation programme was to compensate for unavoidable GHG emissions, such as activities related to transport (ground and air travel), higher energy use in stadia, and visitor accommodation.

The projects

• Determining the carbon footprint of the 2010 event
• Identifying and implementing carbon mitigation project(s) in Cape Town/Western Cape
• Installation of energy-efficient technologies in stadia and training venues, and at the FIFA Fan Fest and PVAs
  

Project actions

Determining the carbon footprint of the 2010 event

In 2008, the National Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) together with the local UNDP office and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) initiated a process to design, mobilise resources for, and implement a plan of action to make the 2010 FIFA World Cup™ a carbon-neutral event. International consulting firm Econ Pöyry was commissioned to conduct a feasibility study and prepare recommendations.

The study concluded that the estimated carbon footprint of the 2010 FIFA World Cup™ was more than 896 000 tonnes of CO² equivalent (tCO²e), with an additional     1 856 000 tCO²e contributed by international travel. The former value was more than eight times the estimated footprint of the 2006 FIFA World Cup™ in Germany, which had been stated as 100 000 tonnes in the Green Goal Legacy Report published by the German LOC. Reasons for the South African event’s significantly higher footprint included the lack of high-speed rail links in South Africa, which meant that most visitors needed to fly multiple times between matches, which in turn led to much higher transport emissions. Passenger car use would also be higher. Although major efforts were being made to upgrade public transport options, the reality was that much of this travel still needed to be undertaken in passenger cars or small buses, rather than light rail as in Germany. Other reasons included the construction of five new stadia (with embedded carbon from their construction) and the fact that South Africa is a more GHG-intensive economy than many European countries, with electricity primarily being generated from coal instead of cleaner energy sources, which in turn gives rise to higher CO² emissions.

The carbon footprint of hosting the World Cup in Cape Town was estimated at approximately 150 000 tonnes (excluding international air travel to the city), representing approximately 15% of the national estimate. This excluded the carbon emissions from the FIFA Fan Fest™, fan jols and the hosting of the Final Draw, which added another 30 tonnes, bringing the total estimate for Cape Town to 180 000 tCO².

It was estimated that it would cost between $8 and $14 per tonne to offset South Africa’s domestic carbon footprint related to the 2010 FIFA World Cup™. In the absence of a clear national framework pertaining to carbon neutrality, Host City Cape Town decided to follow the lead of London (host of the 2012 Summer Olympic Games), aiming to host a low-carbon event as opposed to a carbon-neutral event. While some carbon offset projects were undertaken (see next section), the focus was on seeking long-term energy efficiency within existing projects.

Cape Town’s carbon footprint shown in Table 6 below was primarily made up of the city’s proportional share of intercity transport, followed by transport to and from match venues and venue and accommodation electricity use.

Identifying and implementing carbon mitigation project(s) in Cape Town/Western Cape

In January 2009, the Royal Danish Embassy and DANIDA announced that they had allocated R7,5 million to the City and the Province to mitigate and offset carbon emissions emanating from the hosting of the 2010 FIFA World Cup™. A KAS-sponsored carbon offset workshop was convened by Host City Cape Town in February 2009 to review potential projects that could be implemented with this grant.

Seven projects were subsequently approved for funding, including both mitigation and offset initiatives. They are as follows:

• Installation of LED retrofit in Cape Town Stadium 
• Installation of energy-efficient floodlights and electricity submeters at Philippi Stadium
• Retrofitting of traffic lights along protocol routes with LED lights
  
• Retrofitting of streetlights along protocol routes with low-energy luminaires
  
• Retrofitting of a Council-owned buildings with energy-efficiency measures
  
• Installation of solar water heaters for low-income households in Darling 
• Installation of a hydroelectric turbine to generate electricity from spring water in Green Point Park

In addition to the above initiatives, carbon savings also resulted from the use of public transport and NMT options to access Cape Town Stadium and the FIFA Fan Fest™. It is estimated that 3 903 tons CO²e was saved by the use of public transport and walking to games compared with if only private vehicles had been used.

The total amount of energy requirements during the World Cup in South Africa was estimated at 360 GWh for the accommodation sector and stadia precincts. In partnership with Eskom and its Southern African Power Pool (SAPP) partners, a total of 2 418,71 GWh of certified renewable energy was generated, imported from SAPP, and supplied to the Eskom grid as part of the total energy mix for the duration of the World Cup.

Lessons learnt on energy efficiency and climate change projects

The hosting of a carbon-neutral event in a developing country such as South Africa is an expensive undertaking. The lack of public transport and renewable-energy infrastructure contributed to a significant increase in the carbon footprint, compared to events in countries where this infrastructure is already in place. In addition, South Africa is a long-haul destination, which means that international air travel significantly increased the carbon footprint. Consequently, visitors’ expected length of stay in rented accommodation was also projected to be longer, thereby further increasing the footprint.

In developing its offset projects, Green Goal 2006 in Germany excluded any carbon emissions associated with international air travel to the event, as it maintained that travel outside of Germany lay beyond the scope of the German LOC’s mandate. Yet, international air travel is by far the highest source of World Cup-related carbon emissions.

The workshop on carbon offsetting convened by Host City Cape Town in February 2009 to scope potential carbon mitigation/offset projects, identified the following lessons learnt: 

• For projects to influence awareness and behaviour, they must be implemented (or at least partially implemented) by the beginning of the year of the event. Therefore, the process should start at least two years prior to the event.
• An upfront commitment to fund the offsets is needed – one cannot rely on voluntary contributions during the event.
• Projects may initially need government or donor funding.
• National governments need to partner with FIFA to implement a national carbon offset programme. (FIFA contributed 40 000 Euro for carbon offsetting duriong the 2006 FIFA World Cup™. )
• Use a well-established and recognised international standard, such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), Gold Standard (GS) or Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS), as this will provide credibility and integrity to the programme.  
• The geographic location of offset projects should be carefully considered. Given the extent of the carbon footprint, and the imperitive for an African legacy from the 2010 event, it made sense to invest in carbon-offset projects in more than one country.
• Consider project scale, as this is important for transaction costs. There is merit in doing a few large, development-oriented projects (such as energy-efficient low-cost housing) instead of various small ones.
  

Significant financial resources are required to offset carbon emissions through sustainable projects. In the South African context, it is therefore more feasible to aim for a low-carbon event, focusing on measures to reduce energy requirements and increasing the share of public transport to reduce carbon emissions. Grant funding througn the Urban Environmental Management Programme (UEMP) of the Royal Danish Embassy acknowledged this constraint, and host cities used the grant to invest in projects that will continue to deliver long-term energy savings as opposed to carbon offsetting.

Installation of energy-efficient technologies in stadia and training venues, and at fan fest and PVAs

The inclusion of energy efficient technologies was a requirement of the project briefs of the various design teams responsible for the design of the new Cape Town Stadium and upgrades to the Philippi and Athlone Stadiums.

A maximum demand of 8 MVA electricity is provided to the Cape Town Stadium from a nearby 150 MVA sub-station. Some of the main demand items are flood lighting (1 MVA), accommodation lighting (1,5 MVA), ventilation (1,5 MVA) and air conditioning (2 MVA). A total of 5 MVA permanent standby power generation is possible for essential use, including of rotary Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) to the flood lighting, to ensure a smooth changeover in the event of grid power failure.

The following energy-efficiency measures were included in the Cape Town Stadium design:

• The building was designed to raked outward to shade itself, and the exterior mesh cladding allows 30% light filtration. The fabric allows for natural ventilation, while the light colour reduces thermal radiation.
• The translucent glass roof facilitates natural lighting.
• The open concourse facilitates natural ventilation, and the 5 meter gap between the inner and outer skins of the façade provides for passive ventilation through a stack effect.
• A water-cooled variable refrigerant-volume cooling system is used for air conditioning. This system is estimated to be 13% more efficient than the normal split-type air-conditioning system.
• Compact Fluorescent Lamps are used where possible. Where halogens are used, they are 45% more efficient than the standard fittings. No incandescent lamps were used.
• A building management system (BMS) allows for manual and automatic control and monitoring of air conditioning, lighting and other systems in different areas of the stadium.
• Carbon Dioxide (CO²) monitors in the parking garage control the ventilation fans.
• A BMS has been installed with centralised control over various systems, including access control, closed circuit television, fire detection, lighting, public address system and two LED screens. Through optimisation significant energy savings has been achieved.
• LED lighting was installed after the World Cup, which has improved the energy efficiency of the emergency lighting circuits by 98%.

The stadium professional team conducted a detailed feasibility study to scope the installation of PV systems on the roof of Green Point Stadium. The study concluded that, although this was technically possible, it was not financially feasible within the given budget provisions.

The architectural team also considered the use of LED lighting for the façade of the stadium. However, the LED installation would have added another R15 million to the total stadium budget, which made the intervention unaffordable at the time. However, following the World Cup, LED lighting was installed on the emergency lighting circuit, as the technology had become more affordable.

The upgrade of the two VSTSs, Athlone and Philippi stadia, provided an opportunity to replace outdated lighting with energy-saving technologies. As part of the 2010 carbon mitigation strategy, the Province installed energy-efficient floodlights at Philippi Stadium. It is anticipated that the resultant energy saving will be as much as 60% per annum. Electricity submetering was also installed, which assists with the monitoring of energy use in various parts of the stadium. No mechanical/artifi cial ventilation is used in the upgraded buildings, and all internal areas are naturally ventilated. The existing Athlone Stadium had good natural ventilation and natural lighting, which were also incorporated into the new stands. The stadium has a BMS that allows selective switching-on of lighting in the stadium, as required. CFLs were installed during the upgrade, and feature lighting was connected to a timer or light sensor.

The South African Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, through the Urban Environmental Programme funded by the Royal Danish Embassy, commissioned a review of the greening status of the FIFA World Cup Stadia.

The report available for download below tells the Story of the Cape Town Stadium:
Greenpoint Stadium Environmental performance enhanced report (PDF)

Lessons learnt on the installation of energy efficient technologies

When building new stadia and implementing green technologies, it is important to intervene in the site selection and design phases to ensure that the facility is designed and built in line with green building principles. The work of the green review team was useful, and led to certain efficiencies being pursued. However, in practice, recommendations are often altered during the construction process, and final installation depends on timing, budget and technical considerations within a pressurised construction programme, where different priorities have to be balanced. The consideration of environmental concerns during this process requires explicit prioritisation and a dedicated budget. Some of these recommendations are likely to be considered in the legacy scenario after the World Cup.

It is interesting to note that technologies that were not readily available when the stadium construction commenced, such as an integrated solar roof and LED lighting, have since become more common and, therefore, a constant review of new technologies should be undertaken throughout the design and construction process.

Key references and source material

• ECON Analysis, in association with the Energy Research Centre, University of Cape Town. December 2006. Prefeasibility CDM assessment for the new Green Point Stadium. Commissioned by the Provincial Government of the Western Cape.
• Econ Pöyry AB, November 2008. Carbon Footprint for the FIFA 2010 World Cup™ (Oslo, Norway). Commissioned by Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad). ISSN 0803-5113.
• Econ Pöyry AB, August 2009. Carbon Footprint of Cape Town. Commissioned by Host City Cape Town.
• Sustainable Energy Africa. March 2009. A Green Goal 2010 Workshop: Scoping, planning and implementing the carbon offsetting action plan for Host City Cape Town (Cape Town).
• Sustainable Energy Africa and Steadfast Greening. July 2008. Green Goal 2010: Guidelines, Standards and Business Plan for Greening 2010 FIFA World Cup™ (Cape Town). Commissioned by Local Organising Committee (LOC). (Unpublished).
• Urban Environmental Management Programme and Green by Design WSP, 2008. 2010 FIFA World Cup™ Green Point Stadium: Environmental Performance Enhanced. (Pretoria, South Africa). Commissioned by Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, funded by the Royal Danish Embassy, South Africa.