Ever since London won the bid to host the 2012 Olympics, the focus has been on making it the "greenest games ever". Whether the plan succeeds or not, at least public attention has been drawn away from the spiralling budget—and concern that the only record the UK will break is for being the first host nation to miss its construction deadline. But promoters see the job of the "most sustainable games in history," as Tony Blair has referred to it, as a catalyst for the regeneration of east London. The 2012 Olympics, says Blair, will leave a "valuable, lasting legacy"—or in other words: no white elephants.
The Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) seems serious enough about delivering a green games, and has bombarded the media with statistics to back up that commitment. According to the ODA's Sustainable Development Strategy 90 per cent of demolished buildings will be recycled, carbon emissions will be 50 per cent lower than current building regulations permit, 20 per cent of materials used will be recycled, 20 per cent of the energy used will be from renewable sources and the Olympic village will be 25 per cent more energy efficient.
In charge of keeping track of these commitments, and the many more listed in the ODA report, is Shaun McCarthy, Chair of the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012. The commission is funded by "a basket of organisations", including the ODA, the Olympic organising committee LOCOG and the Greater London Authority (GLA), which "gives us as much independence as we possibly can have to scrutinise the programme," says McCarthy. "If we were part of the ODA, we would find it hard to criticise them."
Any criticism will have to wait. The ODA is still in the middle of its planning phase and McCarthy has a central role in making sure sustainable processes are put in place. Does he have the power to apply pressure where it's required? "We have a license to take a look at the thinking, the targets and the concepts and to produce an informed opinion," he says, "which of course generates the appropriate level of pressure. We're there to advise the Olympic board: have they thought through the joining up of the social, economic and environmental issues? Have they really thought through how to benefit the community long term?"
Any perceived benefit is often overshadowed by a runaway budget, but in truth, although the current figure of £9bn is more than three times the original estimate, it's a far more realistic number than the one first produced by Lord Coe and his bid team. The concern is that with spiralling costs, other institutions will suffer in the struggle to settle the bill. The government has already nicked £100m of arts money from lottery coffers—hardly a sustainable strategy where the arts are concerned—and the worry is that the pilfering will continue. Derek Mapp, chair of Sport England, says the loss of £223m from his own organisation's budget "seriously endangers the creation of a sporting legacy" from the games.
Budget aside, past Olympic hosts have failed spectacularly to deliver the legacy promises outlined in their bids—notably Barcelona and Athens—and McCarthy is nothing if not cautious about London's chances of living up to expectation. "I think we can do it, but I'm there to seek objective evidence that it's really going to happen," says McCarthy. "If you look at the Olympic village it'll only be used as athlete accommodation for six weeks, before being turned into homes. The Olympic stadium will be reduced from 80,000 capacity to 30,000, which is much more appropriate for use in the community." And the velodrome? "Long term use for the velodrome might be a bit of a challenge," he admits. But part of McCarthy's role, he says, is to engage with the local community for potential solutions. After long discussions, the media centre has now been moved so it can be used as "a business space" in the future.
A sustainable games also depends on local firms winning contracts to help build the Olympic park in Stratford. McCarthy is enthusiastic about local involvement, but is realistic about the challenges. "Procuring for sustainability is something that's quite new," he says. "The ODA's first-tier supply chain needs to be upskilled in this area. At the same time, work needs to be done to educate SMEs about how to offer more sustainable products," he says. "If you're doing good stuff for the environment, tell your client about it. If you're buying FSC timber, or doing something to reduce energy consumption, then put it in your literature. It's important that the right information is available for SMEs so they can start to present themselves in the right way—otherwise they will miss the boat."
The ODA still has some work to do before it impresses the sustainability commission with its environmental credentials. After all, one man's green agenda is another's cost control and the ODA has already been criticised for headline-grabbing targets that make little sense under closer scrutiny. The ODA originally claimed that the Olympic village would use 20 per cent less water than current regulations require, but at the same time admitted an allowance of 130 litres per athlete, per day—almost twice as much as London Mayor Ken Livingstone proposed for citizens in his sustainability strategy. McCarthy says the ODA is now looking at various solutions to the problem, such as harvesting rainwater or grey (waste) water, but he is yet to see "evidence of any improvements" to allowance targets.
The ODA has also pledged that the Olympic village buildings will be 25 per cent more energy efficient than current building regulations specify, but this is another red herring, since all UK new-builds will be obligated to reach that target by 2010, a good two years before the start of the games. Isn't it slightly disingenuous to celebrate reaching a target that, by the time the building work is finished, will be law anyway? Aren't many of these targets simply aimed at generating headlines? "Most of the informed opinion is that the 2010 building regulations will get us to that target anyway," he admits. "Why is that good? Well, you only have to build to the regulations that are in place today," he says. "Much as I don't wish to be an apologist for the ODA, if they wanted to do the bare minimum they could just build to 2006 regulations, which are far less strict."
McCarthy is still in talks with the ODA over the issue of overall carbon emissions. He accepts that "some fantastic progress" has been made with energy efficiency, but more can always be done, he insists. "I'm continually asking the question about carbon neutrality. Fifty per cent is great but what are you going to do with the other 50? How do we get to zero and is zero the right target?" Whatever is ultimately agreed, the onus remains on delivery—whatever the cost to the planet. "There's a point at which design is frozen and decisions need to be made. You can't keep changing things otherwise you end up with a late games-which is unthinkable. The time to influence is now."
Posted 17 April 2007 : Director.co.uk