The post-Games report, entitled London 2012 – From Vision to Reality, presents the final conclusions through key sustainability themes, with information based on first-hand observations and data gathered by the Commission during Games-time.

The report concludes that the London 2012 Games broadly delivered against its sustainability objectives, and highlights several examples of leading practice which the Commission urges future Olympic and Paralympic organisers to follow.

Using today’s release of its post-Games report, the Commission has called on the UK to lead the charge in ensuring London’s lessons are firmly embedded into the events industry.

Ambitious sustainability targets such as zero waste to landfill and 70% waste to be re-used, recycled or composted are on track thanks to efforts such as meticulous attention to packaging and the effective use of the colour coded three-bin system.

The transport system delivered an excellent service, and London 2012 should be praised for being the first Games to offer a fully comprehensive mobility service. Comprehensive public transport options and effective planning meant that the logistical operation for the Games was delivered with minimal disruption to Londoners.

Another success story was the food, with a wide variety of healthy, sustainably sourced, affordable meals available at most London 2012 venues, driven from the start by the development of the impressive London 2012 ‘Food Vision’ – a first for major event catering.

Shaun McCarthy, Chair of the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012, said:

“I have no hesitation in confirming that London 2012 has delivered the most sustainable Games ever, and we congratulate the delivery bodies and all those who contributed to this excellent achievement. But we mustn’t rest on our laurels – more could be achieved if London’s lessons, both the good and the challenging, are heeded by others.

“London 2012 has raised the bar on sustainability, not just for future Olympic and Paralympic Games but for industry, and for the organisers of major events the world over – from music festivals to football World Cups. By being open to learning from these successes as well as the missed opportunities, future major projects could even out-perform London 2012’s sustainability achievements.

“Minister for Sport Hugh Robertson has said that Government is now ‘focused on delivering the legacy from the Games’. The UK is hosting the Commonwealth Games in 2014, the Rugby World Cup in 2015, and the Olympic Stadium hosting the World Athletics Championships in 2017 – what better way to deliver the legacy than by embedding leading sustainability practice in these events? I call on the organisers to pick up the sustainability baton and carry it forward, demonstrating to the UK public that we can rely on them to meet the spirit of London’s sustainability achievements.”

However, the Commission’s findings also point to some areas during the London 2012 Games where further improvements could have been made.

The Live Sites provided an excellent opportunity for the public to soak up the Games atmosphere for free, but the Commission was disappointed that many of the Live Sites refused to allow the public to bring in their own food; compromising affordability and the principle of creating an event for all budgets.

Although Games-time carbon savings are on track to be achieved, the Commission remains disappointed with LOCOG’s slow development of a comprehensive energy plan, which meant opportunities were missed for even further carbon reductions.

The opening and closing ceremonies provided a showcase for messages about sustainability, and elements such as the method of waste management on the Olympic Park and use of green space offered spectators an opportunity to observe sustainability in practice. However, the lack of information available about the venues, village buildings and infrastructure was a missed opportunity for communicating their sustainability credentials to visitors.

The post-Games report can be downloaded in PDF format here.  

The full press release about the report is available here.  

They think the London 2012 Olympic Games are all over but from a sustainability point of view this is the end of the beginning. Today sees the release of our report entitled “London 2012 – From vision to reality“. It documents the fantastic effort made by my team to get to practically every Olympic venue with the exception of the football stadia. Not bad for a team of four people in a few short weeks. We also visited live sites, logistics hubs, waste transfer stations and numerous other “back of house” activities that would not normally be experienced by the public who just need to expect this stuff to be done well while they have a good time. Somebody has to check this and I would like to thank the team for doing such a great job in some of the less glamorous areas of the Games.

We can conclude from our assurance work that London 2012 has indeed delivered the most sustainable Games ever. Of course there are some things that could have been done better; energy conservation was pretty poor and inconsistency in delivery between LOCOG venues and government Live Sites did not help but the overall package of a great green space, food vision, a very visible waste strategy, great public transport and access for most disabled people proved to be a gold medal winning combination.

The Commission has one more piece of work to do before we shut up shop in March 2013; this is a review we call “Beyond 2012” where we will look for evidence of an “Olympic effect” on more sustainable practices. The ODA and LOCOG have demonstrated to the construction, event management and catering industries respectively that it is possible to deliver a step change in sustainable practice. The challenge is now with those industries and the people who commission services from them to demand these standards as a minimum and for the sectors to kick on and raise the bar even higher. My observations of these sectors to date make me optimistic, there is a growing band of people and organisations who understand the business opportunities presented through more sustainable solutions.

In other areas London 2012 has exposed weaknesses. The merchandise industry served up the same old tat in slightly more sustainable packaging here or containing a small percentage of organic cotton there. This is not step change and question marks remain about ethical standards in the supply chains of some suppliers and licensees. Global brand owners such as the IOC and FIFA have the power to demand more and should use it more effectively in the future. Transparency is important too. I have to question why no other event or major project has submitted itself to scrutiny by a body such as the Commission. Instead they rely on “advisory committees”, talking shops with no real influence, accountability or added value.

The party has left town but has London 2012 inspired a generation to be more respectful to the planet and the people on it? Maybe some future commentator starting a blog with “I was 8 years old when Mo Farrah won his second gold medal” will provide the answer.

Shaun McCarthy

November 2012

Background

The BBC had approached LOCOG several days before they contacted the Commission and were issued with a statement denying the allegations, saying that this was the action of one disgruntled ex-employee. There had been no communication between LOCOG and the Commission before being approached by the BBC. The Commission was presented with some of the evidence before the news item was broadcasted on 7^th September 2012. After the broadcast new evidence that was not used was presented to the Commission in confidence. These included photographs, additional video footage and transcripts of interviews. We were advised that 6 whistle blowers had made the allegations; their identity remains confidential to BBC London News. Given the evidence presented, this was investigated under our emerging issues procedure. LOCOG and Aramark have co-operated fully with this investigation.

Context

It is important to understand the scale of this operation. Catering for elite Olympic and Paralympic athletes requires meticulous attention to detail with respect to food hygiene, nutrition and the variety of food that must be available 24 hours per day for athletes from 204 competing nations. Approximately 52,000 meals were served during the Games each day and over 3,000 per day at the Royal Holloway facility alone. This requires very large quantities of food, for example 19,000 kilos of prawn skewers. We understand that Royal Holloway was particularly challenging, as athletes had catering services at the village but also at the Eton Dorney venue. This made consumption patterns much more difficult to predict. The majority of staff were Aramark employees but at Royal Holloway 27 staff were seconded from the university catering team.

Contractual position

LOCOG was responsible for providing catering to the athletes free of charge. LOCOG paid for this service from private funds generated from commercial activities. There was no public money involved. LOCOG appointed Aramark as the catering contractor for theAthletesVillageon the Olympic Park, and at Royal Holloway andWeymouth. Aramark is a major international business and has provided catering services to Olympic and Paralympic Games for over 40 years. All food was ordered by Aramark and paid for by LOCOG, which also arranged and paid for disposal of any waste. We have been advised that there were two relevant Key Performance Indicators in the contract, although we have not been shown a copy of the contract itself. No more than 5% of the food was to be wasted in production. This means that from the point of food being delivered to the premises, it is controlled by Aramark up to the point of serving food to athletes. Both the food that has been provided for the athletes’ but not consumed by them, and the food taken away by athletes but not eaten was not part of this scope.  Additionally, no more than 3% of food is to remain in inventory after the Games. Financial penalties apply if Aramark fails to achieve either of these performance indicators. We understand these levels of performance are typical for continuous catering contracts. They are significantly better than performance levels usually achieved for events.

Process

The Commission has viewed the back of house catering process at the Olympic Park Village, and Aramark has briefed us on the process controls. Aramark had a thorough process for managing food. Quantities of food were recorded throughout the process from receipt, through pre-cooking and final cooking. The number of meals served at each food serving station was recorded and aggregated on a daily basis. Every item of waste food was recorded manually on a daily sheet including the type of food, the weight and the reason for the waste. The financial value of the wastage was calculated every day and aggregated over the duration of the contract. There was no formal audit of this process by LOCOG or Aramark but the comparison of any gaps between food supplied, consumed and wasted was reviewed daily by both the operational and finance teams. If food was being thrown away and not recorded, Aramark is confident this would have been picked up. LOCOG did not audit this process but there was oversight by catering managers. LOCOG and Aramark endeavoured to re-distribute any un-used food that was safe to eat by operating a “Swap Shop” between caterers and by distributing food to staff and volunteers through the numerous workforce canteens. We have been advised by LOCOG that donations to charity proved to be difficult due to the very large quantities involved, short notice that food was available, the short shelf-life of food and the logistics of transporting food from areas operated under high security.

Review

The Commission was shown the output from this process including the file of daily waste logs, daily menus, food supply records and financial analysis of any food waste. We did not take copies due to the commercial confidentiality of the information. We did not conduct a detailed audit of the information supplied. However, the data tabled by Aramark and LOCOG indicates that Aramark has been performing well within its 5% target. The waste figures at Royal Holloway were relatively higher than those for the Olympic Village due to the dual locations used by the athletes, but this venue was still comfortably within target. Among the photographs presented by BBC London News, there was a large quantity of yoghurt being poured down a sink. The waste yoghurt was recorded and the reason for its disposal explained (food hygiene). It should have been composted and not poured down the sink.

Conclusions

Our review of the evidence presented by BBC London News and LOCOG suggests that there is reasonable consistency between the reports of the whistle blowers and Aramark’s records. While the quantities of waste may appear high in absolute terms, they appear to have been properly recorded and are well within the 5% target, which is very challenging compared to usual practice in the event industry. Aramark categorically denied the statement made by the whistle blowers that food was being cooked specifically for the purpose of disposal. We were unable to validate either statement directly although we recognise that it would not be in Aramark’s interests to risk reputational damage arising from manipulating its contractual conditions in this manner. The Commission had been advised by LOCOG that there will be a rigorous financial reconciliation as part of the contract closing-out period, which will be subject to standard financial audit procedures. We would expect that a cross-check of financial tallies with consumption and waste figures would occur as part of this reconciliation process.

September 2012 

On arrival we were transported by bus from Stratford station, my bus driver let his engine idle while we were waiting which is against LOCOG’s policy but I was assured by my fellow guests that their busses had their engines switched off. Let’s put that down to fate, the one bus I happened to take had the engine running. Bad luck rather than bad planning hopefully.

Progress through security was quick and efficient, the massive temporary structure had no air conditioning but it was very cool from natural ventilation and there was plenty of natural light. My first impression and an over- riding impression of the whole event was how friendly, helpful and well informed the staff were. There was always somebody there with a smile able to help. This contrasted slightly with my experience in Beijing where the people were lovely but did not really know what they were doing – they just made you feel better about being lost.

The Village will be a housing development in legacy with 2,700 homes, a school for all ages, a GP poly clinic, shops, playgrounds and the spanking new Stratford International DLR station on the doorstep, not to mention the massive Westfield shopping centre. During the Games the homes are kitted out for athletes with no kitchens, single beds in shared rooms and very basic cheap furniture and laminate flooring. This will all be reused or recycled after the Games and the homes will be fitted out for legacy; 50% affordable housing, 50% homes for sale. This is the first major development to be built to Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4. It will be a very energy and water efficient development in legacy with living roofs and sustainable drainage systems. The school is the operations centre during the Games and the poly clinic is a medical centre for athletes.

The jewel in the sustainable crown was the catering. It is difficult to describe a hall that can seat 5,000 athletes that provides every type of food imaginable 24 hours per day at no cost to the customers. ‘Massive’ does not quite do it somehow. The sustainable experience is everywhere, from the huge HFC-free Coke refrigerator with plenty of healthy drinks from their “Innocent” subsidiary as well as their traditional products and a promise to recycle every bottle used into another bottle within 6 weeks. They have built a new recycling centre in Lincolnshire to achieve this. Healthy, locally produced food is on offer and it was very good. Paper plates and all the packaging is compostable and clearly marked to show which bin to put it in. The beer and wine bottles and plastic glasses are recyclable and also clearly marked. Breakfast the next morning was the same and the food was excellent. There was even a copy of the Village newspaper for guests with a sustainability quiz at the end. This whole system is a credit to Jan Matthews and the LOCOG team who have made painstaking preparations for several years to create a real step change in the catering and waste industries. Well done LOCOG!

Recycling at the Athletes Village

As I was leaving the Olympic Park on foot on a Saturday morning I was shocked to see theWestfieldcentre closed off by the police as a crime scene. While we were enjoying LOCOG’s hospitality a young man had lost his life in a gang fight. A chilling message that there is much to be done in legacy if London 2012 is to be truly a catalyst for sustainable regeneration and for the Olympic Park and its surrounding area to be a safe, healthy and sustainable place for people to live.

Shaun McCarthy

July 2012  

Of course it is not perfect. We were critical of LOCOG and their energy partner last year for their failure to deliver their commitment to a “low carbon torch”. However I have been impressed with LOCOG’s efforts to reduce the size of the entourage following the torch around and subsequent number of vehicles they need, plus accommodation, food etc. The “austerity relay”? Possibly! I have also been impressed with some of the funky hybrid vehicles used by some of the sponsors involved in the event. They are eye catching and give all the right messages about sustainability. It is not about living in a cave or feeling guilty all the time. It can be bright, entertaining and fun.

My big concern about the torch relay is “premiums”. This is industry-speak for the useless tat that sponsors hand out at events that are supposed to make us feel better about their brand. They generally serve no useful purpose and most end up in the bin or littering the streets. Test events on the Park do not bode well. The cardboard “clackers” handed out to help the crowd make a noise are a typical example. Most of the crowds were school children and in my experience they need no help to make a noise. If I had my way they would be banned altogether but this is not going to happen. LOCOG has gone a long way to making sure all premiums are approved by the sustainability team to ensure that they are in accordance with the sustainable sourcing code and disposable in a way that does not go to landfill. At official venues this is OK because LOCOG’s “zero to landfill” process should take care of the waste. But across the length and breadth of the UK this is impossible to control, each local authority has a different waste policy and facilities for recycling vary widely across the country.

I hope the torch relay unites the country in celebration but I hope that the sponsors don’t turn streets of fire into rivers of tat.

Shaun McCarthy

May 2012

The early evening event, well organised by the ODA, was very different. 1,600 guests were invited to celebrate one year to go with the first dive into the pool by Tom Daley and a unique swimming race featuring medal winning athletes, but most of them not for swimming. All I can say about that is that as a swimmer, Tessa Sanderson throws a mean javelin. From a sustainability standpoint it was mixed. The audience was very inclusive, lots of local school kids and local residents who responded to advertising in the local media. All races, colours and abilities seemed to be there and very few white blokes in suits (like me). However I was disappointed to see naff plastic flags on every seat which served no useful purpose at all and just littered the venue after the event. I have no idea what they were made of, where they were made and where they will go when somebody has swept them off the floor. Our commissioner Neil Taylor took a load home for his kids so I suppose that is re-use of a sort. The food was healthy and fresh (and free), served on cardboard platters with wooden forks. However there was far too much and much was wasted. I was not impressed with what I saw of the waste management either, all waste in one bin with no evidence of segregation. All lessons to be learned for The Big One next year.

A final word for the Aquatic Centre. We have been very rude about this building and have been unstinting in our criticism of its relative lack of sustainability. I still think 3,000 tonnes is too much metal to put a roof over a swimming pool but the building is stunning inside. The atmosphere created by 17,000 spectators will be an inspiration. However, I still prefer the velodrome!

Shaun McCarthy

July 2011

The ODA have performed in exemplary manner: 97% waste diverted from landfill during demolition and 90%+ during construction. The second edition of the London 2012 Sustainability Plan introduced a new target to use “reasonable endeavours” to achieve 90%+ reuse or recycling after the Games. This is a remarkable target for the event management industry, which is usually very wasteful, particularly after an event, the period known as “bump-out” by the industry may just as well be called “skip-fest”. For the Games themselves LOCOG has gone one better, promising zero waste to landfill at Games-time and at least 70% of this to be re-used, recycled or composted. The Commission’s waste review scrutinised these plans and we were very impressed. We are confident this ambitious target can be achieved.

However, the Games promised more than this, it promised to “act as a catalyst for good waste management practice in East London”. This is simply not happening and in my opinion the waste industry and government organisations that support it have let the side down.

Firstly, in order to have zero waste to landfill, LOCOG must first minimise the waste it generates, then find somewhere to send the residual waste that can dispose of it in accordance with LOCOG’s ambitions. The idea was that this would stimulate development of suitable facilities locally, particularly for food waste. This has not happened. There is only one organic waste facility in development in East London. This was planned before the bid and will not support LOCOG’s target of 70% re-use, recycling or composting. LOCOG will need to transport waste to South London, north to Bedford or even by barge to Holland or Germany to achieve their objective.

Secondly, in our annual review in 2007, we recommended that the excellent Combined Cooling, Heat and Power system in the Olympic Park should be powered by biogas from waste to energy facilities developed in East London. There has been lots of activity as a result of this recommendation but no result. This will not happen in time for the Games; our only hope is for legacy.

An opportunity lost. What a waste!

It would be very convenient to blame somebody for this but it is not as simple as that. There are a number of factors contributing to this failure. The credit crunch did not help; financing schemes that have an element of risk related to new technology and uncertain market conditions became difficult for investors. The change of administration in City Hall saw a change in the way waste schemes were financed with the formation of the Mayor’s Waste and Recycling Board (LWARB). This has taken some time to get up and running and is currently sitting on a pile of money. This is regrettable as there is no doubting the Mayor’s commitment to the waste/energy agenda for London. The waste industry has not helped itself, according to LWARB, business cases put forward to them have been inadequate to justify distribution of public funds.

So, a solution that should be obvious to everybody from the Mayor to the ticket man at Fulham Broadway station is not going to happen in time for the Games. We need to look towards the Olympic Park Legacy Company and their energy partner Cofely to right this wrong in legacy.