This summer, South Africa will play host to the FIFA World Cup, the first African nation to have the opportunity to do so. The attention and economic boom that go hand in hand with such an event will be a great boost for the country, but with the good comes the bad.

This year’s tournament will generate an estimated 2.75 million tonnes of carbon emissions, nine times that of the German games in 2006, with fans travelling from all over the globe to see their teams play. The emphasis on ‘green games’ is putting the pressure on South Africa to deal with the environmental impact of an international event in the country, and while officials say they’ve got the right game plan, critics argue otherwise.

For the time being, South Africa’s environmental credentials certainly leave room for improvement: Space ?is running out as the country continues to landfill 92 per cent of its waste; 75 per cent of the country’s energy comes from coal – a trend that looks set to continue as the World Bank just approved a £2.4 billion pound loan to build a huge coal-fired power station that will ?emit 25 million tonnes of CO2 per annum; currently, power and water shortages are frequent.

With this in mind, the government’s official line in terms of the football finals is: ‘South Africa strives to remain on top of global environmental management best practice through lessons learnt from the 2006 World Cup in Germany, the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games and new initiatives which, combined, will deliver a 2010 event with a minimal ecological footprint.’ Certainly investment in the games has been high and much needed infrastructure improvements have been implemented across the nine host cities. Recycling bins have popped up with unique designs to encourage use, with 500 in and around Cape Town airport alone. Water conservation projects are underway and transport has been dramatically improved with 11.7 billion rand (more than £1 billion) allocated to transport projects focused on upgrading public transport, road infrastructure and the railway. It is estimated that the World Cup finals will contribute 415,400 jobs to the South African economy, as well as 19.3 billion rand in income tax. The knock-on effect will hopefully be one that South Africa can build on.

Despite efforts to make the games more environmentally efficient, the finals’ footprint is expected to be massive. A big focus has been on offsetting the carbon emissions that will be created during the games, with between £3.3 million and £5.4 million in carbon offsetting required to make the games carbon neutral. Johannesburg, host city to the opening and closing matches, is planting an additional 200,000 trees with the help of £80,000 from Norway. Durban, another host city, plans to offset local carbon emissions by producing electricity from hydraulic turbines or biogas emitted by landfills. Nicci Diederichs, head of the city’s green programmes, says that it is estimated these carbon credit projects will take about two and a half years to offset the emissions caused by hosting the tournament. Other considerations include using solar power for traffic lights and security cameras.

While all this sounds very promising, critics such as Nkopane Maphiri, a Greenpeace campaigner in Africa, are concerned that not enough has been done in practice – that policy has not effectively been transposed into action – and that now it’s too late: “There are a number of policy processes under way in South Africa which are largely meant to address the green issues in their various forms, and many of these policy frameworks which should inform each other are being developed separately or in parallel. These policies and strategies are not translated into concrete actions; as a result we have polices that are great on paper but often poor on action.”

Concerns also remain about ?post-game strategy: “I don’t think that as a country we have really applied our minds around what to do after the World Cup. There is extreme preoccupation with the objective of delivering a world-class event such that there’s been less consideration on the post-tournament plans,” Maphiri continues. Strategy for after the games is still in planning stage, and with the World Cup looming, time is running out to implement comprehensive policies to deal with the repercussions of 450,000 expected visitors. The Local Organising Committee (LOC) has implemented a policy of ‘encouraging’ host city local governments to set aside a budget to separate and manage post-game waste, but it remains to be seen if, at the end of the day, South Africa will manage to score green this summer.

This summer, South Africa will play host to the FIFA World Cup, the first African nation to have the opportunity to do so. The attention and economic boom that go hand in hand with such an event will be a great boost for the country, but with the good comes the bad. This year’s tournament will generate an estimated 2.75 million tonnes of carbon emissions, nine times that of the German games in 2006, with fans travelling from all over the globe to see their teams play. The emphasis on ‘green games’ is putting the pressure on South Africa to deal with the environmental impact of an international event in the country, and while officials say they’ve got the right game plan, critics argue otherwise.

For the time being, South Africa’s environmental credentials certainly leave room for improvement: Space ?is running out as the country continues to landfill 92 per cent of its waste; 75 per cent of the country’s energy comes from coal – a trend that looks set to continue as the World Bank just approved a £2.4 billion pound loan to build a huge coal-fired power station that will ?emit 25 million tonnes of CO2 per annum; currently, power and water shortages are frequent.

With this in mind, the government’s official line in terms of the football finals is: ‘South Africa strives to remain on top of global environmental management best practice through lessons learnt from the 2006 World Cup in Germany, the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games and new initiatives which, combined, will deliver a 2010 event with a minimal ecological footprint.’ Certainly investment in the games has been high and much needed infrastructure improvements have been implemented across the nine host cities. Recycling bins have popped up with unique designs to encourage use, with 500 in and around Cape Town airport alone. Water conservation projects are underway and transport has been dramatically improved with 11.7 billion rand (more than £1 billion) allocated to transport projects focused on upgrading public transport, road infrastructure and the railway. It is estimated that the World Cup finals will contribute 415,400 jobs to the South African economy, as well as 19.3 billion rand in income tax. The knock-on effect will hopefully be one that South Africa can build on.

Despite efforts to make the games more environmentally efficient, the finals’ footprint is expected to be massive. A big focus has been on offsetting the carbon emissions that will be created during the games, with between £3.3 million and £5.4 million in carbon offsetting required to make the games carbon neutral. Johannesburg, host city to the opening and closing matches, is planting an additional 200,000 trees with the help of £80,000 from Norway. Durban, another host city, plans to offset local carbon emissions by producing electricity from hydraulic turbines or biogas emitted by landfills. Nicci Diederichs, head of the city’s green programmes, says that it is estimated these carbon credit projects will take about two and a half years to offset the emissions caused by hosting the tournament. Other considerations include using solar power for traffic lights and security cameras.

While all this sounds very promising, critics such as Nkopane Maphiri, a Greenpeace campaigner in Africa, are concerned that not enough has been done in practice – that policy has not effectively been transposed into action – and that now it’s too late: “There are a number of policy processes under way in South Africa which are largely meant to address the green issues in their various forms, and many of these policy frameworks which should inform each other are being developed separately or in parallel. These policies and strategies are not translated into concrete actions; as a result we have polices that are great on paper but often poor on action.”

Concerns also remain about ?post-game strategy: “I don’t think that as a country we have really applied our minds around what to do after the World Cup. There is extreme preoccupation with the objective of delivering a world-class event such that there’s been less consideration on the post-tournament plans,” Maphiri continues. Strategy for after the games is still in planning stage, and with the World Cup looming, time is running out to implement comprehensive policies to deal with the repercussions of 450,000 expected visitors. The Local Organising Committee (LOC) has implemented a policy of ‘encouraging’ host city local governments to set aside a budget to separate and manage post-game waste, but it remains to be seen if, at the end of the day, South Africa will manage to score green this summer.