carbon footprint 300 pp cb ipl 2010

8/13/2019 Carbon Footprint 300 Pp CB IPL 2010

1/359

IPL Greening Program

DLF IPL 2010 CARBON FOOTPRINT MEASUREMEN

Project RepoREALISE


2/359


3/359

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 15

2 INTRODUCTION

3 PROJECT GOALS 26

4 PROJECT SCOPE

5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

6 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

19

28

39

59

64

2.1 The Players 20

2.2 The Arena 22

2.3 The Project 23

2.4 The Report 25

4

35

5.1

.1 Activity Boundaries 30

4.2 Stakeholder Boundaries 34

4.3 Life-cycle Boundaries

Central and Local Footprint Sources 41

5.2 Annual and Tournament-Duration Activity Data 45

5.3 Resource Input, Consumption, and Output Mapping 47

5.3.1 IPL/IMG Activity Data Research 49

5.3.2 State Association Activity Data Research 50

5.3.3 Franchise Activity Data Research 51

5.3.4 Spectator Activity Data Research 52

5.4 Resource Optimization Potential Research 55

5.5 Tournament Operation Air and Road Travel Research 56

6.1 Resource / Activity Tagging 60

6.2 Activity Data Extrapolation

6.2.1 IPL/IMG Data Extrapolation 64

6.2.2 State Association Activity Data Extrapolation 67

6.2.3 Franchise Activity Data Extrapolation 69

6.3 GHG Emission Factors 72

6.4 New Emission Factors Research and Analysis 73

TABLE OF CONTENTS


4/359

78

111

7.4.1 Activity-Differentiated Venue Carbon Footprints 114

7.4.2 Stakeholder-Differentiated Venue Carbon Footprints 117

149

151

117

160

166

6.4.1 Stadium Construction Research and Analysis 736.4.2 Ground Maintenance Research and Analysis 75

6.4.3 Fireworks and Pyrotechnics Research and Analysis 76

6.5 Diesel Generator Consumption 77

7.1 IPL Resource/Activity Flow Mapping 79

7.2 Resource Consumption Inventory 85

7.3 Total Carbon Footprint 87

7.3.1 Activity-Differentiated Carbon Footprint 917.3.2 Stakeholder Contributions to Activity-Differentiated Carbon Footprint 92

7.3.3 Stakeholder-Differentiated Carbon Footprint 99

7.3.4 Activity Contributions to Stakeholder-Differentiated Carbon Footprint 102

7.4 Match Venue Carbon Footprints

7.5 Day vs. Night Match Carbon Footprint Implications

7.6 Best Practices

7.6.1 Overall Venue Best Practice Benchmarks 152

7.6.2 Stakeholder Best Practice Benchmarks 152

7.6.3 Franchise Level Best Practices 157

7.6.4 Other Best Practices 158

7.7 Water Footprint

9.1 Assumptions 1679.2 Data Gaps 175

9.3 Uncertainties 176

9.3.1 Activity-Data Uncertainty 176

7 RESULTS

8 CONTEXT OF TOTAL CARBON FOOTPRINT

9 DISCUSSION

TABLE OF CONTENTS


5/359

TABLE OF CONTENTS

10 LIMITATIONS 179

180

11 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 181

12 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 189

9.3.2 Emission Factor Uncertainty 177

10.1 Water Footprint

11.1 Conclusions 182

11.2 Recommendations 186


6/359

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Resource/Activity Flow Map IPL/IMG Operations 80

Figure 2 Resource/Activity Flow Map State Association Operations 81

Figure 3 Resource/Activity Flow Map Franchise Operations 82

Figure 4 Resource/Activity Flow Map Spectator Activity 83

Figure 5 Stakeholder Interrelation Map 84

Figure 6 DLF IPL 2010 Activity Contribution to Total Carbon Footprint 90

Figure 7 Total Carbon Footprint Summary Stakeholder Groups Breakdown 95

Figure 8 Stakeholder Groups Carbon Footprint Summary IPL/IMG Operations 96

Figure 9 Stakeholder Groups Carbon Footprint State Association Operations 97

Figure 10 Stakeholder Groups Carbon Footprint Summary Franchise Operations 98

Figure 11 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Construction 101

Figure 12 Stakeholder Groups Carbon Footprint Summary Spectator Activity 107

Figure 13 Spectator Travel Modal Split Cross-Price Range Comparison (All IPL Venue

Cumulation) (%-specatators basis) 108

Figure 14 Spectator Travel Modal Split Cross-Price Range Comparison (All IPL Venue

Cumulation) (kms travelled basis) 109

Figure15 Carbon Emissions Intensity of Transport Modes (India) 110

Figure 16 Cross-Venue Total Carbon Footprint Comparisons per-Match Basis 112

Figure 17 Cross-Venue Total Carbon Footprint Comparisons per-Spectator Basis 113

Figure 18 Venue vs. Activity Average Stadiums 116

Figure 19 Match Venue vs Stakeholder Average Stadium 119

Figure 20 DLF IPL 2010 Match Venue vs. Stakeholder Contributions Cross-Venue

Comparison - per-Match Basis 123

Figure 21 Match Venue Stakeholders Carbon Emissions Intensity Comparison

All-Venue Averages 124

Figure 22 Stakeholder Carbon Emissions Intensity Cross-Venue Comparison

Bvg. Contractor (Soft Drinks) 125


Concessions Catering 126


7/359

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 24 Stakeholder Carbon Emissions Intensity Cross-Venue Comparison State Association Catering 127

Figure 25 Stakeholder Carbon Emissions Intensity Cross-Venue Comparison VIP Catering 128

Figure 26 Stakeholder Carbon Emissions Intensity Cross-Venue Comparison Ground

Maintenance (per-Match Basis) 129

Figure 27 Stakeholder Carbon Emissions Intensity Cross-Venue Comparison Ground

Maintenance (per-Year Basis) 130

Figure 28 Stakeholder Carbon Emissions Intensity Cross-Venue Comparison Housekeeping 131


Stadium Entertainment 132

Figure 30 Stakeholder Carbon Emissions Intensity Cross-Venue Comparison Stadium Security 133

Figure 31 Stakeholder Carbon Emissions Intensity Cross-Venue Comparison Stadium Utilities 134

Figure 32 Stakeholder Carbon Emissions Intensity Cross-Venue Comparison Stadium Spectators 135

Figure 33 Spectator Travel Modal Split Cross-Venue Comparison (Cumulative Tickets)

(%-specatators basis) 136

Figure 34 Spectator Travel Modal Split Cross-Venue Comparison (Cumulative Tickets)

(kms travelled basis) 137

Figure 35 Spectator Travel Modal Split Cross-Venue Comparison (Ticket Price Level 1) 138

Figure 36 Spectator Travel Modal Split Cross-Venue Comparison (Ticket Price Level 1)







kms travelled basis) 143






8/359

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 44 Spectator Travel Modal Split Cross-Venue Comparison (Ticket Price Level 5)(kms travelled basis) 147

Figure 45 Stakeholder Contribution to Activity Carbon Footprint Cooking Fuel 205

Figure 46 Stakeholder Contribution to Activity Carbon Footprint Generator& Motor Fuel 207

Figure 47 Stakeholder Contribution to Activity Carbon Footprint Generator& Motor Fuel 210

Figure 48 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Water 212

Figure 49 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Domestic Air Travel 214

Figure 50 Activity vs. Stakeholder - International Air Travel 216

Figure 51 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Private Vehicular Travel 219

Figure 52 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Logistics 221

Figure 53 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Luxury Hotel Accommodation 223

Figure 54 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Meat & Seafood 225

Figure 55 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Dairy 227

Figure 56 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Rice 229

Figure 57 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Alcoholic Beverages 231

Figure 58 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Bottled Water / Drinks 233

Figure 59 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Solid Waste 235

Figure 60 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Paper & Cardboard 237

Figure 61 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Plastic 239

Figure 62 Stakeholder vs. Activity IPL/IMG Head Office 242

Figure 63 Stakeholder vs. Activity -IPL/IMG Hospitality & Travel 244

Figure 64 Stakeholder vs. Activity IPL/IMG Sponsors 247

Figure 65 Stakeholder vs. Activity Catering - Concessions 249

Figure 66 Stakeholder vs. Activity Catering - VIP 251

Figure 67 Stakeholder vs. Activity Catering - Broadcasting 253

Figure 68 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Hospitality 255

Figure 69 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Entertainment 257

Figure 70 Stakeholder vs. Activity Television Broadcasting - In-House 259


9/359

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 71 Stakeholder vs. Activity Television Broadcasting - Vendor 261

Figure 72 Stakeholder vs. Activity Player Security 263

Figure 73 Stakeholder vs. Activity Umpiring 265

Figure 74 Stakeholder vs. Activity Anti-Doping/Anti-Corruption 267

Figure 75 Stakeholder vs. Activity Emergency Training 269

Figure 76 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Office 271

Figure 77 Stakeholder vs. Activity - Stadium Advertising (LED) 273

Figure 78 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Security 276

Figure 79 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Utilities 278

Figure 80 Stakeholder vs. Activity Ground Maintenance 280

Figure 81 Stakeholder vs. Activity Catering - State Assoc. 282

Figure 82 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Housekeeping 284

Figure 83 Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Head Office 286

Figure 84 Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Hospitality & Travel 288

Figure 85 Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Merchandizing 290

Figure 86 Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Sponsors 292

Figure 87 Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Cheerleaders 294

Figure 88 Stakeholder vs. Activity Beverage Contractor - Soft Drinks 296

Figure 89 Stakeholder vs. Activity Beverage Contractor - Alcoholic Bev. 298

Figure 90 Venue vs. Activity Ahmedabad 300

Figure 91 Venue vs. Activity Bangalore 302

Figure 92 Venue vs. Activity Chennai 304

Figure 93 Venue vs. Activity Cuttack 306

Figure 94 Venue vs. Activity Delhi 308

Figure 95 Venue vs. Activity Dharamsala 310

Figure 96 Venue vs. Activity Jaipur 312

Figure 97 Venue vs. Activity Kolkata 314

Figure 98 Venue vs. Activity Mohali 316


10/359

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 99 Venue vs. Activity Mumbai (Brabourne) 318

Figure 100 Venue vs. Activity Navi Mumbai 320

Figure 101 Venue vs. Activity Nagpur 322

Figure 102 Spectator Travel Modal Split Ahmedabad (%-spectator basis) 323

Figure 103 Spectator Travel Modal Split Ahmedabad (kms basis) 324

Figure 104 Spectator Travel Modal Split Bangalore (%-spectator basis) 325

Figure 105 Spectator Travel Modal Split Bangalore (kms basis) 326

Figure 106 Spectator Travel Modal Split Chennai (%-spectator basis) 227

Figure 107 Spectator Travel Modal Split Chennai (kms basis) 228

Figure 108 Spectator Travel Modal Split Cuttack (%-spectator basis) 229

Figure 109 Spectator Travel Modal Split Cuttack (kms basis) 230

Figure 110 Spectator Travel Modal Split Delhi (%-spectator basis) 231

Figure 111 Spectator Travel Modal Split Delhi (kms basis) 232

Figure 112 Spectator Travel Modal Split Dharamsala (%-spectator basis) 233

Figure 113 Spectator Travel Modal Split Dharamsala (kms basis) 234

Figure 114 Spectator Travel Modal Split Jaipur (%-spectator basis) 235

Figure 115 Spectator Travel Modal Split Jaipur (kms basis) 236

Figure 116 Spectator Travel Modal Split Kolkata (%-spectator basis) 237

Figure 117 Spectator Travel Modal Split Kolkata (kms basis) 238

Figure 118 Spectator Travel Modal Split Mohali (%-spectator basis) 239

Figure 119 Spectator Travel Modal Split Mohali (kms basis) 240

Figure 120 Spectator Travel Modal Split Mumbai (Brabourne) (%-spectator basis) 241

Figure 121 Spectator Travel Modal Split Mumbai (Brabourne) (kms basis) 242

Figure 122 Spectator Travel Modal Split Navi Mumbai (%-spectator basis) 243

Figure 123 Spectator Travel Modal Split Navi Mumbai (kms basis) 244

Figure 124 Spectator Travel Modal Split Nagpur (%-spectator basis) 245

Figure 125 Spectator Travel Modal Split Nagpur (kms basis) 246


11/359

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Activity Boundary Summary 32

Table 2 Stakeholder Boundary Summary 34

Table 3 Emission Factor LCA Status 38

Table 4 Activity Central/Local Source Classification 42

Table 5 Stakeholder Central/Local Source Classification 43

Table 6 Stakeholder Activity Data Inventory Period 45

Table 7 DLF IPL 2010 Tournament Match Schedule 47

Table 8 Tournament Stadium Spectator Plan 54

Table 9 Tournament Team Travel Plan 57

Table 10 Resource / Activity Tagging 61

Table 11 Activity Data Extrapolation IPL/IMG Data 71

Table 12 Stadium Construction Carbon Footprint Research and Analysis Summary 74

Table 13 DLF IPL 2010 Resource Consumption Inventory 85

Table 14 DLF IPL 2010 Activity-Differentiated Total Carbon Footprint 88

Table 15 DLF IPL 2010 Stakeholder-Differentiated Total Carbon Footprint 93

Table 16 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Construction (Annual Carbon Footprint) 100

Table 17 TV Spectator Carbon Footprint Analysis 104

Table 18 Television viewership IPLvs. Non-IPL period 105

Table 19 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Spectators 106

Table 20 DLF IPL 2010 Venue Carbon Footprint Summary 111

Table 21 Venue vs. Activity Average Stadium 115

Table 22 Venue vs. Activity All Stadium Summary (Tournament Totals) 120

Table 23 Venue vs. Activity All Stadium Summary (per Match) 121

Table 24 Venue vs. Activity All Stadium Summary (per Unit Served) 122

Table 25 Day vs. Night Match Activity Data Analysis 150

Table 26 IPL and other Global Sporting events Comparison with UEFA EURO 2008 165

Table 27 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Fuel - Cooking Fuel 204

Table 28 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Fuel Generator & Motor Fuel 206

Table 29 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Fuel - Fireworks & Other Fuel 208


12/359

LIST OF TABLES

Table 30 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Electricity 209

Table 31 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Water 211

Table 32 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Domestic Air Travel 213

Table 33 Activity vs. Stakeholder - International Air Travel 215

Table 34 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Public Road & Rail Travel 217

Table 35 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Private Vehicular Travel 218

Table 36 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Logistics 220

Table 37 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Luxury Hotel Accomodation 222

Table 38 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Meat & Seafood 224

Table 39 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Dairy 226

Table 40 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Rice 228

Table 41 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Alcoholic Beverages 230

Table 42 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Bottled Water / Drinks 232

Table 43 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Solid Waste 234

Table 44 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Paper & Cardboard 236

Table 45 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Plastic 238

Table 46 Activity vs. Stakeholder - Fertilizers & Pesticide 240

Table 47 Stakeholder vs. Activity IPL/IMG Head Office 241

Table 48 Stakeholder vs. Activity -IPL/IMG Hospitality & Travel 243

Table 49 Stakeholder vs. Activity IPL/IMG Merchandizing 245

Table 50 Stakeholder vs. Activity IPL/IMG Sponsors 246

Table 51 Stakeholder vs. Activity Catering - Concessions 248

Table 52 Stakeholder vs. Activity Catering - VIP 250

Table 53 Stakeholder vs. Activity Catering - Broadcasting 252

Table 54 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Hospitality 254

Table 55 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Entertainment 256

Table 56 Stakeholder vs. Activity Television Broadcasting - In-House 258

Table 57 Stakeholder vs. Activity Television Broadcasting - Vendor 260

Table 58 Stakeholder vs. Activity Player Security 262


13/359

LIST OF TABLESTable 59 Stakeholder vs. Activity Umpiring 264

Table 60 Stakeholder vs. Activity Anti-Doping/Anti-Corruption 266

Table 61 Stakeholder vs. Activity Emergency Training 268

Table 62 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Office 270

Table 63 Stakeholder vs. Activity - Stadium Advertising (LED) 272

Table 64 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Advertising (Flex Signage) 274

Table 65 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Security 275

Table 66 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Utilities 277

Table 67 Stakeholder vs. Activity Ground Maintenance 279

Table 68 Stakeholder vs. Activity Catering - State Assoc. 281

Table 69 Stakeholder vs. Activity Stadium Housekeeping 283

Table 70 Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Head Office 285

Table 71 Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Hospitality & Travel 287

Table 72 Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Merchandizing 289

Table 73 Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Sponsors 291

Table 74 Stakeholder vs. Activity Franchise - Cheerleaders 293

Table 75 Stakeholder vs. Activity Beverage Contractor - Soft Drinks 295

Table 76 Stakeholder vs. Activity Beverage Contractor - Alcoholic Bev. 297

Table 77 Venue vs. Activity Ahmedabad 299

Table 78 Venue vs. Activity Bangalore 301

Table 79 Venue vs. Activity Chennai 303

Table 80 Venue vs. Activity Cuttack 305

Table 81 Venue vs. Activity Delhi 307

Table 82 Venue vs. Activity Dharamsala 309

Table 83 Venue vs. Activity Jaipur 311Table 84 Venue vs. Activity Kolkata 313

Table 85 Venue vs. Activity Mohali 315

Table 86 Venue vs. Activity Mumbai (Brabourne) 317

Table 87 Venue vs. Activity Navi Mumbai 319

Table 88 Venue vs. Activity Nagpur 321


14/359

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A 192

APPENDIX B 196

DLF I

APPENDIX C 198

APPENDIX D 203

APPENDIX E 347

FIREWORKS & PYROTECHNICS AIR QUALITY AND HEALTH IMPACTS STUDIES 348

APPENDIX F 351

APPENDIX G 354

APPENDIX H 358

GHG EMISSION FACTORS 193

PL 2010 PRE-EVENT CARBON FOOTPRINT ESTIMATE 197

ROYAL CHALLENGERS BANGALORE FRANCHISE ACTIVITY DATA

PROVIDED BY: NEXTGEN PMS (BANGALORE, INDIA) 199

DLF IPL 2010 CARBON FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS - TABLES AND FIGURES 203

RCB-NEXTGEN PMS 352

CARBON FOOTPRINT MITIGATION

IPL GREENING PROGRAM UNEP RECOMMENDATIONS 355

- PREPARED BY DR. HARTMUT STAHL

IPL GREENING PROGRAM - INDICATIVE ROADMAP 359

PROGRAMME FOR IPL 2010


15/359

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive Summary


DLF IPL 2010 REALISE Project Report

Eliminate Carbon Emiss ions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd. 1


16/359

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt. Ltd was contracted by the IPL

Management upon the recommendation of the United Nations

Environment Program (UNEP) to calculate their Annual Carbon

Footprint (i.e. an inventory of the total Greenhouse Gas Emissions -

GHGs-that contribute to Climate Change, resulting from direct and

indirect resource consumption through DLF IPL 2010s annual

operations).

The Total Carbon Footprint of DLF IPL 2010 was estimated to be

42,264 tons CO2e. DLF IPL 2010s Carbon Footprint can be thought of

as requiring 169,055 trees to neutralise its impact on Climate Change

over a period of 20 years. This equates to approximately 2,818 trees

per match.

The following activities comprise its Carbon Footprint, in order of

decreasing magnitude: Travel and Logistics (18,073 tons CO2e -

42.8%), Stadium Construction (9,932 tons CO2e - 23.5%), Luxury

Hotel Accommodation (9,927 tons CO2e - 23.5%) , Food, Beverage,

and Waste (1,201 tons CO2e - 2.8%) and Electricity (996 tons CO2e -

2.4%).

Relative Stakeholder contributions to the DLF IPL 2010 Carbon

Footprint are: IPL/IMG Operations (9,861 tons CO2e - 23%), State

Association Operations (12,861 tons CO2e - 30%), Franchise

Operations (5,243 tons CO2e - 12%), Spectator Activities (14,300 tons

CO2e - 35%).

A majority of the Carbon Footprint of DLF IPL 2010 is the consequence

of activities related to its contractors while only 23% of the footprint is adirect consequence of direct IPL/IMG managed operations. It is

imperative that footprint mitigation strategies account for this aspect of

footprint distribution.

Spectators are the most significant Stakeholders in terms of

contribution to Total Carbon Footprint. Private Vehicular Travel is the

single largest contributing factor responsible for 6,517 tons CO2e



Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.16


17/359

(45%) of Stadium Spectator Carbon Footprint. It is imperative to

address this disproportionately heavy reliance on Private Transport

consumed for Spectator Travel when addressing the overall IPL

Carbon Footprint.

TV viewership related Carbon Footprint for DLF IPL 2010 was

358,039 tons CO2e and far outweighed the contributions of any other

stakeholder or activity considered within the IPL Carbon Footprint

Boundary. This component of Carbon Footprint, and its root cause -

large quantity of consumption of electricity through TV sets, needs to

be addressed with greater emphasis on its analysis and mitigation

through innovative strategies and interventions in future editions of

the IPL

The impact of Stadium Construction, one of the primary activities

contributing significantly to the IPL footprint, needs to be mitigated by

intervening and exploiting opportunities to infuse Low-Carbon and

Green Architecture and Construction practices as the cornerstone of

future stadium construction activities at proposed stadiums that are

intended for use by the IPL.

Best practice examples for a majority of Stakeholder functions within

the IPL have been identified, quantified, and the initial feasibility

assessed. Best practice benchmark replication across the IPL must

be pursued as a potent and actionable strategy for optimizing the

Carbon Footprint of the IPL prior to any resource and capital-intensive

Carbon Footprint Minimisation strategies.

All interventions must be accompanied by effective communication toall internal and external stakeholders. They must also be in

consonance with a well thought-out Greening Strategy, that aims not

just at a Carbon Neutral IPL, but sets itself the loftier target of an IPL

that is a net Carbon Sink (an indicative roadmap is presented in

Appendix H).

Best Practice Incentivisation through formal programs and its



Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd. 1


18/359

incorporation into contractual negotiations processes with all vendors,

contractors and other relevant Stakeholders is ascertained to be most

feasible first step on the pathway to drastically reducing the Carbon

Footprint of IPL in the forthcoming seasons. Central IPL support and

nurturing of competitive franchise behavior through formal

recognition of the Lowest Carbon Footprint or Greenest Franchise is

one illustrative example that may be expanded to envelop all aspects

of IPL operations in future editions.

It is abundantly clear that noise levels at match venues needs to becurbed significantly during future editions of IPL to ensure that basic

national environmental laws are not violated. During DLF IPL 2010,

noise levels at matches were measured and found to violate national

noise pollution norms by significant levels.

The Carbon Footprint determined as part of this project phase does

not account for the entire life-cycle of the resources consumed and

their comprehensive impact on Climate Change and ecology.

Accounting for resource acquisition, processing and disposal impacts

could magnify the current extent manifold. A life-cycle analysis (LCA)

of all primary resources consumed is essential to ascertain a morecomprehensive Carbon Footprint that tends towards the true Climate

Change impact of IPL. It is recommended that IPL 2011 be assessed

on a LCA basis and that preparatory work for an LCA study be

commissioned as part of the next phase of the project.

It is recommended that IPL commission ECE to commence a

comprehensive Carbon Footprint Minimization analysis as part of a

Long-Term Greening Program (in fulfillment of its MOU with the

UNEPs Sports and Environment Unit) to identify means and

alternatives for optimising and minimising its resource intensiveness.

Prior to minimising and offsetting the impact of future IPLs, it is

recommended that IPL commit to neutralise the impact of, as

minimum, the four knock-out phase matches of DLF IPL 2010

(estimated to be 3,148 tons). While multiple options for offsetting are

available in the conventional Carbon Offset market, the alternatives

that result in equitable distribution of benefits to the grassroot

Stakeholder communities who are imperative to the projects

implementation are preferred as a more potent agent of social and

environmental transformation. In the context of the prior





19/359

Introduction



2.0 INTRODUCTION

Eliminate Carbon Emiss ions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd. 1


20/359

The Indian Premier League (IPL) is an annual, franchise-based

Twenty20 Cricket tournament under the aegis of the Board of Control

of Cricket in India (BCCI). First held in 2008, IPL features many of the

World's best cricketers playing for eight city-based franchises, owned

by some of the most well-recognised individuals/ brands in India.

Since its inception, IPLs engaging game format, accompanied by its

innovative marketing strategies, has captured the imagination of

spectators and audiences not just in India and the other cricket-playingnations, but across the entire World. IPL today is looked upon and

admired for the standards it has set in the Sporting and Entertainment

arena.

United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) is the designated

authority of the United Nations on environmental issues at the global

and regional level. With a stated mission of aiming to provide

leadership and encouraging partnership in caring for the environment

by inspiring, informing, and enabling nations and people to improve

their quality of life without compromising that of future generations,

UNEPs activities cover a wide range of issues involving the

environment and the diverse ecosystems comprising it. UNEP plays

a key role in developing international environmental conventions,

promoting environmental science, working on the development and

implementation of policy with national governments and regional

institution, and working with environmental Non-Governmental

Organizations (NGOs). UNEP has also been the forefront of guiding

the growing consideration for environment in the world of sports, and

has been advising Sporting events since the 1994 Winter Olympics inLillehammer, Norway

Eliminate Carbon Emissions Pvt. Ltd. (ECE) and the no2co2 Project

were born from the conviction that the primary responsibility for

reversing the effects of Climate Change rests not with the

Government, the Industry and the Policymakers, but with us as





21/359

members of the societies we live in, the businesses we are part of and

as individual consumers. ECEs intervention approach follows the

elegantly simple steps of REALISE, MINIMISE and NEUTRALISE.





22/359

The scientific community around the World has accepted the reality of

Climate Change. That it IS happening and it IS the result of

anthropogenic activities is no longer a matter of speculation. As the

warming and the melting, and the positive feedback loop connecting

them gathers momentum, the uncertainty is only about how much time

we have left to slow down, and perhaps reverse, some of the effects of

Climate Change.

As the international community comprising the developed countries,

the newly emerging economies and the under-developed countries

are locked in a stalemate over how much to commit, individual

governments and industries including those in our own country -

have started taking steps aimed at Carbon Footprint control and

mitigation. The Sports arena worldwide is also moving towards

according a high priority to Environmental considerations. The

Olympic Movement, for instance, has incorporated the environment

into its charter, alongside sport and culture. Starting with the Winter

Olympics in 1994, major sporting events around the World all the

subsequent Olympics, the just-concluded FIFA World Cup 2010 and

the Commonwealth Games 2010 - have moved towards including

environmental measures as part of their basic mandates.





23/359

In January 2010, IPL announced its vision of green growth in

partnership with UNEP. As part of this program, IPL will green its

cricket league and bring environmental awareness to millions of

cricket fans around the world in a first-of-its-kind initiative undertaken

by any sporting body in India. UNEP will advise IPL in its commitment

to green its sport events, spread environmental messaging to fans

through its star players and green its merchandising. IPL

Management embarked upon this unprecedented approach towardsachieving total environmental accountability motivated by personal

conviction about the reality of Climate Change and its direct

relationship with resource consumption of economic enterprises. IPL

also recognized its esteemed position as a best-practice leader in the

Sports and Live Entertainment Business in India and clearly

recognized the immense leveraging possibilities available to it to

infuse climate change consciousness into its broad customer,

contractor and vendor base. IPL could, therefore, engage with the

global Climate Change solutions movement as a Climate Changesolutions leader, inspiring a vast network of stakeholders to recognize

their potential as individual Climate Change solvers.

The first steps in IPLs Greening roadmap involved using the DLF IPL

2010 as a forum for disseminating messages regarding environmental

consciousness, and the calculation of the Carbon Footprint of DLF

IPL2010.

UNEPs Outreach Unit Division of Communications and Public

Information (DCPI) designed the environmental communication

strategy for IPL2010, and also guided IPL in the selection of the agency

to calculate the Carbon Footprint of DLF IPL 2010. Based on UNEPs

recommendation, ECE was contracted by IPL to carry out the

measurement of DLF IPL 2010 Carbon Footprint.





24/359

ECE, through the Realise and Minimise activities of the project,

endeavors to demonstrate the fallacy of the commonly espoused

perception that environmental responsibility and business profitability

are conflicting considerations that require pursuit of disparate decision

making pathways. Thus, drawing up the broad roadmap to continued

delivery of excellent customer experience, identifying cost reduction

avenues emerging from resource conservation practices, while

minimising climate change impact was one of the key objectives of theproject.





25/359

This report details the first phase i.e. Realise, of the three-phase

project comprising of Carbon Footprint Calculation (Realise), Carbon

Footprint Minimisation (Minimise) and Carbon Footprint

Neutralisation (Neutralise). Pre-Tournament Carbon Footprint

Estimation (presented in Appendix B) commenced in February 2010

subsequently followed by the final Carbon Footprint Activity data

gathering research process commencing in March 2010. The time-

period of analysis chosen was the entire annual IPL planning,execution and hosting cycle from May 2009 (End of IPL 2) to April 2010

(End of IPL 3).

Given that one of the main objectives of this Report is to document the

analytical and research procedures and methodologies, so that the

document can stand up to scientific scrutiny, it is inevitable that parts of

the Report are technical in nature. However, all efforts have been

made to ensure that the contents of the Report are well within the

scope of understanding of any informed, interested reader, and it can

serve as a basis to stimulate discussion and encourage actions.

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.



2


26/359

Project Goals



3.0 PROJECT GOALS

Eliminate Carbon Emiss ions (ECE) Pvt.Ltd.26


27/359

The goals of the Realise phase of the project were to determine, with

the greatest possible degree of accuracy, the following for DLF IPL

2010:

1. Total Annual and Activity-Differentiated resource consumption

inventory.

2. Total Annual Carbon Footprint

3. Activity-Differentiated Annual Carbon Footprint

4. Stakeholder-Differentiated Annual Carbon Footprint.

5. Match Venue-Differentiated Annual Carbon Footprint.6. Carbon Emissions Intensity of Stakeholder Operations.

7. Best Practice Identification amongst Stakeholder Operations.

8. Contextualization of Total Carbon Footprint and Carbon Emissions

Intensity of Stakeholder Operations.

The collective analysis of the above aspects of IPL operation would

represent the GHG Emissions Baseline for IPL, against which future

efforts would be benchmarked for assessing the magnitude and

impact of measurable and verifiable Carbon Footprint mitigation

measures.

Since the above could only be achieved following a comprehensive

dissection of the resource process flow delineating the resource-

based interactions of various stakeholders, a comprehensive

Stakeholder Activity and Interaction Mapping was also identified and

pursued as an added benefit for IPL. It is intended that the resulting

process flow chart be utilized for the optimization of IPLs tournament

planning operations by illustrating key intervention areas for adopting

resource conservation measures.

Finally, the aggregate and dissected Carbon Footprints were to beunderstood and explained in the context of easily understandable

terms (i.e. commonly understood units of Climate Change impacts) to

provide perspective that serves to inspire and define actions towards

participative (i.e. involving all Stakeholders) mitigation of IPLs impact

on Climate Change through footprint minimisation.

Results of the above research and analysis were intended to serve as

a diagnostic tool to lay down a rational, prioritized roadmap for Carbon

Footprint and Resource consumption Minimisation without hindering





28/359





29/359

Boundaries for the Carbon Footprint Calculation process were defined

in consultation with UNEP and IPL/IMG Management. Defining

boundaries involved two key-decision making areas:

1. Activities to be included (i.e. defining a comprehensive yet

manageable set of resources whose consumption was to be

inventoried), and,

2. Stakeholders to be considered (i.e. defining which sets of

peoples/groups/functions are to be included within the footprint

boundary).

Since Carbon Footprint Reporting for businesses in India is not

mandated by the Indian Government, nor by the United Nations

Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC), and IPLs

initiative to address its Climate Change Impacts are purely voluntary,

no set of pre-established guidelines were required to be followed for

boundary definition. In the absence of explicit guidelines for GHG

Emission Reporting for Indian Businesses, the globally acceptedmethodologies for National GHG Emissions Reporting (adopted by

India as part of the Kyoto Protocol) laid down by the IPCC (Inter-

Governmental Panel on Climate Change) as part of the 2006

Guidelines were used for guidance wherever appropriate. However,

given the unique nature of this project and the niche operational

activity of IPL, the overall methodology reflects a confluence of

standard protocols and business-appropriate approaches which

would provide an accurate estimate of its Climate Change Impact.





30/359

In order for Carbon Footprint calculation to be considered

comprehensive it is essential to include all activities that impact it.

However, it would render the entire exercise impossible to complete in

a finite time frame if every activity were to be included within the scope

of the Project. The twin goals of comprehensiveness and

manageability are achieved be defining activities known as Key

Source Categories and analyzing them comprehensively while paying

lesser attention to those outside that framework. Key SourceCategories categories are defined as those whose collective

contribution account for 95% of the total footprint (when added

incrementally in the order of decreasing contribution). It is evident that

technically Key Source Categories can therefore only be determined

following the completion of the Carbon Footprint calculation thereby

defeating its utility as a guiding principle for defining activity boundary.

However, irrespective of the anthropogenic or business activity being

analyzed, certain categories of activities can safely be presumed as

being Key Source Categories. Beyond these, others need to beidentified based on rational considerations related to the specific

nature of the business and following a detailed understanding of its

operations. This process yielded the following activities as comprising

the activity domain for IPLs Carbon Footprint calculation:

Contributing Directly to Carbon Footprint

activities where direct control can be exercised over the magnitude

of activity AND the emission coefficient through technological

choices.

Contributing Indirectly to Carbon Footprint -

activities where direct control can be exercised over the magnitude

of activity BUT NOT the emission coefficient through technological

choices.

Contributing Indirectly to Carbon Footprint -





31/359

activities where direct control can NEITHER be exercised over the

magnitude of activity NOR the emission coefficient through

technological choices.





32/359





33/359





34/359

Stakeholders are defined as those groups of persons, service

providers, beneficiaries, customers etc. that directly or indirectly

participate in Carbon Footprint creation activities of a organization. As

in the case of activity boundaries, this list too is technically nearly

infinite since the indirect contributors to an organizations footprint is

an unbounded set of groups engaged in enterprise all across the

globe. Since voluntary Carbon Footprint calculation and emission

inventorying falls outside the domain of any internationally bindingIPCC guidelines, Stakeholder Boundary is determined through

consultation with the Client. While accountability for those entities

directly part of its own operations is the cornerstone of the exercise,

organizations are at liberty to select some operations that are outside

their direct control but are logically connected to, or are natural

extensions of their direct operations. The outcome of these

discussions with UNEP and IPL/IMG Management is the Stakeholder

Boundary presented in the table below

Table 2Stakeholder Boundary Summary

Stakeholder NameID

Stakeholder NameID

Group 1

Sub-Entity 1.01

Sub-Entity 1.02

Sub-Entity 1.03

Sub-Entity 1.04

Sub-Entity 1.05

Sub-Entity 1.06

Sub-Entity 1.07

Sub-Entity 1.08

IPL/IMG

Head Office

Hospitality & Travel

Merchandizing

Sponsors

Catering - Concessions

Catering - VIP

Catering - Broadcasting

Stadium Hospitality





35/359

Sub-Entity 1.09

Sub-Entity 1.10

Sub-Entity 1.11

Sub-Entity 1.12

Sub-Entity 1.13

Sub-Entity 1.14

Sub-Entity 1.15Sub-Entity 1.16

Sub-Entity 1.17

Sub-Entity 1.18

Group 2

Sub-Entity 2.01

Sub-Entity 2.02

Sub-Entity 2.03

Sub-Entity 2.04

Sub-Entity 2.05

Sub-Entity 2.06

Group 3

Sub-Entity 3.01

Sub-Entity 3.02

Stadium Entertainment

Television Broadcasting - In-House

Television Broadcasting - Vendor

Player Security

Umpiring

Anti-Doping/Anti-Corruption

Emergency TrainingStadium Office

Stadium Advertising (LED)

Stadium Advertising (Flex Signage)

State Associations

Stadium Security

Utilities

Ground Maintenance

Catering - State Assoc.

Housekeeping

Stadium Construction

Franchises

Franchise - Head Office

Franchise - Hospitality & Travel

Table 2Stakeholder Boundary Summary

Stakeholder NameID

Sub-Entity 3.03

Sub-Entity 3.04

Sub-Entity 3.05

Sub-Entity 3.06

Sub-Entity 3.07

Group 4

Sub-Entity 4.01

Sub-Entity 4.02

Sub-Entity 4.03

Franchise - Merchandizing

Franchise - Sponsors

Cheerleaders

Beverage Contractor - Soft Drinks

Beverage Contractor - Alcoholic Bev.

Spectators

Stadium Spectators

TV Spectators

Internet





36/359

Carbon Footprint is essentially the product of multiplying activity data

with GHG Emissions Factors (EFs). Emission Factors are indicative of

the quantity of GHGs emitted per unit of activity. As an illustration, an

EF of 1 kgCO2e per kWh of electricity indicates that

generation/consumption of 1 unit of electricity (i.e. 1 kWh) causes the

emissions of 1 kg of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents. It must be

emphasized that these are indicative since the true EF for any activity

is technically unbounded; the reasoning for this is identical to therationale provided in relation to the infinite nature of Activity and

Stakeholder Impacts on Carbon Footprint. As an activitys EFs are

investigated further back into its life-cycle to include, beyond primary

influences, secondary and tertiary impacts, the mathematical

magnitude of the EF increases, albeit to a gradually diminishing

degree. Revisiting the example of electricity emission factors, the

value of 1 kgCO2e/kWh would increase if analysis boundaries were

expanded beyond the impacts of direct combustion of coal, diesel and

other fossil fuels used for power generation to then include the energyexpenditure to mine the fossil fuels. Its magnitude would further

increase if the analysis boundary were radially extended to envelop

the resource and energy consumption to create the capital goods

(machinery, factories etc.) required to harness these natural

resources. This expansion can be understood as penetrating deeper

into the life-cycle of a product or service. Concisely stated, EF

magnitudes are a dynamic function of the extent of life-cycle impacts

selected for analysis in relation to the manufacturing process involved

in creation of goods and services for human consumption.

Any Carbon Footprint analysis, so greatly dependent on the

mathematical magnitude of EFs chosen, is therefore, by induction, a

function of EF life-cycle analysis (LCA); selecting only primary aspects

of LCA (such as direct emissions of fossil fuels) yields lower values of

EFs while a more extensive LCA magnifies the impacts of the same





37/359

activity and leads to a more conservative Carbon Footprint; a footprint

that tends towards the true Carbon Footprint of an activity. The

following table presents the extent of LCA incorporated into the

Emission Factors selected for the IPL Carbon Footprint calculation.





38/359

Emission Factor StatusActivity TypeNo.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Cooking Fuel

Generator Fuel

Petrol

Fireworks

Fuel Oil (Aerosol)

Vehicular Travel - 2 Wheeler


Vehicular Travel - HMV

Electricity

Water

International Air Travel

Domestic Air Travel

Rail Travel Local

Rail Travel - Long Distance

Bus Travel Local

Bus Travel - Long Distance

Taxi Travel

Autorickshaw Travel

Meat

Seafood

Dairy

Alcoholic Beverages

Bottled Water / Drinks

Waste Generation

Paper

Plastic

Fertilizer

Pesticides

Luxury Hotel

Concrete

Steel

Brick

Plywood

Direct Combustion

Direct Combustion

Direct Combustion

Direct Combustion

Direct Combustion

Direct Combustion

Direct Combustion

Direct Combustion

Direct Combustion

Direct Combustion

Direct Combustion

Direct Combustion

Direct Combustion, Electricity


Direct Combustion

Direct Combustion

Direct Combustion

Direct Combustion

Partial LCA

Partial LCA

Partial LCA

Partial LCA

Partial LCA

Partial LCA

LCA

LCA

LCA

LCA


Partial LCA

Partial LCA

Partial LCA

Partial LCA





39/359





40/359

The research methodology followed for the project centered on the

idea of dissecting the organizations operations and disaggregating

consumption of resources to understand the consumption patterns

ground-up. While this approach was more time-consuming, as

opposed to tracking all activities through a centralized approach, it

helped construct a detailed footprint-map that would be invaluable as

an analysis tool to identify stakeholder contributions to overall

footprint. The research methodology can be largely defined throughthe following components:





41/359

The activities listed in Table 1, and by association, the stakeholder

listed in Table 2 which undertook those activities, were divided

amongst two sub-groups; Central and Local Footprint Activities and by

extension Central and Local Footprint Stakeholders. The

distinguishing factor used for this classification was the primary

physical domain where these activities were conducted by respective

stakeholders and extent of impact on actual match day operations.

This classification was identified as crucial to truly differentiate

activities that primarily affect a particular match-day operation (and

hence eligible as a candidate for best-practice identification), versus

those that impact the entire IPL planning and execution process and

cannot be attributed to any single match venue. As illustration: while

air travel by various executives of match-day contractors such as

concessions caterers, stadium entertainment crew were added to the

respective stakeholders total carbon footprint wherein it was allocated

as a Central Footprint Source, it was excluded from the stakeholders

venue-specific footprint (and hence not used as a differentiator for

comparison with other stakeholders).

The following rules prevailed in classification of Central and Local

Footprint Source classification:

1) All air travel related activity across all stakeholders was attributed to

Central Footprint for a stakeholder.

2) All luxury hotel accommodation related activity across all

stakeholders was attributed to Central Footprint for a stakeholder.

3) All stadium construction related activity was attributed to Central

Footprint for the stakeholder.

4) All IPL/IMG Head Office related consumption was attributed to

Central Footprint.

5) All Franchise operations related consumption was attributed to

Central Footprint.





42/359

Activity Type Activity GroupNo.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Activity TypeClassificationCooking Fuel

Generator Fuel

Petrol

Fireworks

Fuel Oil (Aerosol)



Vehicular Travel - HMV

Electricity

Water

International Air Travel

Domestic Air Travel

Rail Travel - Local

Rail Travel - Long Distance

Bus Travel - Local

Bus Travel - Long Distance

Taxi Travel

Autorickshaw Travel

Meat

Seafood

Dairy

Alcoholic Beverages

Bottled Water / Drinks

Waste Generation

Paper

Plastic

Fertilizer

Pesticides

Luxury Hotel

Concrete

Steel

Brick

Plywood

Classification

Fuel

Fuel

Fuel

Flammables

Flammables

Travel

Travel

Logistics

Electricity

Water

Travel

Travel

Travel

Travel

Travel

Travel

Travel

Travel

F&B

F&B

F&B

F&B

F&B

Waste

Consumables

Consumables

Consumables

Consumables

Accommodation

Construction

Construction

Construction

Construction

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Central

Central

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central





43/359

Stakeholder NameID

Group 1

Sub-Entity 1.01

Sub-Entity 1.02

Sub-Entity 1.03

Sub-Entity 1.04

Sub-Entity 1.05

Sub-Entity 1.06

Sub-Entity 1.07

Sub-Entity 1.08

Sub-Entity 1.09

Sub-Entity 1.10

Sub-Entity 1.11

Sub-Entity 1.12

Sub-Entity 1.13

Sub-Entity 1.14

Sub-Entity 1.15

Sub-Entity 1.16

Sub-Entity 1.17

Sub-Entity 1.18

Group 2

Sub-Entity 2.01

Sub-Entity 2.02

Sub-Entity 2.03

Sub-Entity 2.04

Sub-Entity 2.05

Sub-Entity 2.06

Group 3

Sub-Entity 3.01

Sub-Entity 3.02

Sub-Entity 3.03

Sub-Entity 3.04

Sub-Entity 3.05

Sub-Entity 3.06

Sub-Entity 3.07

Group 4

Sub-Entity 4.01

Sub-Entity 4.02

Sub-Entity 4.03

IPL/IMG

Head Office

Hospitality & Travel

Merchandizing

Sponsors

Catering - Concessions

Catering - VIP

Catering - Broadcasting

Stadium Hospitality

Stadium Entertainment

Television Broadcasting - In-House

Television Broadcasting - Vendor

Player Security

Umpiring

Anti-Doping/Anti-Corruption

Emergency Training

Stadium Office

Stadium Advertising (LED)

Stadium Advertising (Flex Signage)

State Associations

Stadium Security

Utilities

Ground Maintenance


Housekeeping


Franchises





Cheerleaders



Spectators

Stadium Spectators

TV Spectators

Internet

Classification

Central

Central

Central

Central

Local

Local

Local

Central

Local

Local

Local

Central

Central

Central

Central

Local

Local

Local

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Central

Local

Central

Central





44/359

Group 4

Sub-Entity 4.01

Sub-Entity 4.02

Sub-Entity 4.03

Spectators

Stadium Spectators

TV Spectators

Internet

Local

Central

Central

Stakeholder NameID Classification





45/359


46/359

Group 2

Sub-Entity 2.01

Sub-Entity 2.02

Sub-Entity 2.03

Sub-Entity 2.04

Sub-Entity 2.05

Sub-Entity 2.06

Group 3

Sub-Entity 3.01

Sub-Entity 3.02

Sub-Entity 3.03

Sub-Entity 3.04

Sub-Entity 3.05

Sub-Entity 3.06

Sub-Entity 3.07

Group 4

Sub-Entity 4.01

Sub-Entity 4.02

Sub-Entity 4.03

State Associations

Stadium Security

Utilities

Ground Maintenance


Housekeeping


Franchises





Cheerleaders



Spectators

Stadium Spectators

TV Spectators

Internet

Annual

Annual

Annual

Tournament Duration

Tournament Duration

Tournament Duration

Tournament Duration

Tournament Duration

Tournament Duration

Annual

Tournament Duration

Tournament Duration

Lifetime

Tournament Duration

Tournament Duration

Tournament Duration

Table 6Stakeholder Activity Data Inventory Period

Stakeholder NameID Inventory Period





47/359

Activity data for Local Stakeholders under all groups was researched

by surveying one (1) match at each stadium employed during DLF IPL

2010. In the case of Brabourne Stadium (Mumbai), a Day and Night

Match were studied distinctly (except for Spectator Activity) to assess

the relative Carbon Footprint impact of the two match formats. The

table below presents the tournament schedule that was used for

identification of a representative match selected for on-field survey.

Table 7DLF IPL 2010 Tournament Match Schedule

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1617

18

19

20

Fri, 12th March

Sat, 13th March

Sat, 13th March

Sun, 14th March

Sun, 14th MarchMon, 15th March

Tues, 16th March

Tues, 16th March

Wed, 17th March

Thurs, 18th March

Fri, 19th March

Fri, 19th March

Sat, 20th March

Sat, 20th March

Sun, 21st March

Sun, 21st MarchMon, 22nd March

Tues, 23rd March

Wed, 24th March

Thurs, 25th March

Navi Mumbai

Mumbai

Mohali

Kolkata

ChennaiAhmadabad

Bangalore

Kolkata

Delhi

Bengaluru

Delhi

Cuttack

Ahmadabad

Mumbai

Cuttack

ChennaiMumbai

Bengaluru

Mohali

Mumbai

Deccan Chargers

Mumbai Indians

Kings XI Punjab

Kolkata Knight Riders

Chennai Super KingsRajasthan Royals

Royal Challengers Bangalore


Delhi Daredevils


Delhi Daredevils

Deccan Chargers

Rajasthan Royals

Mumbai Indians

Deccan Chargers

Chennai Super KingsMumbai Indians


Kings XI Punjab

Mumbai Indians

vs

vs

vs

vs

vsvs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vsvs

vs

vs

vs

N

D

N

D

NN

D

N

N

N

D

N

D

N

D

NN

N

N

N


Rajasthan Royals

Delhi Daredevils


Deccan ChargersDelhi Daredevils

Kings XI Punjab

Chennai Super Kings

Mumbai Indians

Rajasthan Royals

Chennai Super Kings

Kings XI Punjab



Delhi Daredevils

Kings XI PunjabKolkata Knight Riders

Chennai Super Kings

Rajasthan Royals

Chennai Super Kings

Game

No.Date Venue Vs

Day/Night

MatchTeam 2Team 1





48/359

Table 7 (Contd.)DLF IPL 2010 Tournament Match Schedule

Game

No. Date Venue VsDay/Night

MatchTeam 2Team 1

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Fri, 26th March

Sat, 27th March

Sat, 27th March

Sun, 28th March

Sun, 28th March

Mon, 29th March

Tues, 30th March

Wed, 31st March

Wed, 31st March

Thurs, 1st April

Fri, 2nd April

Sat, 3rd April

Sat, 3rd April

Sun, 4th April

Sun, 4th April

Mon, 5th April

Tues, 6th Apri l

Wed, 7th April

Wed, 7th April

Thurs, 8th April

Ahmadabad

Mohali

Bengaluru

Ahmadabad

Navi Mumbai

Delhi

Mumbai

Chennai

Delhi

Kolkata

Mohali

Chennai

Mumbai

Kolkata

Delhi

Nagpur

Chennai

Jaipur

Kolkata

Bengaluru

Rajasthan Royals

Kings XI Punjab


Rajasthan Royals

Deccan Chargers

Delhi Daredevils

Mumbai Indians

Chennai Super Kings

Delhi Daredevils


Kings XI Punjab

Chennai Super Kings

Mumbai Indians


Delhi Daredevils

Deccan Chargers

Chennai Super Kings

Rajasthan Royals



vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

N

D

N

D

N

N

N

D

N

N

N

D

N

D

N

N

N

D

N

N

Deccan Chargers


Delhi Daredevils

Chennai Super Kings

Mumbai Indians


Kings XI Punjab


Rajasthan Royals

Deccan Chargers


Rajasthan Royals

Deccan Chargers

Kings XI Punjab


Rajasthan Royals

Mumbai Indians

Kings XI Punjab

Delhi Daredevils

Deccan Chargers

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Fri, 9th April

Sat, 10th April

Sat, 10th April

Sun, 11th April

Sun, 11th April

Mon, 12th April

Tues, 13th Apri l

Tues, 13th Apri l

Wed, 14th April

Thurs, 15th April

Fri, 16th April

Sat, 17th April

Sat, 17th April

Sun, 18th April

Sun, 18th April

Mon, 19th April

Wed, 21st April

Thurs, 22nd April

Sat, 24th April

Sun, 25th April

Mohali

Nagpur

Bengaluru

Delhi

Jaipur

Nagpur

Mumbai

Chennai

Jaipur

Chennai

Dharamsala

Bengaluru

Kolkata

Dharamsala

Delhi

Kolkata

Navi Mumbai

Navi Mumbai

Navi Mumbai

Navi Mumbai

Kings XI Punjab

Deccan Chargers


Delhi Daredevils

Rajasthan Royals

Deccan Chargers

Mumbai Indians

Chennai Super Kings

Rajasthan Royals

Chennai Super Kings

Kings XI Punjab



Kings XI Punjab

Delhi Daredevils


SF1

SF2

3rd Place

FINAL

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

vs

N

D

N

D

N

N

D

N

N

N

N

D

N

D

N

N

N

N

N

N

Mumbai Indians

Chennai Super Kings


Kings XI Punjab

Mumbai Indians


Delhi Daredevils



Delhi Daredevils

Deccan Chargers

Mumbai Indians

Rajasthan Royals

Chennai Super Kings

Deccan Chargers

Mumbai Indians





49/359

Activity data research for IPL/IMG Central Stakeholders was primarily

related to Air Travel and Luxury Hotel Accommodation. This data was

provided in raw form by Peter Griffiths of IMG Management and was

extracted from pre-event planning documents and records. Data for

other activities related to Annual IPL and IMG Offices was procured

through annual resource consumption records maintained by IPL/IMG

and obtained in electronic form through email correspondence with

IMG Management.

Activity data research for IPL/IMG Local Stakeholders was obtained

by means on on-site observation, measurement (for paper and plastic

consumables) and interviews with appropriate operational personnel

and executives. All data was collected by means of information

recorded in questionnaires developed prior to and refined following

pilot stadium walk-arounds conducted during the March 13, 2010 IPL

Match held at Mohali in conjunction with UNEP Programme Officer Dr.

Hartmut Stahl. Questionnaires used were designed to capture

relevant activity data divided amongst detailed activity types and sub-

types from the appropriate stakeholders involved in match operations.

Data not available through on-site investigation was procured post-

facto and obtained in electronic form through email correspondence

with relevant Management personnel representing Stakeholders.

Special attention was paid to all waste streams, waste management

practices and packaging/ancillary resources consumed in addition to

the apparent primary stakeholder activity. In certain instances related

to catering services, resource consumption off-site in preparation for

match-day operations was also researched and included in the

inventory. All unit items inventoried (counted in terms of pieces) were

converted to appropriate weights and volumes based on samples

collected during match-day operations and weighed off-site. Wherever

appropriate, relevant material densities were investigated through

technical literature research or telephonic vendor interviews.





50/359

All data related to State Association Operations was primarily Local

data with the exception of Stadium Construction Activity Data. The

procedure followed for this Local data was identical to the process

used for IPL/IMG Local data sources.

Stadium Construction Activity Data was pursued for the following

stadiums: Eden Gardens (Kolkata), M.A. Chidambaram Stadium

(Chennai), VCA Stadium (Nagpur), PCA Cricket Stadium (Mohali), and

DY Patil Stadium (Navi Mumbai). These stadiums were selected for

construction activity research due to recent construction and/or

renovation dates for these stadiums ass opposed to the relatively old

age of other stadiums, for which construction data was either unlikely

to be available or be irrelevant owing to disparity between modern and

vintage construction techniques and materials. Data was obtained

directly in electronic form from Architects/Contractors engaged in the

construction/renovation projects. Specific Construction activity related

questionnaires for this research were employed for obtaining this

information.

Cricket Operations Research for all IPL stadiums (related to

ascertaining the average number of ODI, Test and Domestic Matches)

was conducted using Statsguru Research Filter Tool available at the

www.cricinfo.com website. Information obtained from this process was

used to determine the appropriate allocation percentage of year-round

ground maintenance related resource consumption to IPL matches

held at the venue as well as the appropriate per-IPL match allocation

for Stadium Construction related footprint (based on a average

stadium lifespan of 30 years).





51/359

Procedures and methods employed for IPL/IMG Central and Local

Stakeholders were also applied in all relevant cases for Franchise

Activity Data research.

Besides Air Travel and Luxury Hotel Accommodation data for

tournament-duration activity of Central Franchise Stakeholders

obtained from IMG Management team based on pre-event planning

documents and records, franchise specific data was sought for year-

round operation of Franchises directly through Franchise

Management teams. The goal was to expand the key-source category

inventory beyond tournament-duration operations to include year-

round activities which were expected to be of comparable or greater

magnitude and hence critical in nature. Additionally, pan-tournament

merchandizing data was researched through Merchandizing

contractors.





52/359

A significant part of the emissions generated during the tournament

was anticipated to be caused directly through the travel to the stadia,

the consumption at the stadia, and the accommodation at Luxury

Hotels at match-venues, of the stadium spectators. To ensure an

exhaustive GHG Emissions Inventory of the IPL, it was imperative to

analyze the footprint of the spectators that physically attended the

various matches.

Methodology

A detailed, quantitative audience research was conducted to measure

the emission whose various elements are as under:

A sample size of between 0.75% and 1% of the overall

expected attendance was covered to ensure a statistically valid base

The sampling was a combination of two

methods:

: The total population was divided betweenvarious strata to evaluate the variation between the key segments.

The fundamental basis for stratification was the ticket price bands

as the behaviour of the sub-groups within each band was expected

to remain homogeneous.

A part of the total population was divided into

various clusters and samples were taken from within these defined

clusters to ensure that the overall stratified sampling is consistent

and there were no major variations within the strata selected,

especially since the tournament was held at multiple venues.

Within both the techniques, the respondents were chosen at random

to ensure no bias while conducting the research

The questionnaire was of the

close-ended, multiple choice type and administered by surveyors who





53/359

were specifically trained to record the various elements of information

required for the overall study. Each questionnaire was less than 12

questions and required approximately 3 minutes to record.

Spectator totals for matches and other information related to spectator

activity were also vital research elements for ascertaining the per unit

served Carbon Footprints for various Local Stakeholders. This

information was part of the process of establishing the Carbon

Emissions Intensity of various operations to gage and compare their

resource efficiencies.

The table below presents the Tournament Spectator projections made

prior to commencement of tournament that was used as a planning

tool for the Spectator and Stadium Activity Research effort.





54/359

Table8

DLFIPL2010TournamentStadiumSpectatorPlan

No.

StadiumN

ame

City

Theoretical

Capacity

Actual

Capacity

Price

Level1

Price

Level2

Price

Level3

Price

Level4

Price

Lev

el5

Day

Matches

Night

Matches

Total

Matches

Attenda

nce

(DayMa

tch)

Attendance

(NightMatch)

Total

Spectators

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11

12

SardarPatelGujratStadium

MChinnaswamyStadium

M.A.

ChidambaramStad.

BarabatiStadium

FerozShahKotlaGrounds

HPCACricketStadium

SawaiMansinghStadium

EdenGardensStadium

PCACricketStadium

BrabourneStadium

VCAStadium

DYPatilStadium

Totals

48,0

00

38,0

00

45,0

00

35,0

00

49,0

00

23,2

00

22,0

00

48,0

00

30,8

00

25,0

00

44,9

00

55,0

00

463,900

Ahmedabad

Banga

lore

Chen

nai

Cutta

ck

Delhi

Dharam

sala

Jaipur

Kolkata

Mohali

Mumbai

Nagp

ur

NaviMu

mbai

38,2

69

30,0

00

36,3

70

40,4

64

21,5

60

21,1

27

44,6

95

29,9

29

15,8

63

50,9

53

39,6

13

408,368

39,5

25

0-500

31,5

65

9,0

00

26,5

00

17,1

97

4,2

00

15,0

23

12,2

00

14,5

40

0 0

15,6

69

161,528

15,6

34

500-1000

6,2

04

8,4

00

19,3

93

14,5

00

5,1

24

14,8

01

5,4

39

3,6

27

34,8

43

13,5

16

13,4

86

139,332

1000-2000

1,8

00

7,9

00

4,7

50

0320

0

17,6

94

5,9

50

8,8

42

38,1

59

10,2

77

10,2

54

105,947

500

0+

0 3,9

00

1,6

70

3,8

74

1,0

40

50

0

0 1,4

20

1,4

63

01,6

68

1,6

65

17,200

2000-5000

500

800

3,4

50

01,8

20

480

08,5

30

9,1

27

5,3

92

3,6

22

3,6

13

37,334

(Assum

ed)

80%

80%

80%

80%

80%

80%

80%

80%

80%

80%

80%

80%

(Assumed)

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

90%

163,2

00

300,2

00

274,5

00

59,5

00

298,9

00

39,4

40

57,2

00

292,8

00

135,5

20

152,5

00

116,7

40

198,0

00

2,088,500

2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 0 17

2 7 5 1 5 1 2 5 4 5 2 4 43

4 9 7 2 7 2 3 7 5 7 3 4 60

Note:ValuesinREDarecalculatedbasedonavg.stadium

characteristics

IP

LGreeningProgram

DLFIPL2010

REALISE

ProjectReport

E l i i t C b E i i ( E C E ) P t L t d

54


55/359

A key component of the Local Stakeholder Activity research phase

was the identification of avenues for significant reductions in resource

consumption through efficiency enhancements while avoiding any

visible impact on the overall service delivery to customers/spectators.

All technical and operational personnel helming Stakeholder functions

were engaged in brainstorming discussions to identify non-capital

expenditure intensive options to measurably reduce resource

consumption and enhance the Carbon Emissions efficiency of theirrespective activities. Such expert input was recorded in detail and will

be analyzed further for incorporation into the Carbon Footprint

Minimisation analysis phase of the project.





56/359

Average air-travel and road-travel distances for various stakeholders

were determined based on distance research conducted on the

Franchise Team Travel plan presented in the table below.

Note: the following abbreviations used in the table below

Teams RR (Rajasthan Royals),

KXIP (Kings XI Punjab),

CSK (Chennai Super Kings),

DD (Delhi Daredevils),

MI (Mumbai Indians),

KKR (Kolkata Knight Riders),

RCB (Royal Challengers Bangalore),

DC (Deccan Chargers).

Venues Mu (Mumbai),

Ah (Ahmedabad),

Ba (Bangalore),

Mo (Mohali),

De (Delhi),

Ch (Chennai),

Na (Nagpur),

Ja (Jaipur),

Ko (Kolkata),

Cu (Cuttack),

Dh (Dharamsala),

Nm (Navi Mumbai)





57/359

Table9

DLFIPL

2010TournamentTeamTravelPlan

No.

RR

KXIP

CSK

DD

M

I

KKR

RCB

DC

Day

Date

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

12-Mar

13-Mar

14-Mar

15-Mar

16-Mar

17-Mar

18-Mar

19-Mar

20-Mar

21-Mar

22-Mar

23-Mar

24-Mar

25-Mar

26-Mar

27-Mar

28-Mar

29-Mar

30-Mar

31-Mar

1-Ap

r

2-Ap

r

3-Ap

r

4-Ap

r

FRI

SAT

SUN

MON

TUE

WED

THU

FRI

SAT

SUN

MON

TUE

WED

THU

FRI

SAT

SUN

MON

TUE

WED

THU

FRI

SAT

SUN

Venue

Mu

Ah

Ba

Ah

Mo

Ah

Ah

De

Ch

Ven

ue

Mo

Ba Cu Ch Mo

Mo

Mu

Mo

Ko

Venue

Ch

Ko

De

Ch

Ba

Mu

Ah

Ch

Ch

Venue

Mo

Ah

De

De

Cu

Ba

De

De

De

Venue

M

u

D

e

M

u

M

u

M

u

N

m

M

u

M

u

Venue

Nm

Ko

Ko

Ah

Mu

Mo

De

Ko

Ko

Venue

Ko

Ba

Ba

Mu

Ba

Ba

Ch

Mo

De

Venue

Nm

Ch

Cu

Cu

Ah

Nm

Ko

Mu

IP

LGreeningProgram

DLFIPL2010

REALISE

ProjectReport


5


58/359

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

5-Apr

6-Apr

7-Apr

8-Apr

9-Apr

10-Apr

11-Apr

12-Apr

13-Apr

14-Apr

15-Apr

16-Apr

17-Apr

18-Apr

19-Apr

20-Apr

21-Apr

22-Apr

23-Apr

24-Apr

25-Apr

MON

TUE

WED

THU

FRI

SAT

SUN

MON

TUE

WED

THU

FRI

SAT

SUN

MON

TUE

WED

THU

FRI

SAT

SUN

Na

Ja

Ja

Ja

Ko

Ja Mo De Dh Dh

Ch

Na

Ch

Ch

Dh

Ko

De

Mu

Ch

De

Ch Mo Ja Mu Ba Ko

Ko

Ba

Ch

Ko

Ko

Ba

Ba

Na

Ja

Ba

N

a

B

a

N

a

N

a

D

h

D

e

Table9(Contd.)

DLFIPL

2010TournamentTeamTravelPla

n

No.

RR

KXIP

CSK

DD

MI

KKR

RCB

D

C

Day

Date

IP

LGreeningProgram

DLFIPL2010

REALISE

ProjectReport




59/359





60/359

The activities included within the footprint boundary were further

differentiated into multiple activity sub-types. Each resource/activity

inventoried during research was tagged and collated under footprint-

head groups. The table below presents the list of Activity Groups,

Types and Sub-Types used for data classification. The governing

principle for the elaborate data classification was to provide intrinsic

intra-stakeholder and cross-stakeholder analytic capability across any

specific Activity Group and aggregated footprint analysis acrossStakeholders to compare relative Stakeholder impacts.

Data collation done in such a manner allowed for quantities (i.e. liters,

kgs, pieces of items, kilometers of air travel etc.) of the same resources

or activities to be aggregated across Stakeholders. This would prove to

be of utility as an overall planning and organizational tool for

tournament operations redesign and other administrative

interventions, if desired, beyond the purp

carbon footprint 300 pp cb ipl 2010

Documents