Sport is increasingly waking up to its responsibilities when it comes to biodiversity, but the picture on the ground still varies widely.
That’s the main takeaway from a report exploring the pressures sporting events place on nature across five disciplines and settings. Produced as part of the BENCHES project – which aims to develop tools and practices to support biodiversity management in sport – the research focused on real-world experiences at events run by World Sailing, the Italian Canoe and Kayak Federation, World Athletics, Sport Lisboa e Benfica and the International Biathlon Union.
To understand the interactions between sport and ecosystems, the BENCHES technical partner, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, conducted on-site visits at a regatta in France, a canoe slalom event in Italy, a mountain running championship in Spain, a top-tier football match in Portugal and a biathlon World Cup round in Finland.
Read the full report deliverable here.
These site visits were guided by a checklist rooted in ISO environmental standards, supported by desk research and supply chain reviews. The analysis focused on five established pressures on biodiversity: climate change, land use change, pollution, overexploitation and invasive species.
The idea was to go beyond general sustainability claims and examine how events are actually run – what’s measured, what’s ignored and where the gaps lie.
Site visits
World Sailing’s Last Chance Regatta in Hyères took place within a protected marine area, home to seagrass beds, endangered reptiles and hundreds of bird and fish species. Yet despite this ecologically rich context, no biodiversity management system was in place.
The event organisers took steps to limit their impact, for example, using electric VIP boats, encouraging low-carbon transport and installing non-anchored buoys to protect the seabed. But there was no comprehensive strategy, no appointed sustainability manager and little recognition of the biodiversity value of the site. Waste sorting was incomplete, boat emissions were only partially addressed and invasive species risks from international equipment and athletes were largely unexamined.
In Ivrea, the canoe slalom World Cup was staged in a semi-artificial whitewater course running through the town centre. The organisers appointed an environmental manager and took steps to reduce plastic and localise supply chains. Simple infrastructure changes, like adding fish ladders to the artificial channel, helped offset some ecological disruption.
However, the lack of clear biodiversity guidance from the international federation meant supply chain engagement and invasive species prevention remained underdeveloped. Equipment chemicals used by athletes went unregulated, and while local sourcing was strong, the traceability and certification of materials and food remained unclear.
The World Masters Mountain Running Championships in Canfranc, Spain, presented a different scenario: a low-footprint event in a mountainous area, with limited infrastructure and a route that didn’t cross protected land.
On the surface, the event appeared light on biodiversity impacts. But that assumption was undermined by some revealing gaps. Race flags were tied directly to vegetation, branches were cut to clear paths and helicopters were used to drop and collect food and waste at remote points. Music blared across the mountain range throughout the day, and no measures were taken to assess wildlife sensitivity or presence of key habitats.
Despite the host municipality’s environmental ambitions, the race lacked a defined sustainability strategy, and its integration with biodiversity considerations was minimal.
At the Estádio da Luz in Lisbon, S.L. Benfica operates one of Europe’s most high-capacity football venues, drawing almost a million spectators each season. The match under review (a high-profile clash against FC Porto) was complemented by a site visit to Benfica Campus, the club’s training centre located next to a key estuarine wetland.
In contrast to the other cases, Benfica had clear structures in place, aligned with UEFA’s sustainability goals. Environmental indicators are tracked, landscaping is maintained with some attention to native species and energy efficiency projects are underway.
Yet even here, the biodiversity implications of operating adjacent to sensitive wetland habitats were not addressed with any specificity. The risk of invasive species from turf management, equipment or even landscaping choices appeared to go unmonitored.
Finally, the biathlon World Cup in Kontiolahti offered an interesting mix of seasonal pressures and proactive measures. As a winter event dependent on artificial snow and located in a boreal forest, it faces significant risks related to land and resource use. The International Biathlon Union has made biodiversity part of its sustainability commitments, and the local organisers had implemented practices such as reusing snow and minimising the footprint of temporary structures.
Still, biodiversity data and monitoring were limited, and while climate mitigation was considered, the broader ecological impacts of event operations were not fully integrated into planning.
Recommendations
Taken together, the five site visits revealed that while environmental awareness is growing in sport, biodiversity is still the poor relation of climate and carbon when it comes to action.
Even events held in or near ecologically significant areas frequently lacked baseline data, impact monitoring or event-specific management strategies. Engagement with supply chains could have been stronger across the board, with very few examples of procurement decisions factoring in biodiversity criteria or traceability standards.
The risk of invasive species – a particularly acute threat in events involving international participants, outdoor settings and shared equipment – was largely ignored. Waste management varied from well-structured in urban venues to patchy and delayed in remote mountain locations.
The report makes clear that sport needs to go beyond generic sustainability checklists and embrace biodiversity as a core part of responsible event management.
That means building biodiversity assessments into planning, developing clear protocols to manage the five key pressures and ensuring procurement and infrastructure decisions are informed by ecological risks. It means sharing knowledge and expectations with staff, athletes and suppliers, and establishing monitoring systems that can provide reliable data for future improvements.
Above all, it means seeing nature not just as a backdrop to sport, but as something fragile, valuable and in need of active protection. Because while sport depends on healthy ecosystems, it also has the power – and increasingly, the responsibility – to help preserve them.
Get the full ‘Deliverable 2.2: Report on the Pressures of Sport Events on Biodiversity’ here.