Download Mobile policies for sustainable development (SD) in Rio 2016 A

Mobile policies for sustainable development (SD) in Rio 2016
A preliminary assessment of SD capacity in the pre-event phase
DRAFT COPY
NOT FOR QUOTATION OR CITATION
John Karamichas, Queen’s University of Belfast
More than just a game
Mobilities, infrastructures & imaginaries of global sports events
University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
Thursday 8th and 9th October 2015
“Our goal is to integrate sustainability in all organisational processes, reducing the impact of the
Games and setting an example of good practice for society as a whole”, Carlos Arthur Nuzman, Rio
2016 President
Introduction
When Rio de Janeiro was announced as the host of the Games of the XXXI Olympiad at the 121st IOC
Session held in Copenhagen, Denmark, on 2 October 2009, the realisation that Brazil was to host a
back-to-back two sport mega-events, the FIFA World Cup and the Olympics made the then
president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to proclaim to cheering crowds ‘Our hour has arrived’ (Watts,
2014). Yet one year before the opening of the 2014 FIFA World Cup, in June 2013, this football
loving nation experienced ‘the biggest in a generation [street protest that] highlighted dissatisfaction
with the dire public services, political corruption, police violence and wasteful spending on stadiums’
(ibid.)
A similar protest wave (three major protests) was evident again one year before the other sport
mega-event, the 2016 Rio Olympics, with hundreds of thousands gathering in different cities calling
for the president, Dilma Rousseff, to step down. These mobilizations also highlighted dissatisfaction
with political corruption but are also linked to the economic downturn that the country is
experiencing with the accompanying rising unemployment and inflation rates since 2011 (BBC News,
2015).
Both the 2013 and 2015 protest mobilizations were called using social media and in some respects
both meet the characteristics of the indignant/occupy protest wave. However the demographics of
the participants and what stimulated the general complaint appear to be different between the two
protest mobilizations. In the 2013 protest events, the complaint was stimulated by rises in public
transport fares; there were also scuffles between the protesters and the police that resulted in some
cases in intensive rioting (see Singer, 2014; Spyer, N.D with a commentary on the demographics of
the participants in these protest events). The 2015 mobilizations were ‘overwhelmingly white and
middle class’ and ‘many wore the yellow shirts of the Brazilian football team, and sang the national
1
anthem, carrying banners saying “Dilma out” (BBC News, ibid). According to Douglas (2015) with
expectations that the economy is expected to further ‘contract around 2% this year, inflation nearing
10% and unemployment rising, anger in the country’s political elite is growing’. These issues raise
some serious concerns about the sustainable development (SD) claims that were made by Brazil in
the bidding application to host the 2016 Games. These concerns have been recognised in the
January 2014 Olympic Games Impact (OGI) study as follows:
Great caution is needed when attributing causality to the Olympic Games regarding
legacies and impacts. Some economic, environmental and socio-cultural changes
could occur even without hosting the Games. This may have been the case in every
one of the previous host cities, but the context of Rio 2016 involves a number of
unique factors that can hinder the assignment of assigning causal links:



Rio is at the very centre of an oil production boom that can be expected to
influence economic indicators to an extent that overshadows Olympic factors.
Since the city submitted its candidacy, the world has experienced a major
economic reversal that affected the Brazilian growth rate. As the economy
recovers it may be hard to find accurate Olympic-related trends.
The country is also preparing the 2014 FIFA World Cup. This may well skew a
number of socio-cultural and economic aspects, making the pure Olympic
effect t harder to distinguish (Olympic Games Impact (OGI) Study –Rio 2016,
2014).
This is an important acknowledgement that gives a specific shape in any expectations that
one can have about the sustainability credentials of Rio 2016.
The examination of sustainable development (SD) policies in relation the legacy bequeathed to the
host city and nation by an Olympic edition has become an established endeavour in the social
sciences realm since the first ‘green’ Games of Sydney 2000 (Hayes and Horne, 2011; Karamichas,
2013, Mol, 2010 among others). Recent works have examined this process under the mobility of
policies framework (Müller, 2014). This paper discusses the potential impact of SD policies
transported to Brazil in lieu of hosting the Rio Games towards strengthening the environmental
policy capacity of Brazil by examining 6 identified indicators during the pre-event phase of the
Games (see Hiller, 2000). Before we proceed, it’s important to make certain clarifications in relation
to the meaning of SD and what aspects of SD we are examining here. We can do that by reverting
back to the London Games where SD played an important part in the bidding application and the city
also experienced significant rioting one year before the inset of the Games.
Hayes and Horne (2011: 761) talk of a ‘systemic contradiction of advanced late modern capitalist
democracies’ in relation to the concept of “sustainable Games” in their examination of the
sustainability claims made by London 2012 in the pre-event phase of the London Games. In their
view, the sustainability of the Games can be demonstrated by encouraging the formation of ‘a
socially inclusive environmental citizenship’ (ibid: 760). The 2011 riots that took place in the five
Olympic boroughs, areas experiencing significant disadvantage, which were highlighted in the
Olympic bid to promote the Olympic vision as a ‘force for regeneration’ (Poynter, 2009: 185) have
added weight to the social component of the sustainability claims that were made for the London
2
Games. By extension the aforementioned civil contestation that Brazil has experienced gives a
different flavour to the sustainability claims made by the Rio 2016 bid.
The ‘Imagineering’ (Rutheiser, 1996) of a host nation/city has been notorious for its lack of public
accountability. Characteristically, for Hiller (2000: 193):
[m]ega-event planning is top-down planning.
Just as the idea to bid is itself
normally an idea of an elite group than then tries to sell the idea to other elites and
urban residents at large, so is mega-event planning that specification of a design plan
(sometimes with site alternatives) for how the city could accommodate the event to
which citizens will be given an opportunity to react. The idea of citizen participation is,
then, primarily merely responding to a plan conceived by others.
In their study of mega-event politics, Andranovich, Burbank, and Heying (Andranovich et al., 2001;
Burbank et al., 2001) have aptly demonstrated that citizen participation and democratic
accountability in the decision-making process were absent in three US host cities. Even the first
‘green’ Olympics (Sydney 2000) demonstrated a continuation of that practice, save with a few select
ENGOs. The implementation by Beijing 2008 of an OGI study did not make China into a democratic
polity. However, Close and his colleagues (2007) and Pound (2008) saw the Beijing 2008 experience
as a potential repetition of what had occurred in Seoul in 1988, namely the acceleration of the
democratization process of South Korea.
Other commentators though, acknowledged the
autocratic character of the Chinese regime and human right violations (e.g. Tibet, Falun Gong, the
Uighur minority and lack of media openness) and that way they decided to restrict their examination
to an ‘environmental definition of sustainability’ (Mol, 2010: 512; Mol and Zhang, 2012: 138). In
light of the concerns expressed by Hayes and Horne (ibid: 751) that London 2012 had followed only a
‘hollowed-out form of sustainable development’, I decided to adopt a similarly restrictive definition
of sustainability in my examination of the pre-vent phase of the London Games and decided to
follow that (Karamichas, 2013: 178). ‘Hollowed-out’ or weak interpretations of SD correspond with
weak interpretations of ecological modernization (EM) (see Christoff, 1996), not least because these
interpretations comfortably comfortable coexist in international organizations such as the EU and
the IMF.
Our exploration here will primarily assess the environmental sustainability credentials of the preevent phase of Rio 2016 by examining 6 EM indicators. It is impossible to completely ignore the
social dimension in that kind of exploration. In fact it would be shown that the social component
impacts upon all six of the identified indicators but as in the aforementioned examination of two
preceding Olympic editions, the overall assessment of SD capacity will not necessarily be affected by
the presence of civil contestation or campaigning by the most radical sectors of movement politics.
The indicators
The 6 identified indicators were selected by examining a range of key works on ecological
modernization (EM) (see Buttel, 2003; Mol & Sonnefeld, 2000; Jänicke & Weidner, 1997;
Weidner, 2002) and the green legacy aspirations of the IOC. These indicators have been
also used in a selection of works by Karamichas (2012; 2013 among other) in his examination
of the environmental sustainability legacy bequeathed by sport mega-events. The six
indicators are as follows:
3
1. Average annual level of CO2 emissions
In this indicator we use data measuring CO2 emissions in Brazil since 1990, the baseline
year of the Kyoto Protocol. A range of socio-political factors is put under the microscope
to assess relevant policies.
2. Level of environmental consciousness
This indicator brings together a range of reports to gauge the extent to which the general
public exhibits environmental awareness and concern. The general idea is that the
highest concern is the more likely for the state government to adopt relevant policies. It
is expected that job losses and politics of severe austerity may have a significant impact.
3. Ratification of international agreements
This indicator assesses the willingness of a given polity to undertake an international
commitment over what is a quintessentially global problem. Brazil in particular has an
important place as a standard reference point in the history of such international
agreements.
4. Designation of sites for protection
This indicator is assessed by counting the percentage of land acreage with this designated
status and is also reliant upon the aforementioned issues.
5. Implementation of environmental Assessment (EIA) procedures
The implementation of EIA procedures is an essential requirement for all projects related
to Olympic Games hosting. As such, Olympics host nations are expected to be competent
in applying these procedures. However, this is a highly ambiguous indicator that is
malleable by the prevailing socio-economic situation.
6. Environmental Non-governmental Organizations (ENGOs) participation in public
decision-making processes.
This indicator is in direct connection to the degree of environmental consciousness
exhibited by the host nation. The underlying rationale in this case is that high rates of
environmental consciousness tend to encourage support for ENGOs pushing for
environmental reforms.
The Manual for Candidate Cities (MCC)
‘Eight years before an Olympiad, the IOC publishes a manual for candidate cities (MCC) to inform
their bids for hosting the Games. The MCC dedicates a section to environmental matters, outlining
the commitment to environmental protection by the IOC and guiding the candidate cities on the
policies they have to employ to achieve a positive bid evaluation’ (Karamichas, 2012: 154). The MCC
for the 2016 Olympiad is as demanding as the MCC that guided the London 2012 Games and much
4
more advanced than the MCCs that guided the preceding Olympic editions since the first ‘green’
Olympics of Sydney. Like London 2012, which was the first summer Olympics with the mandate to
conduct an OGI study and Beijing 2008, which conducted an OGI study throughout the pre-event
phase irrespective of lacking such an obligation, Rio 2016 has a contract with COPPE/UFRJ (Post-grad
Institute, Federal University) for an OGI study. Some of the requirements of the MCC that stand out
as they correspond to the identified indicators:

The Olympic Movement is fully committed to sustainable development and
endeavours to contribute to the protection of the natural environment.

[…] it is essential that, from the earliest stages of planning, a dialogue of
cooperation is established with the government and non-government
organisations through a stakeholder engagement process. In addition to the
technical aspects involved, the Bid Committee can send very positive
messages through the environmental protection efforts.

Describe your stakeholders plan and how you envisage establishing
appropriate relations with: […] non-government environmental organisations
(IOC 2008: Theme 6).
Environmental protection and performance in the candidature file
Brazil in general and Rio de Janeiro in particular are intimately associated with Sustainable
Development (SD). The concerns expressed by Brazilian delegates at the 1972 UN Conference on
the Human Environment in Stockholm became a stark reminder of the challenges that any
combination of environmental protection with the developmental process was facing. Attempts to
compromise these contradictory processes led to development of the SD perspective during the
early 1990s at the 1992 Rio Summit. It was in that Summit that the earlier, 1986, declaration by the
IOC that the environment was the third pillar of Olympism acquired more credence. In the bidding
application to host the Games, like preceding successful candidates, Rio was not short in making
ambitious SD declarations under the general frame of ‘Green Games for a Blue Planet’ that includes
proclamations that;
The Rio 2016 Games in Rio will catalyze the environmental policies and programs of
the three levels of government via the Rio 2016’s Sustainability Management Plan
(SMP). The three pillars of Rio 2016’s SMP – planet, people, prosperity- will integrate
economic, environmental and social elements into the “Green Games for a Blue
Planet” vision for the Rio Games:


5
Planet signifies the overall environmental commitment of the Games to act
locally with a global vision of sustainability
People indicates the need for ample social benefits, consistent and inclusive
for the entire Rio public

Prosperity symbolizes well administered and transparently managed Games,
and economic growth for the city (Brazilian Olympic Committee, 2009).
Furthermore, Rio’s SMP was to ‘define and monitor indicators for Games delivery, in addition to
using the indicators below:

The Global Reporting Initiative to enhance identification and monitoring of
sustainability

World Wildlife Fund’s One Planet Living program to measure the Games’
ecological grip

United Nations indicators to assess Games sustainability: the Human
Development Index establishes quality of life values (education and life
expectancy) and the Sustainable Development Index evaluates and quantifies
more than 60 other sustainability norms. These will be cross-referenced with
the other economic, environmental and social indicators issued by NGOs
which monitor the population’s life sustainability and socio-economic factors

Olympic Games impact indicators will also be monitored (ibid)
Like preceding Olympic Games applicants, Rio also made extensive reference to its existing qualities
on the environmental front. In particular, on the impact of energy consumption and Greenhouse
Gas emissions:
Recognising the utmost importance of preserving the Amazon and Atlantic Forest,
Brazil has paid particular attention to global environmental issues, particularly climate
change through the extensive use of high efficiency green energy plants and low
energy consumption design strategies in all competition and non-competition venues
(ibid)
Furthermore:
Brazil plays a leading role in clan energy: over 89% of its electrical energy is from
renewable sources, 75% of the national light vehicle fleet (around 6 million cars) runs
on ethanol with 90% less CO2 emissions compared to regular fossil fuels, and almost
100% of the city’s taxi fleet is powered by natural gas. Building on this base, Rio will
apply Brazilian cutting-edge technology initiatives for the use of renewable energy
sources during the Games.
6
The creation of the already-funded Carbon Park will have the capacity to offset the
direct emissions of the Games, a project that will be validated by the technical
mechanisms of the Kyoto protocol as a Clean Development Mechanism project (ibid).
Michael Payne, former IOC marketing expert, was recruited as Rio’s Senior Strategy Advisor, to lead
what Clift and Andrews (2012:219) saw as a ‘a cabal of globally peripatetic Olympic bid
professionals, whose charge was to create a vision of the Rio 2016 local – within, and through, the
bid structure and presentation – that would engage IOC delegates’. In an article that Payne wrote
on ‘How Rio won’, ‘Payne listed other key international advisors having an important role in Rio’s
bid’. That led Pentifallo and VanWynsberghe (2012: 443) to suggest that ‘this collection of Olympic
bid consultants […] point not only towards increased professionalization of the field but allude to the
high rate of transfer from one Olympic cycle to the next. As these professionals gain experience and
expertise, the knowledge they pass to future BOC’s becomes refined with each successive Olympic
bid. As these firms and individuals build best practices through success in rounds of Olympic host
city voting, their respective strategies are reinforced and the likelihood of those strategies being
transferred to then next round of clients rises’.
Environmental protection and performance in the pre-event phase
The transportation of expertise continued after the award of the Games to Rio Zimbalist (2015: 90)
claims that Rio’s OCOG took the following steps:
It hired several outside consulting firms (AECOM from Los Angeles, Wilkinson Eyre
Architects from the United Kingdom, Pujol Barcelona Architects from Spain, and IMG
and McKinsey from New York) to design an urban strategy and style for the games.
The final mater plan for the 2016 Games was meant to emulate that of the successful
1992 Games in Barcelona-four urban clusters rather than one focal area, within new
transportation routes and technologies connecting them.
resembled Barcelona’s.
Superficially, the plan
In substance and outcome, the two plans had little in
common.
The Rio 2016 Organising Committee developed a Sustainability Management Plan (SMP)
based on the proposals of action and commitments contained in the candidature file. Its
goals correspond to SD principles ratified by the UN Conference on Environment and
Development 2012:
7

Planet: Reduction of the environmental impact, and footprint, of projects related to
the Games.

People: Planning and execution of the Rio 2016 Games in an inclusive manner,
delivering Games for everyone.

Prosperity: Contribution to economic development of the state and city of Rio de
Janeiro by planning, managing, and reporting the projects involved with the Rio 2016
Games with both accountability and transparency.
These three strategic principles have been ‘broken down into nine themes, grouped by similarity
and complementarity with the infrastructure programmes that are the responsibility of the
governments and the operating projects that are of the Rio 2016™ Organising Committee’.
The SMP is ambitious and meticulously organised with a clear appreciation of any possible
limitations and restrictions that the plan may encounter in the event and post-event legacy of the
Games. However, the wording that is used in describing the sustainability credential of the different
components in the plan can be subject to various interpretations.
For instance, the ‘urban
redevelopment’ of certain parts of Rio in the plan, say the Port District, Park Carioca or the area
surrounding the Olympic Stadium, involves the relocation of existing communities. This aspect has
marked most, if not all, previous Olympic editions and that way Rio’s SMP conforms do an existing
pattern of ‘hollowed-out form of sustainable development’ instead of the SD interpretation that the
most socially concerned environmental groups subscribe to.
The following section discusses the six identified environmental sustainability indicators to set the
basis for some preliminary assessment of Rio 2016 credentials.
Level of Environmental Consciousness
According to a survey conducted by the Datafolha Institute, commissioned by the Climate
Observatory and Greenpeace Brazil, in March 2015, Brazilians are concerned about climate change
and believe the government has done very little to address the problem. In particular, for 91 per
cent is the cause of much concern for the future of the planet. Nine out of ten respondents pointed
out that the crisis in the supply of water and energy are related to climate change and 84 per cent
that the government does nothing or very little to address the problem (Cruz, 2015). According to a
global survey of climate change opinion carried out for Chatham House in 2014, 94 per cent of the
Brazilian public agreed with the statement that ‘Human activities contribute to climate change’.
That was the highest score amongst the twelve nations surveyed (see McSweeney and Pearce,
2014). Survey conducted from 2003 to 2013 were indicating that Brazilians were leading in concern
about environmental issues ‘with over 90% perceiving air pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss
or water availability as very serious problems – at least 30 percentage points more than the
international average’ (Echegaray, 2013).
Moreover, a majority ‘puts a premium upon
8
environmental protection over economic growth and enthusiasm to engage in domestic recycling if
given the chance [… and] a record level of interest in corporate sustainability, well over 70% since
[…] 2002, […] one in two adults willing to pay more for an ethical product’ (ibid). Interestingly
enough, according to a survey that was conducted online by the Institute of Environmental Change
at the University of Oxford, in October 2006 and April 2007, concern about climate has risen in Brazil
at a higher rate than the rest of the world. Characteristically in October 2006, 7% of respondents
rated climate change as the highest or second highest concern and in April 2007 that concern
increased to 24 per cent. In the world this variation in the period was 7% to 16%. The same study
indicated that the concern exhibited by the Greek public increased from 4% to 23 per cent (BBC
BRASIL, 2007). The Greek case is a very good aid towards interpreting the Brazilian findings. This is
for the following reasons:
1. Greece was the host of an Olympic Games edition, Athens 2004
2. Like all other Olympic hosts, Athens bid for the Games made highly ambitious
claims on the environmental parameter
3. The Greek public exhibited the highest concern for the climate change issue in the
European Union in successive Eurobarometer studies during the late 1990s. The
same was also evident in the 2007 and 2009 Eurobarometers. However, with the
advent of severe austerity in 2010 that concern was substantially reduced whilst in
the UK, with a public renowned for its environmental credentials and activism that
concern has remained at the same moderate levels, albeit with a substantial
increase in the concern about the economic situation (see Karamichas, 2015).
With these issues in mind one may expect that the environmental concern exhibited by the Brazilian
public may also demonstrate a substantial decline in the following phases of the Games (event and
post-event) should the country continues to experience economic decline and public discontent.
Average annual level of CO2 emissions
As we can see in figure 1, there was a 5.24% decrease of CO2 emissions in 2009 from the 2008
levels. Subsequently, there was a 12.53 per cent increase in 2010 and further 6.75 per cent increase
in 2011. However, Brazil as a developing country does not have a set of obligatory emission targets
as established by the Kyoto protocol. According to business consultant Ernst & Young (ND), ‘Brazil
plays a prominent role in climate change discussions. It introduced the idea of Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM), which was incorporated in the Kyoto protocol. [Although] Brazil does not
currently have a reduction targets or a carbon cap and trade system, […] it is currently a leader in
renewable energy with the world’s first sustainable biofuel economy. [In addition] it is the world’s
biggest exporter of sugar-based ethanol fuel [and] has the third largest number of CDM projects in
the world’. Furthermore, Brazil is committed to a reduction of GHG of 4.8 metric gigatons of C02
through 2018 and has proposed to freeze emissions at 2005 level (EY, ND).
This indicator is intimately linked to the designation of natural sites for protection indicator as
deforestation is a major cause of increase of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Indeed,
‘deforestation accounted for just 22% of Brazil’s total emissions in 2010, a far cry from the time
when tree felling drove roughly two-thirds of the country’s greenhouse gas output.
9
Moreover, according to report produced by IGBE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics),
although Brazil committed itself to reduce greenhouse gas emissions between 36.1% and 38.9% by
2020, based on the 2005 benchmark, at the 2009 UN Climate Conference, the country managed to
reduce CO2 emission by 52.3% ten years before the deadline (Tomazelli, I. and M. Sallowicz, 2015).
Figure 1
Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), thousand metric tons of CO2
(CDIAC)
Brazil
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
439412.9
419754.2
387675.2
363212.7
347668.3 367147.4
347308.9
337826
337433.7
332266.9
327983.8
321621.6
320173.1
312289.1
300547.3
284782.9
258347.5
242154
230738.6
220705.7
219330.6
208887
Ratification of international agreements
Brazil is intimately associated to Sustainable Development (SD) in general and Rio de Janeiro in
particular. Lest we forget that the core challenges that environmental protection combined with the
developmental process at the global level was facing came out in a heavily loaded sentence by the
Brazilian delegate at the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm that
‘pollution is a sign of progress and that environmentalism was a luxury only developed countries
could afford’ (Hogan, 2000, p. 2) and continued by saying that he ‘prayed for the day when they
would share in the developed world’s industrial pollution and would welcome multinational
investors, willing to help them pollute’ (Leonard, 1988, p. 69).
According to the CIA World Factbook, Brazil has ratified most of the environment international
agreements ranging from Antarctic Environmental Protocol to Tropical Timber 94, Wetlands and the
Climate-Change Kyoto Protocol without having an obligatory reduction target as a developing
country.
Designation of sites for protection
Brazil is one of a handful of countries classified as “megadiverse”, and much of that diversity is found
is found in its extensive forests (Hochstetler, 2002). Although, the Amazon rainforest has been a
perennial issue of concern and campaigning for the global environmental movement, Hochstetler
(ibid: 70) points out that ‘many Brazilians are more concerned with the fate of the Atlantic forest.
Rates of deforestation are much higher than they are in the Amazon, with 11% of the tiny remaining
Atlantic forest destroyed in 1985-1995. Recent years have also seen an increase in efforts to protect
the remaining Atlantic forest, with the area under some form of preservation quintupling from 198110
1990 […] and a national decree law […] limiting nearly all cutting of specific kinds of native forests
within the domain of the Atlantic Forest […]. The continuing deforestation shows the limited power
of the new legislation’.
With that in mind alongside the aforementioned improvements in the case of the Amazon
rainforest, we can only give an ambiguous status to that indicator. In a country being between the
richest and poorest in the world and marked, Brazil’s environmental capacity is bound to be marked
by contradictory characteristics. Forest protection will be dependent on the way that this is framed
in the context of modernization and social justice in ‘a matrix of environmental degradation that
extends from the degradation of poverty to the degradation of wealth, with multiple actors, causes
and dynamics’ (ibid: 69).
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
For Pereira and colleagues (Pereira et al. 2014: 56-7), ‘the key problems related to EIA procedures
are linked to implementation, monitoring and enforcement. Although there is provision for
monitoring procedures in the EIA legislation, the implementation of such a procedure is limited in
practice as implementation of EIA decisions and enforcement of EIA regulations are largely subject
to political will, economic pressures, time constraints, limited resources and limited number of
skilled and trained personnel’.
‘Another frequently deployed mechanism of creating exceptions is the substitution of the EIA-RIMAs
(comprehensive impact assessment studies) for Simplified Environmental Reports (RAS). In so far as
the EIA-RIMA requires analyses of alternatives and a detailed exam of physical, biotic and social
(urban, socio-economic, cultural, etc.) impacts, the RAS was created to simplify studies and
diagnostics and to reduce the time that it takes to grant permits for smaller projects. Now, this
process is also being used to license larger and more complex projects with significant impacts […].
This is an obvious way of to getting around environmental legislation’ (National Coalition of Local
Committees for a People’s World Cup and Olympics, 2012: 26).
In a similar fashion to other sport mega-events, the limitations that can be identified by EIAs in the
relevant projects have been cast aside. The same is also the case as far as social parameters are
concerned. Gaffney (2013, p. 3931) suggests the following in relation to Rio 2016:
The improvised revision of the city’s master plan has been accompanied by an
extensive list of executive decrees that have “flexibilized” urban space in order for
Olympic related projects to occur. These measures have undermined Rio’s fledging
democratic institutions and reduced public participation in urban planning processes.
Concurring to that, Sánchez and Broudehoux (2011:245) argue that
The redevelopment process was facilitated by extraordinary political interventions,
financial innovations, and legal decrees passed in exceptional circumstances, justified
11
by the need to comply with promises made to the IOC in the original bid proposal,
which became binding after the city’s candidacy were accepted’.
Similarly, Boykoff (2014: 115) writes:
As the powerful prepare for the Olympic juggernaut to roll into town, displacement
has become a vital element of the schedule. Numerous favelas are under threat […].
Residents of Vila Autódromo have been under attack, with government forces insisting
they move to make way for a motorway that will be much-used thoroughfare during
the Games. Real-estate developers and land speculators see Vila Autódromo as an
optimal spot for tourism and development due to its prime location near the water.
Yet these are deeply rooted communities with rich political histories.
Shall we see this as a blatant failure in meeting the aspirations of SMP? Again that really depends on
what interpretation of sustainability one subscribes to. On another note, similar developments have
not been absent in the preparations for hosting previous Olympic Games. In general, it’s highly
unlikely for anybody to identify causality between hosting the Games and improving capacity in EIA
procedures.
ENGO participation
Sydney’s bid to host the 2000 Games also pioneered the inclusion of ENGOs. With the exceptions of
Salt Lake City’s 2002 Winter Olympics bid as well as the 2004 Athens bid, that example was followed
by all successive host in their bids. Rio followed London’s example in its bid for the 2016 Games,
taking up WWF’s ‘One Planet Living Programme (Brazilian Olympic Committee, 2009).
Environmental groups have participated in deliberations with policy makers to improve Brazil’s
environmental legislation since 1982, ‘when the first three environmental legislators were elected at
state and local level (Hochstetler, 2002: 89).
Concluding remarks
As far as the tripartite framework on (im-)mobile policies put forward by Müller (2014) is concerned,
our examination here has demonstrated how the environmental component of Rio’s candidature
was modelled on the experience of previous successful bids for hosting the Games. This
transportation of Olympic expertise was assisted through the mobilization of ‘diverse element of
humans and non-human from different places to establish relations and assemble a translocal
network of knowledge’ (ibid: 5) to proceed in the completion of the pre-event phase. This process
has been described as a case of ‘isomorphism’ by Pentifalllo and VanWynsberghe (ibid: 443). They
continue by arguing that ‘the bid books, although garnering a significant amount of attention prior
to host city selection, do not necessarily require follow-up by the OCOG in the intervening 7 years
between host city selection and the Games’ opening ceremonies’ (ibid). This is where we can
discuss the other two components of the tripartite framework: the transformation and translation.
In the Rio case, we saw the transformation of bid aspirations in a way that facilitated the interests of
local business and political power holders in Rio. The translation component is rife with ambiguity
12
that really depends on the interpreter and it is as nebulous as the concept of sustainable
development itself.
CO2
Env
Concern
+
+
Ratific.
+
Nature
Prot.
?
EIA
Implem.
-
Particip.
SUM
+
2?
As far as the indicators are concerned, the positive scores achieved in the first two indicators,
environmental consciousness and CO2 emissions, so not appear to have a causal connection to
Brazil’s success in its bid to host Rio 2016. It will take at least 3 years after hosting the Games, in the
post-event phase to identify any possible positive translation aspects and even then it would be,
most likely, extremely challenging to identify any direct and exclusive causality with hosting the
Games. The designation and protection of natural sites and the application of EIAs are rife with
ambiguity, causality with hosting the Games is uncertain. ENGO participation in the policy-making
process can be given a positive score but the extent to which that added to existing capacity or its
part of co-optation of the least challenging environmental groups open to interpretation.
Perhaps, it’s worth closing our discussion by bringing in the following cautious reminder by Pentifallo
and VanWynsberghe (2012: 444),
BOC’s have risen to a position of authority in defining measures of environmental
protection and the inclusion of sustainable practices. However, it is the extent to
which such promises can objectively be verified that remains in question. With the
IOC unwilling to take a hard line in the enforcement of such bid promises, the
competitive nature of the bid process has driven sustainability pledges forward, but as
of yet there are no ramifications for those promises remaining unfulfilled. Such a
phenomenon we can blame on BOCs such as Rio’s which have seemingly pushed
environmental protection in the Olympic movement forward without a means for
ensuring those pledges are kept.
References
Andranovich, G., M. J. Burbank, and C. H. Heying (2001) ‘Olympic Cities: Lessons Learned from Megaevent Politics’, Journal of Urban Affairs, 32/2, 113-31.
BBC BRASIL (2007) Preocupação com clima cresce mais no Brasil que no mundo, diz estudio, 5 June
2007,
http://www.bbc.com/portuguese/reporterbbc/story/2007/06/070605_nielsenaquecimentoebc.sht
ml [accessed 7 June 2014].
BBC News (2015) Brazilian protesters call for President Dilma Rousseff’s impeachment, 17 August
13
Boykoff, J. (2014) Celebration capitalism and the Olympic games (London and New York: Routledge).
Brazilian Olympic Committee (2009) ‘Candidature File for Rio de Janeiro to Host the 2016 Olympic
and
Paralympic
Games,
Volume
1’,
http://rio2016.com/sites/deafault/files/parceiros/candidature_file_v1.pdf
Burbank, M. J., G. D. Andranovich and C. H. Heying (2001) Olympic Dreams: The Impact of MegaEvents on Local Politics (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publisher).
Buttel, F. H. (2003) ‘Environmental sociology and the explanation of environmental reform’,
Organization and Environment, 16/3, pp. 306-44.
Christoff, P. (1996) ‘Ecological Modernisation, Ecological Modernities’, Environmental Politics, 5/3,
pp. 476-500.
Clift, B. C. and D. L. Andrews (2012) ‘Living Lula’s passion? The politics of Rio 2016’ in H. J. Lenskyj
and S. Wagg (eds), The Palgrave Handbook of Olympic Studies (Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave
Macmillan), pp. 210-29.
Close, P., D. Askew and X. Xin (2007) The Beijing Olympiad: The Political Economy of a Sporting
Mega-Event (London and New York: Routledge).
Cruz, E.P. (2015) Brasileiro está preocupado com mudanças climáticas, aponta pesquisa, 18 May
2015,
http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/geral/noticia/2015-05/brasileiro-esta-preocupado-com-
mudancas-climaticas-aponta-pesquisa [accessed 15 June 2015].
Douglas, B. (2015) ‘Brazilian president under fire as tens of thousands protest in 200 cities’, The
Guardian, 16 August 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/16/brazil-protests-dilmarousseff [accessed 17 August 2015].
Echegaray, F. (2013) ‘Sustainability in Brazil: a mixed conundrum’, The Guardian, 13 March;
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/sustainability-brazil-mixed-conundrum
[accessed 20 September 2013].
EY
(ND) ‘The
business case
for climate change:
choosing the right
path:
Brazil’;
http://www.ey.com/GL/en/Services/Specialty-Services/Climate-Change-and-SustainabilityServices/The-business-case-for-climate-change---Brazil [accessed 15 June 2015].
Gaffney, Ch. (2013), ‘Between Discourse and Reality: The Un-Sustainability of Mega-Events
Planning’, Sustainability, 5, pp. 3926-3940. http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/5/9/3926/htm
[accessed 10 September 2014].
14
Hayes, G. and J. Horne (2011) ‘Sustainable Development, Shock and Awe? London 2012 and Civil
Society’, Sociology 45/5, pp. 749-64.
Hiller, H. H. (2000) ‘Toward an Urban Sociology of Mega-events’, Research in Urban Sociology, 5, pp.
181-205.
Hochstetler, K. (2002) ‘Brazil’ in H. Weidner and M. Jänicke (eds), Capacity Building in National
Environmental Policy. A Comparative Study of 17 Countries (New York/Berlin: Springer-Verlag), pp.
69-95.
Hochstetler, K. and M. E. Keck (2007) Greening Brazil. Environmental Activism in State and Society
(Durham & London: Duke University Press).
Hogan, D. J. (2000) ‘Socio-Demographic Dimensions of Sustainability: Brazilian Perspectives’,
www.ciesin.columbia.edu/repository/pern/papers/ISARio2000.doc, [accessed 11 April 2011].
IOC (2008) 2016 Candidature, Procedure and Questionnaire, Lausanne: International Olympic
Committee, http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reports/EN/en_report_1318.pdf, [accessed 15
February 2014].
Jänicke, M. & Weidner, H. (1997), National Environmental Policies: A Comparative Study of CapacityBuilding (13 Countries). New York/Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Karamichas, J. (2012) ‘Olympic Games as an Opportunity for the Ecological Modernization of the
Host Nation: The Cases of Sydney 2000 and Athens 2004’ in G. Hayes and j. Karamichas (eds)
Olympic Games, Mega-Events and Civil Societies (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 151-71.
Karamichas, J. (2013) The Olympic Games and the Environment (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan).
Leonard, H. J. (1988) Pollution and the Struggle for the World Product: Multinational Corporations,
Environment and International Comparative Advantage, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McSweeney, R. and R. Pearce (2014) Insights from a global survey of climate change opinion, 10
December
2014,
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/12/insights-from-a-global-survey-of-
climate-change-opinion [accessed 10 June 2015].
Mol, A. P. J. (2010) ‘Sustainability as global attractor: the greening of the 2008 Beijing Olympics’,
Global Networks, 10/4, pp. 510-28.
Mol, A. P. J. & D. A. Sonnefeld (2000), ‘Ecological modernisation around the world: an introduction’
in Mol, A. P. J. & Sonnefeld, D. A. (Eds.), Ecological modernisation around the world: Perspectives
and Critical Debates (London & Portland: Frank Cass).
15
Mol, A. P. J. & L. Zhang (2012) ‘Sustainability as Global Norm: The Greening of Mega-Events in China
in G. Hayes and J. Karamichas (eds) Olympic Games, Mega-Events and Civil Societies (Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 126-50.
Müller, M. (2014) ‘(Im-)Mobile policies: Why sustainability went wrong in the 2014 Olympics in
Sochi’, European Urban and Regional Studies, pp. 1-19 DOI: 10.1177/0969776414523801.
National Coalition of Local Committees for a People’s World Cup and Olympics (2012), Mega-Events
and Human Rights Violations in Brazil http://rioonwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/2012World-Cup-Olympics-Dossier-English.pdf [accessed 10 February 2014].
Olympic Games Impact (OGI) Study –Rio 2016 (2014) Initial report to measure the impact of the
legacy
of
the
Rio
2016
http://www.rio2016.com/sites/default/files/parceiros/ogi_rio_2016_r1_eng1.pdf
Games
[accessed
20
February 2014].
Pentifallo, C. and R. VanWynsberghe (2012) ‘Blame it on Rio: isomorphism, environmental
protection and sustainability in the Olympic Movement’, International Journal of Sport Policy and
Politics, 4/3, pp. 427-46 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2012.694115
Pereira, G., R. Gasner, G. Wood and S. M. De Conto (2014) ‘Environmental impact assessment and
the planning process of major sports events in Brazil: a case study of the Rio 2007 Pan American
Games’,
Impact
Assessment
and
Project
Appraisal,
32/1,
pp.
55-65
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2013.863443
Persson, M. and C. Azar (2004) Brazil Beyond Kyoto. Prospects and Problems in Handling Tropical
Deforestation
in
a
Second
Commitment
Period,
http://www.rainforestcoalition.org/documents/Persson_Azar_After_Kyoto_Brazil.pdf [accessed 15
September 2014].
Pound, R. (2008) ‘Olympian Changes: Seoul and Beijing’ in M. Worden (ed.) china’s Great Leap: The
Beijing Games and Olympian Human Rights Challenges (New York, London, Melbourne, Toronto:
Seven Stories Press), pp. 85-97.
Poynter, G. (2009) ‘London: Preparing for 2012’ in G. Poynter and I. MacRury (eds), Olympic Cities:
2012 and the Remaking of London (Farnham: Ashgate), pp. 183-99.
Rio 2016™ Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games (2013) Sustainability Management
Plan:
Rio
2016™
Olympic
and
Paralympic
Games,
March
–
version
1,
http://www.rio2016.com/sites/default/files/parceiros/sustainability_management_plan_aug2013.pdf [accessed 20
April 2014]
Rutheiser, C. (1996) Imagineering Atlanta. The Politics of Place in the City of Dreams. (London and
New York: Verso).
16
Sánchez, F. and A-M. Broudehoux (2013) ‘Mega-events and urban regeneration in Rio de Janeiro:
planning in a state of emergency’, International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 5/2, pp.
132-53 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2013.8339450
Singer, A. (2014) ‘Rebellion in Brazil. Social and Political Complexion of the June Events’ New Left
Review, 85, 19-37.
Spyer, J. (ND) ‘An Ethnographic Account of the Riots in Brazil Seen from the Periphery, Cultural
Anthropology,
http://www.culanth.org/fieldsights/440-an-ethnographic-account-of-the-riots-in-
brazil-seen-from-the-periphery [accessed 16 March 2014].
Tomazelli, I. and M. Sallowicz (2015 ‘Brazil reduces CO2 emissions by 52.3% close to goal, says IGBE’,
Sustainability,
http://sustentabilidade.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,brasil-reuz-emissao-de-
dioxido-de-carbono-em-52-3-e-se-aproxima-de-meta,1709302 [accessed 22 June 2015].
Watts, J. (2014) Voices of Brazil: ‘Our hour has arrived’, The Observer, 26 January 2014,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/26/voices-of-brazil-our-hour-has-arrived [accessed
15 March 2014].
Weidner, H. (2002) ‘Capacity Building for Ecological Modernization: Lessons from Cross-National
Research’, American Behavioral Scientist, 45/9, pp. 1340-68.
Zimbalist, A. (2015) Circus Maximus. The Economic Gamble Behind Hosting the Olympics and the
World Cup (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution).
17