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 121 st 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 pre-event 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:

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

5

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. Superficially, the plan

resembled Barcelona’s. 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 20042. 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

208887219330.6220705.7230738.6242154258347.5284782.9300547.3312289.1320173.1327983.8337433.7332266.9321621.6337826347308.9347668.3363212.7387675.2367147.4419754.2439412.9

Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), thousand metric tons of CO2 (CDIAC)

Brazil

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 1981-

10

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 that

12

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 Mega-

event 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 Mega-

Events 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-dilma-

rousseff [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-Sustainability-

Services/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 Capacity-

Building (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/2013/05/2012-

World-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 Games

http://www.rio2016.com/sites/default/files/parceiros/ogi_rio_2016_r1_eng1.pdf [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, C ultural

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