Mobile Policies for Sustainable Development (SD) in Rio 2016

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 XXXIOlympiad 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 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 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:

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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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 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
• 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.

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’.