Well in search of an answer and as part of the LEAD network I was lucky enough to visit the site last year and explore multiple aspects of this complex event. Multiple aspects relating to sustainable development were examined, from the mamouth construction task, the largest in Europe, to local community perceptions of the games. I spoke to members of local communities living on the boundaries of the Olympic site as well as members of the organising committee. What was clear was the incredible divergance in perception of what a sustainable games might look like. The following article is something i wrote that tries to understand what this might mean and possibly provide an initial framework understanding the sustainability of the games .
… to encourage and support a responsible concern for environmental issues, to promote sustainable development in sport and require that the Olympic Games are held accordingly. (IOC 2007:15)
The increasing evidence of humanity’s impact on the earth’s fragile ecosystem over the past four decades has given rise to the idea that future developmental patterns need to be conducted sustainably. As the excerpt from the Olympic Charter illustrates sustainable development is a concept that has been embedded in the underlying principles of the Olympic Games. This article will offer a perspective on a way of beginning to understand the impact of the Olympic Games and other events from an evolving sustainable development perspective. The article begins by examining sustainable development and its relationship to the Olympics. A brief evolution of the Olympic Games is presented and some of the milestone events that have catalysed the Olympics and sustainable development are outlined. What is emphasised here are the variability of impacts of the games on their host city and ultimately nation. Following this there is an outline of the innovative Olympic Games Global Impact Framework. The article ultimately argues that in order for this framework to be developed and to create a truly sustainable Olympic games in 2012, a reflexive sustainable development perspective is needed.
Sustainable Development is now a mainstream idea throughout society. With this said the concept remains ambiguous, convoluted and constantly changing. It is perhaps this quality, this constructive ambiguity that has facilitated its rapid rise on the political, social, and the economic agenda expanding beyond its environmental origins. Sustainable development has been catalysed in the past few years by its affiliation with global climate change and more specifically global warming. The London 2012 Olympic bid has not only taken these issues into account, it has explicitly used the language of sustainability, no matter how vague and tenuous to present itself as the first sustainable Olympics. London’s 2012 sustainability plan, ‘Towards a one planet 2012’ (2007) outlines an array of mechanisms and procedures for promoting a sustainable games. This is built on the foundation of five underlying goals. These include climate change, reducing waste, enhancing biodiversity, inclusion and healthy living. The recognition of the interconnected dimensions is an important step in maximising the positive impacts of the games on the London as well as nationally. Importantly, In order to monitor progress towards these targets the independent Commission for a Sustainable London has been established. The Commissions role is pivotol and the overall perspective that it takes on sustainable development will dictate its overall effectiveness.
As such, the following section will offer a particular perspective on sustainable development that can accommodate these multiple and overlapping issues. This is done by initially outlining the main events that have had the most significant impact on the relationship between the Olympics and sustainable development to date and are ultimately responsible the London’s Olympic bid. This particularly charts the evolution of the emphasis of the games from urban renewal to environmental sustainability and ultimately sustainable development. Moreover, what becomes clear is that the impacts of any particular games are dependant on a great many interrelated variables. Each city has issues that are very unique with pre-existing conditions at the city, national and global level which effect overall impact.
It is well documented that early Olympic bids focused very directly focused on the advantages of urban renewal (Essex and Chalkley 1998). The Rome games of 1960 saw significant renewal that extended well beyond the initial construction of sporting facilities. Tokyo in 1964 used the games to legitimise and strengthen an existing ten year renewal plan. The games of the 1970’s highlighted the effect of external global pressures on the games in the wake of the oil shocks. The following games witnessed varying levels of investment with multiple and variable outputs and impacts. Importantly, it was the Soul games of 1988 that emphasises the need for increased environmental standards, especially in the areas of hygiene, air pollution, waste disposal and a significant effort to clean up the Han River. It is no coincidence that these efforts directly followed the publication of the Bruntland Report, ‘Our Common Future’ by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987. It was here that the often quoted ‘official’ definition of sustainable development was coined. Such events have served to raise awareness of environmental issues and embed sustainable development in the global consciousness. The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development or ‘Earth Summit’ has received the most visibility, particularly with reference to the publication of Agenda 21 which is considered by many as the blueprint for promoting sustainable development on a global basis.
The following years saw a number of initiatives that gradually raised the environment and sustainable development on the Olympic agenda. In 1994 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) entered into partnership with the United Nations Environment Programme. Following this the IOC established the Sport and Environment Commission in 1995 and in 1996 the IOC amended the Olympic charter to establish the environment as the third pillar of the Olympics. In 1999 the IOC adopted Agenda 21 at the third World Conference on Sport and the Environment at Rio. The result of these activities was firmly evident in the Sydney 2000 Olympics which saw a convergence between the Olympic Games and the language of sustainable development, with environmental sustainability playing a prominent role in Sydney’s Olympic developments. There was recognition by the IOC particularly of the emphasis placed on environmental and cooperation with groups such as Greenpeace.
With the above in mind there remains the continuing challenge of translating the rhetoric and the good intention of sustainability into tangible outputs. Indeed, the translation of form into function is a common theme throughout sustainable development related debates. What is clear is that in order to fully understand the impacts of the games from a sustainable development perspective the negative as well as the positive effects need to be considered both directly and indirectly. This involves a shift away from a linear view of impacts, from initial bid and investment to tangible and intangible outputs and impacts. For example, Harvey (1989) has argued that the result of interurban competition such as the bidding process for the games can produce socially wasteful investments which exacerbate rather than improve urban problems. Essex and Chalkley (1998) using the Soul games as an exemplar point out that there was a concerted effort to hide the deprived areas of the city leading to claims that such mega events can actually heighten social tensions. Keating (1991) has suggested that the Olympic games provides advantages only to those with power vested interest and investment in the games infrastructure. These can include property developers, construction companies, equipment suppliers as well as the commercial sponsors more broadly. With reference to the London 2012 Olympics concerns have been raised over the potential monopoly of multinational corporations as event suppliers. Controversy is already surrounding the potential Monopoly during the games by McDonalds and Coca Cola and the impact this will have on the sustainable image of the games. Many other issues a regularly evident in the media.
Recognising the complexity of the issues involved the IOC has attempted to expand its understanding of the impact of any one games, and strengthen the relationship between the Olympics and sustainable development. A notable example of this is the commissioning by the IOC of the Olympic Games Global Impact Project Framework (OGGI) for the 2004 Athens games.
Tzarilas et. al. (2006) point out that the games impact is defined by the interrelation between the Olympic event and its context of realisation. The framework fundamentally outlines two areas. Firstly space, where the regional, national and global levels are considered. The second is time; here analysis is based on a time scale from announcement of a city’s candidacy for the games until a period two years after the conclusion of the games. This time scale is separated into the stages of conception, organisation, staging and closure. Applying the OGGI to the 2004 Athens games Tzarilas et. al. (2006) suggest that this process acts as an important evaluative tool for assessment of the impact of the games and a significant move towards understanding how best to create a sustainable games. The authors are however, aware of the limitations of such a tool and suggest developing and expanding its scope and application. Any advancement on initial designs must be tempered with the practicalities of implementing and analysing an expanded model. For example, the post games assessment should be considerably extended, but questions over who would be responsible for such an assessment beyond the two year period are raised.
What is suggested in this article is that this quantitative tool, as the authors suggest, should be expanded to include qualitative elements and broaden it's scope for accommodating unexpected impacts from the games. This perspective displays strong synergies with the emerging perspective of reflexive sustainable development governance (Borne 2010). The notion of a reflexive sustainable development is a position that incorporates the various areas of sustainable development exposing complex, dynamic and nonlinear systems. It is a term that combines two fundamental elements. Firstly, reflect, which is the ability to respond to events and circumstances in a purposeful knowledge based way. This is relatively straight forward and underpins the main stream of assessment and evaluative techniques that are in operation today, even from a sustainable development stand pint (Brandon and Lombardi 2005). However, the second dimension of reflexivity, which is reflex, is the ability to make room in an assessment, evaluation and overall governance process that considers the unintended and unforeseen consequences of a particular event.
It is fundamentally the ability to step back from an event and assess the positive and negative outcomes whilst reintegrating these observations back into the evaluative process and governance structures. This form of evaluative process is important at all stages of the policy planning process yet lacks any form of coherent structure in the planning and implementation of so many events. Adopting this flexible perspective is essential when considering the magnitude of such events as the Olympic Games and moves past a sterile and prescriptive vision of sustainable development which will only serve to create at best a misleading and at worst counterproductive assessment of actual impacts.
This article has attempted to briefly highlight the way that sustainable development has been integrated into the underlying ethos of the Olympic games. It has outlined the relationship between some of the mile-stone international events and the convergence of the principles of the Olympic Games and the ideas surrounding sustainable development. Moreover, it has argued that the impact of the games and any major event or development should be viewed from a multidimensional perspective that underpins the notion of a sustainable development. Building on this it is also argued that whilst there is already progress towards this perspective more should be done to encourage a sustainable development from a reflexive standpoint. Ultimately, the Olympic Games is a celebration of the enduring strength of the human spirit and human ingenuity. Sustainable development could be understood as highlighting the limits and destructive nature of human ingenuity. However, it is also seen as a guiding concept to redirect human ingenuity as it faces new challenges. Promoting the principles of sustainable development at the 2012 Olympic games exemplifies the ability of humanity to rise to these challenges.
Source
Borne, G., ‘An Evolving Sustainable Development Perspective: The Olympic Games, Journal of Environmental Science, November 22-25
Reference
Borne, G., (2010) Sustainable Global Development and the effective Governance of Risk. Lampeter, Edwin Mellen
Brandon, S., and Lombardi., P., (2005) Evaluating Sustainable Development In the Built Environment Blackwell Publishing
Essex, S., and Chalkley, B., (1998) Olympic Games: Catalyst of Urban Change, Leisure Studies 17: 187-206
Harvey, D. (1989) The Urban Experience, Blackwell, Oxford
International Olympic Committee (2007) The Olympic Charter http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_122.pdf accessed 01/06/09
Keating, M. (1991) Bad sports, Geographical Magazine, 63(12):26–29.
London 2012 (2007), ‘Towards a One Planet 2012’ http://www.london2012.com/documents/locog-publications/london-2012-sustainability-plan.pdf accessed 01/06/09
Tziralis, G., Tolis, A., Tatsiopoulos, I and Aravossis, K., (2006) Economic Aspects and Sustanability Impact of the Athens 2004 Olympic Games WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment 98:21-33
An Evolving Sustainable Development Perspective: The Olympic Games
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment