Being and bringing together:a brief introduction to sport for development and peace by munas kalden

1

Being and Bringing Together Munas Kalden

A Brief Introduction to Sport for Development and Peace

Being and Bringing Together: A Brief Introduction to Sport for Development and Peacebuilding

2

A Brief Introduction to Sport for Development and Peace

Being and Bringing Together

© Munas Kalden (2011), published by alyaklah, 51/2, Kumaradasa Place, Wellampitiya, Sri Lanka


3

Table of Contents

1.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 6

1.2. Defining Sport in the Development Context: .......................................................................... 9

1.3. Adding Value by Including Peace into Development: ......................................................... 10

References: ........................................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 1: Young Girls from Tamils and Sinhalese are interacting in Amparai, Sri Lanka. The project was

facilitated by UNDP ..................................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 2: Tamil Students from Jaffna, Sri Lanka Empowered for Learning amidst War. The

project funded by UNICEF. ..................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 3: Development plus Sport and Sport plus Development ...................................................... 15


4

Being and Bringing Together

Sport and play are deeply-rooted human needs. Through sport, children are able to test

themselves in peaceful competition against opponents, to learn how to deal with victory

and defeat, to accept rules, to discover the limits of their bodies or to integrate as a

member of a team. Sport also lets children learn and practice fundamental social skills

combining fun and play – skills by the way which go far beyond sport in their

importance. They are crucial for peaceful co-existence in every society and for a life of

self-determination of every individual.

Therefore, sport is not a luxury in a society. On the contrary, sport is an important

investment in the present and the future – particularly in the countries that are

recovering from conflict. Sport has a proven positive impact on social cohesion,

reconciliation and community coexistence on the one hand, and on physical and mental

health on the other as well as a superlative ability to bring people together across

borders of all kinds.

These unique qualities make sport an ideal motor for peacebuilding and development

processes at the individual and social levels. Sport is not a new topic in development

cooperation, but after many years during which its potential was not specifically and

systematically used, there exists today a rapidly growing consensus that sport and play

can make an important contribution to recover from conflict, build peace and achieving


5

national development goals and peacebuilding objectives, including the Millennium

Development Goals (MDGs).

A symbol of this realisation is the resolution by the UN General Assembly making 2005

the International Year of Sport and Physical Education. It aims to make the benefits of

sport for peace, development, education and health available to all – in conflict and post

conflict countries.

Two things in particular are needed to make this succeed: one, a stronger awareness

by all actors – UN agencies, international organisations, governments, sports

associations, the private sector, aid groups, the peacebuilding practitioners and

development community and the media – of the considerable potential of sport, and

two, greater cooperation between all actors.

I have prepared this booklet during my work with UNDP, Sri Lanka in its transition

recovery programme. I have contributed, during 2009-2010, to sport for peace and

development initiatives. Primarily, it was prepared to build the capacity of staff,

implementing partners and sport coach. This is an updated version.

Munas Kalden

[email protected]


6

Sport for Development and Peacebuilding 1.1. Introduction

What does sport have to do with peace and development? Only a few

years ago this question would have had many experts scratching their

heads in puzzlement. A lot has changed in the meantime. Sport now

occupies a firm place on the development policy agenda and even

skeptics admit that contribution of sport to peace and development has

considerable potential.

Sport has the power to change the world. It has the power to inspire. It

has the power to unite the people in a way that little else does. It

speaks to youth in a language they understand. Sport can create hope

where once there was only despair. It is more powerful than

governments. It brings down racial barriers.

-Nelson Mandela (at the ‘Laureus World Sports Awards’ in Abu Dhabi

on March 10, 2010)

People in every nation love sport. Its

values are universal. And when young

people participate in sports or have

access to physical education, they can

build up their health and self-esteem,

use their talents to the fullest, learn the

ideals of teamwork and tolerance, and

be drawn away from the dangers of

drugs and crime. -Kofi Annan

(UNESCO, 2009, p. 22)


7

Sport for Development and Peace refers

to the intentional use of sport, physical

activity and play to attain specific

development and peace objectives,

including, most notably, the Millennium

Development Goals (MDGs). United

Nations General Assembly recalled its

decision to include sport for peace and

development (UN, 2003). It encourages

Governments and United Nations

System to seek new and innovative

ways to use sport for communication

and social mobilization, particularly at

the national, regional and local levels,

engaging civil society through active

participation and ensuring that target

audiences are reached. And, sport plays

a vital role in sustaining peaceful

relationship and changing from negative

to positive relations, behavior, attitudes

and structures. John Paul Lederach

(1997) refers this as peacebuilding.

Peacebuilding, according to him, "is

more than post-accord reconstruction"

and "is understood as a comprehensive

concept that encompasses, generates,

and sustains the full array of processes,

approaches, and stages needed to

transform conflict toward more

sustainable, peaceful relationships. The

term thus involves a wide range of

activities that both precede and follow

formal peace accords. Metaphorically,

peace is seen not merely as a stage in

time or a condition. It is a dynamic social

construct." Lederach speaks of conflict

transformation as a holistic and multi-

faceted approach to managing violent

conflict in all its phases. The term

signifies an ongoing process of change

from negative to positive relations;

behavior, attitudes and structures.

The integrated approach to

peacebuilding must take into account

the complex and multi-dimensional

nature of the human experience and rely

on broad social participation. "A

sustainable transformative approach

suggests that the key lies in the

relationship of the involved parties, with

all that the term encompasses at the

psychological, spiritual, social,

economic, political and military levels."

Cultivating an "infrastructure for

peacebuilding" means that "we are not

merely interested in 'ending' something


8

that is not desired. We are oriented

toward the building of relationships that

in their totality form new patterns,

processes, and structures."

It has been recognized as the means to

“bridge social, religious, racial and

gender divides, hence contributing to

lasting peace” (Beutler, 2008: 365).

While sport has already been fair-well

established as a tool in development

schemes, especially the “last decade

has seen a substantial increase in the

use of sport to assist specific

development programs” (Levermore,

2008: 56), resulting in an ongoing

popping up of sport-in-development

projects (Van Eekeren, 2006). National

governments, international

organizations, NGOs and locally based

community organizations (CBOs) put

great efforts on them and are convinced

of their benefits, in terms of

- promoting health and preventing

disease,

- promoting child and youth

development,

- promoting gender equality and

empowering girls and women,

- including persons with disability

and

- preventing conflict and building

peace (Sports for Development

and Peace International Working

Group, 2008).

At the end of 2003, the UN General

Assembly adopted a resolution on the

role of sport as a means to promote

health, education, development and

peace. It proclaimed 2005 as the

International Year for Sport and Physical

Education, stating that “the United

Nations is turning to the world of sport

for help in the work for peace and the

effort to achieve the Millennium

Development Goals.” Since then, sport

has also been reconfirmed as a tool to

accelerate the achievement of the

Millennium Development Goals and to

promote peace. The MDGs were

established by the UN and were

originally supposed to be reached by the

end of 2015. Their major aim was to

focus world attention and resources on

the eradication of global poverty (cp.

Beutler, 2008; UNOSDP, 2010a;

UNOSDP, 2010b).


9

Sport is increasingly recognized as an

important tool in helping the United

Nations achieve its objectives, in

particular the Millennium Development

Goals (MDGs). By including sport in

development and peace programmes in

a more systematic way, the United

Nations can make full use of this cost-

efficient tool to help us create a better

world. Ban Ki-Moon (UNESCO, 2009:

22).

Sport is acknowledged as having the

unique power to reach developmental

objectives (Gschwend & Selvaraju,

2006) - but can sport really live up to its

expectations? Does sport actually make

a contribution to those people for whose

benefits the sport-in-development

projects are set up? How much is truly

known about the effects of such

projects? Do their claims endure in

reality?

While many of the stakeholders take

sport-in-development-projects outcomes

for granted, some project leaders and

organizations have been more critical,

“posing searching questions about the

paucity of evidence that justifies the use

of sport in these roles” (Kay, 2009:

1177). Theory-guided research,

evaluation and monitoring are still

limited, and empirical evidence to test

the effects of interventions is rare

(Levermore & Beacom, 2009). In

addition, and in order to achieve the

objective of development and peace,

there is a need to redesign the image,

and understanding, of the term “sport”

(UNESCO, 2009: 7) in development

setting and peacebuilding context.

1.2. Defining Sport in the

Development Context:

Definitions of the term “sport” vary. In a

development context, the definition of

sport usually includes a broad and

inclusive spectrum of activities suitable

to people of all ages and abilities, with

an emphasis on the positive values of

sport. In 2003, the UN Inter-Agency

Task Force on Sport for Development

and Peace defined sport, for the

purposes of development, as “all forms

of physical activity that contribute to

physical fitness, mental well-being and

social interaction, such as play,


10

recreation, organized or competitive

sport, and indigenous sports and

games” (UN, 2003). This definition has

been accepted by many proponents of

Sport for Development and Peace and

is the working definition of sport for the

purposes of this study.

In the case of „sport-for-

development‟, which Kruse (2006: 8)

refers to as „intriguingly vague and open

for several interpretations‟, these

outcomes range from changed

individual sexual behaviour via

community level social cohesion, to the

achievement of „peace‟ at regional or

national level. Pawson‟s (2004) more

general comment that much social

policy intervention can be characterized

as „ill-defined interventions with hard-to-

follow outcomes‟ (quoted in Coalter,

2007: 31), could be viewed as especially

relevant to much policy rhetoric in sport-

for-development. Sport has consistently

been regarded as „character building‟ –

not only developing certain personal and

social skills, but also moral personality

traits such as discipline, honesty,

integrity, generosity and trustworthiness

(President‟s Council on Physical Fitness

and Sports, 2006). Further, the

supposed efficacy of sport has been

strengthened by being regarded as a

„neutral‟ social space where all citizens,

or so-called „sports people‟, met as

equals in an environment regarded as

an „unambiguously wholesome and

healthy activity in both a physical and

moral sense‟ (Smith and Waddington,

2004: 281).

1.3. Adding Value by Including

Peace into Development:

In recent years, various organisations

and coalitions have grown up around

the use of sport and sport in particular

for social development and

peacebuilding – Homeless World Cup,

Figure 1: Young Girls from Tamils and Sinhalese are interacting in Amparai, Sri Lanka. The project was facilitated by UNDP


11

streetfootballword, Football for

Development and Right to Play, as well

as the International Platform for Sport

and Development (Sportanddev.org) –

and Giulianotti (2009, 2010, 2011) has

done extensive work to map out the rise

of the sector. Where the international

platform – sportanddev.org – terms the

sector S&D (Sport and Development),

Giulianotti calls it SDP (Sport,

Development and Peace). The sector is

in the process of gathering existing

information and establishing

communication and networks, at the

same time as moving to improve

monitoring and evaluation. It is young

and vigorous, while appearing slightly

lightweight in academic terms

(Naughton, 2011: 17).

Giulianotti (2011) defines three models

of SDP project: technical, dialogical and

critical. The first and second are the

most commonly found at the moment,

where they are largely directed from the

outside by international NGOs or

institutions or are even as part of

corporate social responsibility projects

of transnational giants. The technical

model of SDP project often uses sport

for no other end than as a means of

getting people together to practise sport

and develop their skills; social cohesion

is built on the field of contest, or through

interacting together as part of the

procedures of a tournament.

Some examples in the dialogical model

at least offer the possibility of changing

the rules to facilitate the ends – e.g. a

goal scored by a girl counts double or

no goals count until a girl scores would

be a rule-change that would facilitate

equality of gender or offer a space for

gender questions to be asked. Where

the technical model might offer coaching

in a sport sponsored by a global drinks

manufacturer, the dialogical model is

more likely to offer coaching to coaches,

who can cascade the learning into their

communities, along with any add-ons

particular to the social issue being

addressed - eg gender imbalance, or

ethnic or religious tension.

The critical model is the least

developed, according to Giulianotti

(2011), but offers most transformational


12

possibilities, being based in and directed

from the grassroots, as well as having

less emphasis on the sport‟s own ends

as an end of the project – i.e. merely

creating a team so that it will win, or

coaching players only so they will

improve in that sport. However, the

critical model seems to be vague in

detail of real examples, and although

written from the point of view of

inclusion, seem to still be based on

intervention by northern or at least

external agencies.

Figure 2: Tamil Students from Jaffna, Sri Lanka Empowered for Learning amidst War. The project funded by UNICEF.

Kidd (2008) suggests that there are

three broad, overlapping, approaches:

Traditional sports development in

which the provision of basic sports

coaching, equipment and

infrastructure are the central

concern. For example, the

Norwegian Olympic Committee and

Confederation of Sports (NIF) started

supporting sport for-all projects in

Tanzania in 1984; Olympic Solidarity

distributes resources from the

television rights of the Olympic

Games to national Olympic

Committees; the Dutch FA (KNVB)

supports the development of football

in countries with which it has historic

links; Commonwealth Games

Canada supports the Canadian

Caribbean Coaching Certification

Program. However, while all contain

an element of altruism, such

initiatives are often undertaken for

clear diplomatic purposes (see Kidd,

2008).

Humanitarian assistance in which

fund-raising in sport is used to

provide forms of aid assistance,

frequently for refugees. This is

exemplified by the early work of

Olympic Aid, some of the

subsequent work of Right to Play,

the work of the British charity Sport

Relief, and the partnership between


13

UNICEF and Barcelona FC to

highlight issues and raise funds.

The rather grandiosely named „sport-

for-development-and-peace

movement‟, which covers a wide

variety of organizations and loose

coalitions (Kidd, 2008). It is probably

the case that most organizations and

projects tend to be more concerned

with individual and community

development, rather than the rather

amorphous and ill-defined goal of

„peace‟.

Levermore (2008) proposes an

alternative classification based on a

more disaggregated approach to the

desired outcomes of sport-for-

development organizations: conflict

resolution and inter-cultural

understanding; building physical, social

and community infrastructure; raising

awareness, particularly through

education; empowerment; direct impact

on physical and psychological health

and general welfare; economic

development and poverty alleviation.

Coalter (2007) suggests that another

approach to classification can be based

on the relative emphasis given to sport

to achieve certain objectives:

Traditional forms of provision for

sport, with an implicit assumption or

explicit affirmation that such sport

has inherent developmental

properties for participants.

Sport plus, in which sports are

adapted and often augmented with

parallel programmes in order to

maximize their potential to achieve

developmental objectives.

Plus sport, in which sport‟s

popularity is used as a type of „fly

paper‟ to attract young people to

programmes of education and

training (a widespread approach for

HIV/AIDS prevention programmes),

with the systematic development of

sport rarely a strategic aim.

“Sport and Development” thus appears

as a dynamic social sphere in which

different thrusts, actors and themes

come together. So far there exist hardly

any models which have a conceptual

grasp of this fact. The graphic below


14

(SDC, 2005: 19) is an attempt at an

integrated model which expresses this

multi-dimensionality. It is intended as a

contribution to the formulation of an

analytical framework.

In reality the boundaries are frequently

fluid. Depending on the emphasis and

intensity of the development dimension,

projects may shift left or right on the

continuum. Similar behavior can be

observed regarding themes: The

overlapping nature of sport enables it to

be used as a cross-cutting instrument

for several themes.

The two thrusts can be characterised as

follows:

Development plus sport: The starting

point for these projects is mostly

development organisations,

governments and NGOs. They use sport

as an instrument to achieve specific

development goals such as the fight

against HIV/AIDS and the reintegration

of street children. Ideally, these projects

are integrated into broader development

programmes.

Sport plus development: Typically, these

projects are initiated by governments

and actors from the world of sport. They

aim to promote sport and sport

education in schools and consider sport

as a value in itself. Deliberately or not

they can contribute to development

through the formation of community

structures, the promotion of income and

the provision of infrastructures.


15

Figure 3: Development plus Sport and Sport plus Development

Of course, there is a continuum of sport

plus and plus sport programmes and

differences are not always clear-cut,

with outcomes being pursued via

varying mixtures of organizational

values, ethics and practices, symbolic

games and more formal didactic

approaches. In such circumstances

sport is mostly a vitally important

necessary, but not sufficient condition

for the achievement of certain outcomes

(Coalter, 2007).

However, some of the critics also

acknowledge that their analyses are

complicated by the longstanding

presence of a number of indigenous

sport-for-development organizations that

are based on the local identification of

needs, and act as vehicles for local

initiative and development. For example,


16

the sport plus Mathare Youth Sport

Association (MYSA), currently the

largest youth soccer programme in

Africa including 11 members of the

Kenyan international football squad, was

established in Nairobi in 1987 (Atkins,

n.d.; Brady and Kahn, 2002; Coalter,

2007; Hognestad and Tollisen, 2004;

Munro, 2005; Willis, 2000). Sports

Coaches‟ Outreach (SCORE) was

established in South Africa in 1991, with

its origins in foreign volunteers providing

sports opportunities for disadvantaged

school children. Although volunteers

remain important, SCORE has

increasingly emphasized the importance

of local capacity building, community

development and local sustainability

(Coalter, 2010).

However, the rapid development of the

broad-based sport-for-development

movement occurred in the late 1990s

along with the establishment of

organizations such as Edusport

Foundation, Zambia (1999), Magic Bus,

Mumbai (1999) and EMIMA, Tanzania

(2001) and the Kicking Aids Out network

in 2001. These initiatives were

consolidated via the first International

Conference on Sport and Development

in Magglingen, Switzerland in 2003. The

scale of this recently emerged

„movement‟ (Kidd, 2008) is indicated by

the fact that 166 organizations are listed

in the International Platform on Sport

and Development. Kidd (2008: 371)

argues that this „movement‟ is

qualitatively and quantitatively different

from previous, rather fragmented and ad

hoc interventions:

The current manifestation is different in

the rapid explosion of agencies and

organisations that are involved, the

tremendous appeal that it has for youth

volunteering, the financial support it

enjoys from the powerful international

sports federations and the extent to

which it has been championed by the

United Nations, its agencies and

significant partners.

In 2003, Olympic Aid re-branded itself

as Right to Play and extended its direct

delivery remit (Darnell, 2007; Kidd,

2008), becoming more specifically a

„sport-for-development-and-peace‟


17

organization and a major player in the

new burgeoning „movement‟. So the

question is, where did this „movement‟

come from and why? (Coalter, 2010:

299).

The sport-for- development and

peacebuilding has been looked at

through human right framework. Such a

broad framework of human rights‟

declarations and humanitarian actions

provided a legitimating framework for a

loose coalition of sporting organizations

to lobby for investment to widen sporting

opportunities (Coalter, 2010). It laid the

basis for a certain degree of influence in

the international organizations that had

issued these declarations, especially the

United Nations and its various agencies,

such as UNICEF and UNDP.

However, is seems undeniable that the

great step, if not leap, forward for sport-

for-development is to be explained not

by a gradual acceptance of sport as a

human right, but by broader changes

that enabled sport to argue for its

utilitarian contributions to aspects of a

new aid paradigm (Renard, 2006).


18

References:

o Atkins H (n.d.) Mathare United: A Model CECAFA Club. Accessed on 12.03.2010

and available at: www.toolkitsportdevelopment.

o Beutler, I. 2008. “Sport serving development and peace: Achieving the goals of

the United Nations through sport”. Sport in society, 11 (4): 359-369.

o Brady M, Kahn AB. 2002. “Letting Girls Play: The Mathare Youth Sports

Association‟s Football”. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 21(3): 825–

849.

o Coalter, Fred. 2007. Sport a Wider Social Role: Whose Keeping the Score?

London: Routledge.

o Coalter, Fred. 2010. “The politics of sport for- development: Limited focus

programmes and broad gauge problems?”. International Review for the

Sociology of Sport 45(3) 295–314. London: SAGE

o Darnell, SC. 2007. “Playing with Race”. Sport in Society 10(4): 560–579.

o Geschwend, A. and Selvaraju, U. 2006. Psycho-social sport programmes to

overcome trauma in post-disaster interventions. An overview. SAD. Accessed on

March12,2010,from

http://www.sad.ch/images/stories/Publikationen/sad_psychosocialsportprogramm

es.pdf

o Giulianotti, R. 2006. “The Sport, Development and Peace Sector: A Model of

Four Social Policy Domains”. Journal of Social Policy: Cambridge Univ Press.

o Giulianotti, R. 2011. “Sport, Transnational Peacemaking, and Global Civil

Society: Exploring the Reflective Discourses of “Sport, Development, and Peace”

Project Officials”, Journal of Sport & Social Issues 35(1): 50-71.

o Giulianotti, R. 2011a. “Sport peacemaking and conflict resolution: a contextual

analysis and modelling the sport development and peace sector”, Ethnic and

Racial Studies, 34 (2): 207-288.

o Goodhand, Jonathan. 2006. Aiding Peace: the role of NGOs in armed conflict,

ITDG Publishing: United Kingdom.

http://www.toolkitsportdevelopment/

http://www.sad.ch/images/stories/Publikationen/sad_psychosocialsportprogrammes.pdf

http://www.sad.ch/images/stories/Publikationen/sad_psychosocialsportprogrammes.pdf


19

o Hognestad H, Tollisen, A. 2004. Playing against deprivation: Football and

development in Nairobi, Kenya. In: Football in Africa – Conflict, Conciliation and

Community. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 210–226.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001821/182179e.pdf

http://www.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/sport/shared/sport/pdfs/Sport%20and%20the

%20MDGs_FACTSHEET_February%202010.pdf

o Kay, T. 2009. “Developing through sport: evidencing sport impacts in young

people”. Sport in Society, 12 (9), 1177-1191.

o Kidd, B. 2008. “A new social movement: Sport for development and peace”.

Sport in Society 11(4): 370–380.

o Kruse, SE. 2006. Review of Kicking AIDS Out: Is Sport an Effective Tool in the

Fight Against HIV/AIDS? Draft report to NORAD, unpublished.

o Levermore, R & Beacom, A. (Eds.). 2009. Sport and international development.

Hampshire: palgrave macmillan.

o Levermore, R. 2008. “Sport in International Development: Time to Treat is

Seriously?” The Brown Journal of Sports Affairs, XIV (2): 55-66.

o Levermore, R. 2008. “Sport: A new engine of development”. Progress in

Development Studies 8(2): 183–190.

o Munro, B. 2005. “Role Models: Is Anything More Important for Future

Development?” Role Models Retreat, Laureus Sport for Good Foundation, 23–

24 November, Pretoria, South Africa.

o Naughton, Gerard. 2011. Kicking around in Liberia. From rehabilitation of child

soldiers to community development: the story of the Millennium Stars, MA

dissertation in International Politics (Globalization, Poverty and Development),

submitted to School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, University of

Newcastle upon Tyne.

o Pawson, R. 2006. Evidence-Based Policy: A Realist Perspective. London:

SAGE.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001821/182179e.pdf

http://www.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/sport/shared/sport/pdfs/Sport%20and%20the%20MDGs_FACTSHEET_February%202010.pdf

http://www.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/sport/shared/sport/pdfs/Sport%20and%20the%20MDGs_FACTSHEET_February%202010.pdf


20

o President‟s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, 2006. Sports and Character

Development. Research Digest Series 7/1. Washington, DC: President‟s Council

on Physical Fitness and Sports. Program for Girls. New York: Population Council.

o Renard, R. 2006. The cracks in the new aid paradigm. Discussion paper, Institute

of Development Policy and Management, Antwerp, Belgium.

o Smith, A. and Waddington, I. 2004. “Using sport in the community schemes to

tackle crime and drug use among young people: Some policy issues and

problems”. European Physical Education Review 10: 279–297.

o Sports for Development and Peace, International Working Group, 2008.

Harnessing the power of sport for development and peace: Recommendations to

governments. Published by Right to Play.

o Sugden, J .2006.“Sport and Community Relations in Northern Ireland and Israel”

in A. Bairner, ed., Sport and the Irish: Histories, Identities, Issues. Dublin:

University College Dublin Press.

o Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC). 2005. Sport for

Development and Peace. Berne, Switzerland: Swiss Agency for Development

and Cooperation.

o UN, 2003. Sport as a Means to Promote Education, Health, Development and

Peace. Resolution adapted by the General Assembly.

o UNESCP. 2009. Sport for Development and Peace. Proceedings of the Zanzibar

Regional Ministerial Roundtable. United Republic of Tanzania, 8-10 September

2008. Accessed on 09.10.2010 from

o UNOSDP (2010a). Factsheet. Contribution of sport to the millennium

development goals. Retrieved on October 13,2010, from

o UNOSDP. 2010b. Sport and the Millennium Development Goals. Accessed

10.12. 2010, from http://www.un.org/themes/sport/

http://www.un.org/themes/sport/


21

o Van Eekeren, F. 2006. Sport and Development: Challenges in a New Arena. In:

Y. Vandenaauweele, C. Malcolm and B. Meulders (eds.), Sport and

development. Tielt: Lannoo.

o Willis, O. 2000. Sport and development: The significance of Mathare Youth

SportsAssociation


22

Being and bringing together:a brief introduction to sport for development and peace by munas kalden

Travel

contribution of sport

sport coach

international year of

development context

development policy agenda

sri lanka2

peacebuilding objectives

social cohesion