SPORT 1913 - 2013

ing developing societies, such as the pandem- ic of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. Once that step occurred, it became a short further step to uncouple programs from the expecta- tion that participation in sport necessarily leads to organized competition and focus in- stead on how sport could address local needs (e.g. Njelesani 2011). In my case, the realiza- tion came with the Commonwealth Sport Development Program in Zimbabwe, when Canadian staff on the ground determined that an aerobics program for pregnant and lactat- ing mothers was the most appropriate pro- gram they could begin. While none of the par- ticipants ever intended to participate in organized competition, the program quickly became a valued resource for infant and ma- ternal health. These efforts contributed to and drew legitimacy from the IOC-UN alliance. In 1994, the UN declared the ‘International Year of Sport and the Olympic Ideal’. In subsequent years, the UN gradually added to these com- mitments, while at the same time, planning the target-focused campaign that became the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Many felt that sport could contribute signifi- cantly to the realization of the MDGs, includ- ing the achievement of universal primary education, gender equality, and improved maternal and child health, a reduction in the incidence of HIV/AIDS and other diseases, and the development of global partnerships. In 2001, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed a special advisor (Adolf Ogi) on

sport for development and peace to take these efforts further. The following year, after an IOC-UN conference at the Salt Lake City Win- ter Olympics, the UN struck an international task force to prepare the strategy for sport for development and peace and engage the entire UN system. The resulting report led to the recognition of sport’s potential contributions to the MDGs, the declaration of the Interna- tional Year of Sport and Physical Education in 2005, and the creation of an international working group (in 2008) with an Office of Sport for Development and Peace in Geneva, with five thematic sub-groups—on sport for children and youth; sport for girls and wom- en; sport for persons with disabilities; sport for health; and sport for peace (UNOSDP 2012). While these activities at the UN may seem bureaucratic to activists, each step tightens the obligations of governments to SDP. As Dorothy Smith (2001) has observed, ‘texts are essential to the objectification of organizations and institutions. … (they) me- diate, regulate and authorize people’s activi- ties’ (p. 160). Despite the efforts of the UN (and other intergovernmental bodies such as the African Union, the Commonwealth and the European Commission) to endorse and coordinate SDP at a policy level, there is a tremendous diver- sity of purposes, interventions and organiza- tions on the ground, with local, national and international governments and sports organi- zations, charitable foundations, not-for-prof- its and corporations involved. It’s hard to keep

track of all the players, as new initiatives spring up almost every day. The quality of leadership and interventions varies widely, with no widely accepted standards of practice, let alone external regulation or accountability. Richard Giulianotti (2011) has categorized the programs into four clusters: corporate social responsibility, non-governmental and com- munity-based initiatives, government pro- grams, and critical social justice activities. Many organizations compete with each other for branding, funds and volunteers, and for partners and participants on the ground. At the same time, few SDP organizations have links to the traditional ‘sport for good’ agen- cies, even those like the YMCA with interna- tional programs, and the ‘sport for all’ move- ment. This organizational disunity can be especially divisive and counter-productive in the developing world, where NGOs compete with state schools for legitimacy and funds and with each other for participants. In Lusa- ka, Zambia, for example, I have met children trained in similar ways by several different NGOs, while children 20 kilometres outside the city have been left entirely to their own devices. While neither the proliferation of NGOs nor competition between agencies is unique to sport for development and peace, it is particularly acute in this field. Despite these challenges, there is growing evidence that under the right circumstances, SDP can contribute to social development, which in turn enables more stable, peaceful

44