Want to keep learning?

This content is taken from the The International Platform on Sport and Development, Commonwealth Secretariat & Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT)'s online course, Sport for Sustainable Development: Designing Effective Policies and Programmes. Join the course to learn more.

Skip to 0 minutes and 6 seconds Ollie Dudfield: 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is described as being comprehensive, far reaching, involving the entire world developed in developing countries alike. It gives it a very broad scope as a blueprint forglobal priorities for sustainable development through to 2030. Within that we know that there’s identification of sport as a important enabler of sustainable development. But within that broad canvas within that very broad framework, this question always comes up around, actually, how can sport best contribute to this vision of the 2030 agenda and this vision of the SDGs?

Skip to 1 minute and 2 seconds Oscar Mwaanga: Where does sport make a difference? Where is the difference? How does that happen? And why does it happen that way? If we can answer those, which is really around the whole question of the programme theory, if we can answer that, well, we’ll be able to go back to that conversation, to that statement, and then begin to see where sport makes a difference and where it doesn’t make a difference. Then we’d have moved the agenda from this panacea problem that we’ve had, it is a problem, you know, this evangelical position that makes people just prove one thing that really as a sport for development community, they can only take us serious and seriously, if that makes sense.

Skip to 1 minute and 46 seconds So when we start to sit at the table with others, we’ll be able to say in very mature ways to say, we don’t make a contribution, sport doesn’t make a contribution there, because it makes a contribution there. What does that say in that community? Well, in that community, it actually says, where I cannot, it means somebody else can. And it then launches that launches us, or it brings to bear a new possibility of authentic partnership. And that is much needed in this global community. So that that’s my initial response to that.

Skip to 2 minutes and 28 seconds It requires us to take a very robust approach in our work, which we’re going to obviously talk about more later, which is for me, is the work that you’ve been doing the the targeted analysis, as you’ve called, as you’ve called it, you know, once we start targeting our work, we would have answered, the, the where, the how and the why, that will lead us into, well this is where we need to target our effort as sport, and if we can target that well, our contribution will be so much more to open up new possibilities but to allow others to focus on what they need to do.

Skip to 3 minutes and 6 seconds Ollie Dudfield: The issue of a targeted approach for me is critical. As we have seen, the Kazan action plan as as an important policy agenda in this area has identified 36 of the 169 SDG targets, where sport can contribute and that’s either based on research and evidence base, or where there is more robust programme theories and more robust theories of change of where sport may be able to contribute. But there’s an interesting dynamic for me with the SDG agenda, it speaks very much around the interconnectivity of social, the economical and environmental development domains and of course, that there is critical importance of enhancing coherence between different areas of the agenda.

Skip to 4 minutes and 5 seconds And also limiting and limiting trade offs between different areas of that agenda, be they the social, economic, environmental, or when we start to drill down to that at targeted approach. And so I guess, this challenge of when we talk about a real targeting of where sport contributing going down from goal level to target level, do we risk or is there a risk of, of too significant a trade off? and let me let me give you an example.

Skip to 4 minutes and 46 seconds Now we know that there is a strong focus in the agenda on promoting healthy long lives and well being for all and there’s a specific issue around reducing premature mortality from non communicable disease, we know physical inactivity is a leading risk factor for non communicable disease. Go back, go even further, only one in five adolescents are sufficiently active to get health benefits. So if we start zeroing in on that targeted approach, it might suggest more individually orientated physical activity, it might suggest much more focus on movement activity as opposed to group based and perhaps sport based activity.

Skip to 5 minutes and 44 seconds And for me, there’s potentially a danger there that some of the elements where sport can make a valuable contribution, improving or contributing to social capital of a particular individual or groups, bringing groups together to challenge negative stereotypes or challenge negative societal attitudes, etc, etc. And I’m constantly asking this question of does a targeted approach potentially have issues with trade offs and issues where there might be a more substantial focus on specific issues, specific methodology, specific approaches, and some of the wider impacts, some of the broader impacts of sport based policy and programming might be lost. I’m interested in your sort of reflections on that balance between targeting and trade offs.

Skip to 6 minutes and 43 seconds Oscar Mwaanga: Yeah, okay. In my response, I’d like to sort of like provide some, some further context from where the the recent sport for development movement comes from. So it comes from a place where we see the movement as an in house affair.

Skip to 7 minutes and 5 seconds We see a movement as you know, a collective of people that really believe, but they’re in house they’re not interacting with the rest of the world. Then that’s on one side, the other side is that the rest of the world sees them as these people that are driven, you know, for lack of a better term driven more by emotion than reason. You know, things don’t seem to add up with what’s going on. But the rest of the world is excited about sport, they love sport. They love sport, because it’s, it’s a place where things are not really serious. But there you go, we can try to just live with it, but it’s there. It doesn’t have to add up.

Skip to 7 minutes and 38 seconds We are trying to say we want to be taken serious because we can make a contribution. And we’ve said one way to do it for us is to is to make it a targeted approach. There’s going to be always, you know, the positives and the negatives, we know that. But if we start to look at a targeted approach and what it requires us to do. It requires us to change a conversation within that evangelical structure, as you call it, the you know, the, you know, the people that just believe. What conversation is going to change?

Skip to 8 minutes and 12 seconds What are we going to start talking about because we need to present a different case to the outside world, and the expectation of the outside world, as a result of a change in conversation that is around targeting. So we identify that targeting requires us, as an example to go with example you’ve given around physical activity and health,even within the sport, house, as it were. We may be clear the difference between sport, exercise and physical activity, but that doesn’t translate in practice. And that’s problematic even within the house. When we say sport. Give an example of the Norwegians going into Zambia which is my native country, so the Norwegians going to Zambia, they have this idea of ‘Idretter for alle’.

Skip to 9 minutes and 3 seconds Okay, that’s physical activity for all, it’s very clear in the Norwegian context what that means, as they move across the borders and arrive in Zambia, which has got you know, an English history, there isn’t an equivalence of ‘Idretts’ within the Zambian language of currency. So, what the Zambians receive there is ‘Sport for all’. ‘Sport for all’ means teams in communities and the rest of the population cheering on.

Skip to 9 minutes and 33 seconds So the only physical activity the population gives, the rest of it is the way the population is clapping and you’ve got a talented few that are you know there, so what happens then you see you continue to propagate the idea that we do understand the difference between physical activity and and sport but the currency is at every time we go into that direction what we are funding is elite sport at grassroot level. We are leaving out, so, we’ll never get to a place somehow where the benefits of physical activity for the wider population will be achieved in that context. So because of these targeting, we need to report we need to change the conversation within ourselves.

Skip to 10 minutes and 12 seconds We need to change practice within ourselves. When that happens outside of the house, we might become more relevant to our friends in that global community in other disciplines that are trying to move the agenda of sustainable development goals, which is a serious agenda. It’s an agenda for humanity, and we want to be members of that community. But on that table of that humanity, and the challenges it faces, we need to be relevant. Our relevance will not arrive unless we have a different conversation. And I think for me, you know, the targeted analysis allows us to change that conversation.

Skip to 10 minutes and 56 seconds Ollie Dudfield: You raise, another critical issue in changing that conversation, it relates to the breadth of the SDG agenda and it’s a conversation around scale. And the example you gave, for me really drives that that and it’s very relevant to that discussion of scale. We of course, know the critical importance of an evidence based approach and we say evidence based in that are grounded in, clearly articulated programme theories about how and why sport or sport based approaches may contribute in a particular context and for particular reasons. But linked to that is often the contribution that sport makes is with a small group, you said it might be elite sport at the community level.

Skip to 11 minutes and 50 seconds Some of the interventions and programmes are working with 1000, 3000, 6000 participants in a very much larger youth population, much larger population. So this issue of scale, particularly when we go from programme to projects becomes critical. UNICEF released some research that said it’s predicted only 1 in 500 children globally have access to sport for development programmes. We know the low numbers of adolescent physical activity levels, but then we start to look at issues like how can sport contribute to employment, how can sport contribute to educational opportunities, this issue of scale and the issue of group mobility rather than the mobility of individuals who are identified as talented then becomes a critical issue in both policy and and programme design.

Skip to 12 minutes and 58 seconds You’ve got significant experience in a range of contexts on this issue, what is your view in terms of how we address this problem of or challenges on scaling, impact?

Skip to 13 minutes and 10 seconds Oscar Mwaanga: Scaling good things is good. Okay. So getting something good to a wider population for their benefit is fantastic. That’s what we need to be doing. We need to be looking at how do we get the benefit of physical activity for, for the wider population. We know there’s enough evidence there about the benefits of physical activity. We’ve preached about it, I’ve written about it, but you know, what has happened during the covid pandemic? Is that the truth is emanating from inside now. The once taken for granted walk. You know, you know, the expert told you as an individual to do more walking until ‘Boris’ said, stay at home, then you’re like, I want to walk.

Skip to 13 minutes and 53 seconds My body’s telling me I need to walk. So no one was telling but there was a truth that was emanating from inside the people there, and people, you know, started to learn about their community. And there is some truth that is coming from an individual analysis there, which we need to leverage, to get to scale, because of opportunities that presented. So to scale it up, the truth has been known that physical activity, like I said, benefits wider population, but how did we, how could we move to that? So we could move to there through obviously, you know, the targeted approach analysis, we’re able to show exactly where this happens.

Skip to 14 minutes and 33 seconds That’s one thing, that’s the evidence side of things, that’s just one side. I mean, let’s be very careful with that. Even when we know the truth as emanating from empirically valid evidence, it doesn’t mean the behaviour changes. All right. So that’s just, that’s one of the tick boxes that we’re going to do as a community of contributors. As a sport for developing community. We need to tick that evidence box, but what other boxes should we need to tick for us to, to scale up? I’ve given this example of leveraging opportunities like now, where we actually see that people are beginning to see the importance of physical activity.

Skip to 15 minutes and 13 seconds So then, you know, the global population is in a different place of readiness, as we would call it, to try and move this agenda. People are listening, people are willing to take more action, we need to sort out the conceptualization within the house, we need to sort out the conceptualization and how that translates into practice. We cannot go out to people in that wider community or to other stakeholders with the same story of you know, sport, does everything but what do you mean by sport? You know, so it’s sort of the language, let’s sort out the conceptual framework of what we’re talking about.

Skip to 15 minutes and 45 seconds And then, you know, you know, scaling up is going to sit on certain pillars of of the evidence that would have been generated from targeting. When we make the limited investment into projects and programmes. We make them where we think the impact is going to be seen. Okay, so here’s another example that again, looking at leveraging, yeah. So how many times have we spoken about, have we tried to push the agenda of making sustainable cities, cities that will promote physical activity? That has been something that we knew was a good thing. But how did we have to how do we get to a place where we start to move in that direction? Well, I’ll give two examples.

Skip to 16 minutes and 22 seconds I, I currently live in Southampton. And I’m noticing how in certain streets, there is a deliberate effort by the local authority to put sidewalks and to put places where people can cycle. I saw a similar approach in Nairobi. I don’t believe anyone across the global north trajectory is telling anyone what to do. I think there is something here that really then links tosustainable development goal number 11 that we need to leverage We need to go there and say now look, now we have an awareness. We have the evidence about how physical activity to impact non communicable diseases, for us to scale up.

Skip to 17 minutes and 11 seconds We can move faster, we can have a new conversation even which has been permitted by what we’re doing right now, which is, you know, this conferencing that is happening around which is much more affordable, you know, we are not having to travel long distances and and pollute the environment. So we have a possibility of leveraging the technology, which is obviously linked to, you know, Sustainable Development Goal there. So, there’s a these are a lot of thinking we need to do to leverage as we as we scale up.

Skip to 17 minutes and 43 seconds Ollie Dudfield: This issue we’ve covered, in designing policies, programmes, designing programme theories covered it on taking a targeted approach, identifying the specific SDG there might be this or the specific national policy goal, it might be the specific policy objective or goal of a local community, local government, we’ve covered the targeted issue, we’ve spoken on the issue of to then scale impact and scale if the elements that have shown to be effective or positive for for communities. And then this, this issue that’s got me reflecting on the conceptualization of what is sports contribution, if you like, to the Sustainable Development Agenda, and you spoke to SDG 11.

Skip to 18 minutes and 32 seconds 11.7 and that critical, important SDG around providing access to safe inclusive green and public spaces and the options for that to then support physical activity. So it’s a very different target than perhaps previously where we were thinking very much on programmatic interventions. Actually, we design our organisation, our community, our group, designs a programme which is delivered to a specific group of beneficiaries, and there will be some level of outcome. And now we’re talking about actually the policy agenda of green spaces of active cities, which really becomes from sport into that physical activity agenda. But there’s some other more systemic and structural goals within the SDG agenda, and SDG 16 is very much about effective and accountable institutions.

Skip to 19 minutes and 32 seconds SDG target 16.6 is about developing effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. And that includes sport. We’ve got SDG target 5.5, which is about more equitable gender leadership. And if we draw on the issue around systemic racism, discrimination inequality, you’re looking at SDG, 10.2 and 10.3, which very much about promoting social, economic and political inclusion, irrespective of age, sex, disability, ethnicity, religion, or economic status. So for me, it raises a question, if we’re talking about the contribution of sport and physical activity as a sector, and that conceptualization of that contribution going to scale.

Skip to 20 minutes and 28 seconds To what level do we need to shift the dial from here’s a specific programmatic intervention to actually in policy and programme design, is there going to be more impact at scale by looking at reforms, changes within the broader sort of sport for development community, sport community, broader sport and physical activity sector.

Skip to 20 minutes and 57 seconds Oscar Mwaanga: I think again, let’s backtrack a little bit. All these are good and well constructed, they’re well thought goals, you know, people have put work to try and and put these together. But there is a history to why things haven’t worked. And that may be, can be better understood when we look at the proceeding MDGs and, and the main critique against them, which was there were a set of development prescriptions designed in the north to be implemented by a non progressive south. That just dumping the morale for that work. It, a whole can of worms opened up there around the issues, what we need to, that we need to be addressing around our past of, of colonialism.

Skip to 21 minutes and 49 seconds You know, people that came into particular communities for their own interests, and then turned around the agenda and said, we’re going to come in now and prescribe some development agenda for you. Like, How am I supposed to trust you? How am I supposed to think that actually you’re here for my interest? Because the history doesn’t speak to that. So, where are we, in terms of that? All right, I believe that the Sustainable Development Goals starts to address that by saying, look, actually, we do have a global community, which has got problems across. And our, our ontological reality is that we are connected in our problems, we need to be connected in our solutions.

Skip to 22 minutes and 36 seconds So there is somewhere we need to sit in terms of our of our, ideological, our common ideological stance, our common ontological stance as well. What does it mean to exist? We sit together borrowing some wisdom from Martin Luther, we sit together on the same ship. If one side is you know, going down, eventually the whole ship goes down.

Skip to 23 minutes and 0 seconds But the Sustainable Development Goals was well thought from a very theoretical, intelligent point of view, there wasn’t evidence in the world to help us understand that actually, we are together, we need we needed to deny, because when we are not together, and we’re in our clusters, usually it’s because of privilege.You know, usually it’s because of a flawed notion that there isn’t enough of a lot of things. Therefore, we need to be put in particular classes. I’ll give an example. If we assume that there isn’t enough energy. And our assumption that energy only comes from, you know, from from oil. So those that have oil are going to control.

Skip to 23 minutes and 37 seconds So there’s going to be all these idea, all these clusterization to privilege others out of that oil. If we shift that debate and say, well, actually, the sun is sufficient, like they say Nigeria, the sun is sufficient for everyone. You know, we don’t need to fight. That should change the conversation, but that that moves us from a different understanding of what energy is all about. Then it launches us into a different space as well. But as humans, I believe we always need to be able to prove that at some point, so we have the Sustainable Development Goals that seem to me to be gaining credibility as a universal framework. That is there to meet a universal agenda.

Skip to 24 minutes and 19 seconds But where’s the evidence for it? That actually ….sustainable agenda apart from the for the philosophical arguments that sit in the houses of, you know, academia. What we’re seeing in the world now, as an example, the refugee crisis that has, you know, has brought a different attention in the West through the Mediterranean crossings. Makes us think that next time we deal with African problems, we need to be very authentic the way we deal with them. We don’t deal with them as a problem that sits there. We deal with them as a problem that affects everyone.

Skip to 24 minutes and 53 seconds So the refugee crisis in countries like Kenya, and Zambia, my native country, where we have large numbers of people that come from across the world, from from our neighbouring countries that are at war, to settle in our communities that is supposed to be seen as a global problem. The refugee problem is not the Zambian problem, or the Kenyan problem. We need to see it all together. And when we give attention to it, we need to give that attention because it’s going to affect everyone. But what the sustainable development goals has done is to actually through 16, to move us to have this framework to make sense of that.

Skip to 25 minutes and 29 seconds So when we have a conversation about the military and incursions will be saying largely, it’s true, it affects everyone. Now, let me give an example of how that could translate into, you know, addressing the issue of neocolonialism. So what you would get imaginatively there is, if everyone has, if everyone endorsed sustainable development goal number 16, then would create a framework that helps us to guide our conversation, helps us to guide our practice, helps us to guide our ethics. It helps us to guide our monitoring and evaluation, helps us to guide our accountability.

Skip to 26 minutes and 3 seconds So when, as a Zambian responsible department, a department in Zambia responsible for this Sustainable Development Goal, which speaks to our domestic agenda, policy agenda already, because we’ve identified it’s important that we live in, we live in peace, we live in justice, we have institutions serving us. When you come over from Australia, and say, ‘you are not achieving, you’re not doing this governance thing well’. We don’t have the debate of saying, why are you here telling me what to do? that that doesn’t present what presents is there, actually, this is our struggle in Australia around this issue towards this global solution. What is your challenge? How can we learn from each other?

Skip to 26 minutes and 47 seconds So the debate of collaboration, it changes completely, it changes completely. It’s no longer me being suspicious about you coming to tell me because I see that your improvement in this area is my improvement as well.

Skip to 27 minutes and 0 seconds Ollie Dudfield: These issues around environmental sustainability, these issues around interconnectivity with different value chains are quite stark the issue of shocks and certainly, that as a policy but also a programmatic issue for the intersection of sport and development is certainly one

Skip to 27 minutes and 28 seconds critical consideration when we look to the future of, of this, this field, this policy area, this programmatic field, the intersection of the social, economic and environmental interconnected and interdependence across the global community, but what else do you see in the future of the field, one issue that has come to the fore prior to the covid 19 pandemic, but has been accelerated is digitalization, we hear a lot about the fourth industrial revolution. And we know that prior to the pandemic, for example, the global eSports audience was expected to reach about 495 million this this year, with almost 700 million revenue globally for eSports, which by the way, is expected to double pretty, pretty quickly.

Skip to 28 minutes and 28 seconds But then if you flip, flip that across around the interconnectivity interdependence, and we start to look at Digital as one of the futures for the intersection of sport and development. Still, it’s only about 200 million of 1 billion people living in at least a developed context had access to the internet. And the cost of one gigabyte of data in LDCs is the equivalent of about 14 percent of gross national income per capita. So this element of digital being critical, but again, not a panacea for the interplay of sport development and physical activity is an issue. I’d be interested in your take on in that broader context, what is the future of the field?

Skip to 29 minutes and 21 seconds Oscar Mwaanga: Just want to step back a little bit again, talk about what conversation are we having, you know, what conversation are we having in house at sport for development, which is going to allow us to become relevant, and I think we touched on it, was this idea of our conversation has never been really around structure. It has been very programme specific conversation. The global family wants us to engage into a discussion as phrased within the sustainable development goals, it’s really about what structural differences can we think about because these are easy to scale up?

Skip to 29 minutes and 57 seconds You know, as opposed to talk about a programme in the northern part of, of Malawi, let’s talk about what issues it’s trying to address that programme. And let’s have a conversation within sport for development about where this sits in terms of of the structural impediments to that. Yeah. So if I give an example so instead of a programme, so when we start to think structure, I’d like to believe our conversation changes. How does it change? So here’s an example of what has transpired within the anti racism global movement.

Skip to 30 minutes and 29 seconds All along my frustration, as as as an ethnic other, as a diaspora other, has been never been given opportunity to actually take you know, contribute from my expertise of my experience, my proposition or contribution, my my contribution between two places I engaged propositionally with these issues, and I have experienced them, how can I bring them to a place where they can, they can they can begin to contribute in the community, in the global community. So we see the literature around racism being written on behalf of black people, we see the, you know, the story, the best stories about my experiences are not written by myself.

Skip to 31 minutes and 14 seconds And they, they take away from the, you know, the structural racism that we’re talking about. When we when we say, let’s have a programme to kick it out for t shirts, football football players to wear t shirts, that say ‘kick racism out’ before the start of the match. I’m talking about the the old normal only, so the old normal, which is laughable now, we would have, you know, somebody like David Beckham at the start of the match say, ‘Kick racism out, racism is a bad thing’, then put down the mic and play football. Kick racism out organisation would have failed within that programme, but they’ve succeeded. They said we’re gonna do four announcements that year.

Skip to 32 minutes and 0 seconds How did that really change the fact that we have so many black players in the league? But we have very few coach, black coaches? How do they change the fact that we have very few representation at the Premier League level, you know, for the ethnic others? Because unless now, if we tick the box and say, oh, now the discussions that we need to have representation? Well, that’s not really the discussion, the discussion is that we’re a global community. When we all contribute, we get a better result, whether its economic, whether it’s social, whether it’s, you know, on a human level, that is the conversation we need to have. So the conversation of structure change.

Skip to 32 minutes and 39 seconds And individual programme change is so different, because we we get satisfied in both places. But I think when as a global community, we start to say, we start to listen to why, where has Lewis Hamilton been as the only black man in that sport. What led to that? What’s the history that constructs that? That’s the conversation we need to speak about. You know, when we talk about the NFL, where is this coming from? And where does it lead? You know, when we look about when we look at the, the black power, you know, salute I think 1968 Olympic, and then Norman, your your country man, what happened to him when he went back to Australia? Why?

Skip to 33 minutes and 28 seconds What were the conditions at that time that led to this man that was on the right side of history to be treated that way. We don’t even you know, you know, what was the Brotherhood of the two African African American gentleman going there? They had to be pall bearers of this man who they thought was a hero. What does that, what conversation should we have about white privilege about the difficulties of how, you know white people will fail to contribute to this conversation. So individualised programmes denied us those conversations.

Skip to 34 minutes and 0 seconds As we shift to structure, addressing structure issues within sport for development, I think that’s different direction we’re going to be heading and it will take us in a different place, hopefully, because we would be dealing with difficult questions, but hey, reality is difficult, we live in a difficult space, and if we shy away and and sometimes when we programmes are those things that, you know, we, we write them in a way that we are comfortable with the problem and then, you know, we can then at the end of the three years, we can say, we achieved this and we achieve that, you know, we say that the programme in Zimbabwe to, to use football to preach about HIV AIDS.

Skip to 34 minutes and 37 seconds We did so many tournaments, therefore, we changed HIV AIDS. But what is it structural issues around HIV AIDS? Did we address those? If we go to structure issues, I believe the conversation would lead us to say, well, maybe it’s not the place of sport to do that. Maybe it’s the school to do that. What sports should do is to target these young leaders and and get them to do something different. So that the conversation for me is going to change. That’s one, the structure leading to different conversation. But then in sport for development because of our inferiority complex, when we always feel like, you know, we’re not taken serious.

Skip to 35 minutes and 13 seconds There’s an assumption that we make that the people outside of sport the other, the other experts, the other disciplines trying to solve the human problems. They are much more sophisticated than us. They do not have any problems over there. Well, no, that’s not true. We know that’s not true. There are issues there that we should be careful about. If we engage in robust analysis ourselves as our own responsibility. When we go to them, we’re going to ask them questions, it seems they’re always asking us questions of legitimacy of authenticity. Well, we’ve got some questions for them. For instance, well, the charity industry in London is white and you in the international context, you’re trying to solve black problems.

Skip to 35 minutes and 57 seconds How does that work? What do you miss out? You have diaspora presence in London that doesn’t seem to reach the level of decision making, you know, is, you know, isn’t this in 100 years in the future, and we’re gonna laugh at people that thought they were gonna solve other people’s problems without their representation. Isn’t this a statue? What are the living statues we need to bring down now, in the wider discourse? We’re bringing statues that represent certain things that are wrong in our past. But what about the living statues now that defend this reproduction of inequality? What should we bring down? So that is the conversation we can take to them?

Skip to 36 minutes and 35 seconds We can say, look, we have Lewis Hamilton, as a successful driver in this sport. Do you think there could be other black people who are good at this? Well, this seems to resonate with the fact that even the charity industry doesn’t have enough Lewis Hamilton’s sitting in the right places

Skip to 36 minutes and 52 seconds Ollie Dudfield: We’ve had a discussion. It’s very much gone from the programmatic and really underscores that the programmatic can sit outside of the policy environment that it operates in. The policy environment can’t sit outside the structural environment and system in which it sits and the various strengths of that system interconnected, interconnectivity of that system but also the inequality and historical challenges with that system. So if we’re going to put that and apply that conceptual discussion, what would your two to three pieces of advice be to a policymaker, a practitioner,

Skip to 37 minutes and 45 seconds who wants to enhance and maximise the contribution that sport can make to the Sustainable Development Goal agenda within that context? What are your two to three practical and key areas of advice and guidance?

Skip to 38 minutes and 1 second Oscar Mwaanga: An excellent question and that speaks, you know, to where, where do we think we’re going to be in 2030? I think it speaks to that. And hopefully we can be wrapping up. Not a prediction, a prediction, but not a prophetic statement, I hope is what I’m going to make. I’ll pick from what you’ve said, which I think is very profound, very enlightening, and I’ll just try to capture it here. A programme sits in a system, your choice is what is that system? Or a programme sits in a particular structure, what is that structure?

Skip to 38 minutes and 36 seconds So if, a programme sits in a conformist structure, where the world has got no inequalities and everything, you know, well, this is not you know, we’re not going to be in a different place. But if a programme sits in a place where the structure has inequalities, has got historical issues that need to be addressed, we needs, the validation of the programme has to have some statements that respond to that reality. And so my advice to policymakers is, as you design the programme, make sure there’s an extra layer of responsibility now, to what extent does the design of this programme actually reflect the historical inequalities?

Skip to 39 minutes and 22 seconds Example, when you decide to create a programme in Australia, in Norway, in Canada, in Sweden, for Malawi,please ensure that there’s a statement in there that talks about what is your privileges the individual creating it? What is the historical truth about how that programme responds, to what extent is it going to propagate that or is it going to resist that? That will become for me, something we need to engage in for us to leverage the opportunity that presents so we can get to a different place. Because I, there, there’s a global population that is telling us through the anti racism movement that says we are tired. That’s what they say.

Skip to 40 minutes and 5 seconds We’re tired, for 400 years, we’ve been doing this and we’re tired. We don’t seem to be getting anywhere. If you look at the American context you’re looking at from the civil rights movement, you know, to Martin Luther’s speech to where we are today, not much has been achieved until we saw what happened to Mr. George Floyd. So, so my advice is that this programme that we’re going to be constructing in the future, can it be a response to the historical inequalities so that we can be able to move, but how do you do that? That’s the next question. That’s my next contribution. Well, we have now a global framework.

Skip to 40 minutes and 39 seconds That can help us move to the stage where we construct our ethics through a discussion on what is within the Sustainable Development Goals. We construct our responsibility or statement for accountability to each other to the globe through the Sustainable Development Goals framework. So that instead of me saying you’re coming from Canada, to come and tell me from the US to come and tell me how to do things in Zambia, we are past that we have a framework now, that should allow us to go into a different conversation. That for me, will be a conversation on what is the agenda for development in these programmes.

Skip to 41 minutes and 13 seconds To what extent is this agenda consistent with with what’s happening in that country in education, in health, so when we put a programme, when I set up certain programmes, historically, I did not have to answer to the Minister of Education because he didn’t give me any resources. I answer to the Norwegians that give me the resources. Now I am, if that programme was not responsible to Norwegian population with the taxpayer of Norway, it was responsible to the Zambian situation. So the conversation in Zambia around the Sustainable Development Goals, needs to make sports for development to speak to the Zambian stakeholders and partners in development.

Skip to 41 minutes and 54 seconds So that they can know how to target their work, you know, so I’ll I’ll give an example here. My current work is around using sports as a tool, or as a modality to promote learning. There’s strong evidence about what happens to a child, when they’re enjoying movement, and the possibilities of learning. That is not support per se. That is the nature of the body. We are moving individuals, when we ask children to sit, we denature them. And then we start to, make false speculations that they’re going to learn, they are not going to learn they’re gonna learn because we put a gun to their head, we weep, to say you need to learn then it doesn’t happen.

Skip to 42 minutes and 35 seconds It happens in a very positive space. So if you take children outside, and then you say today we’re going to have a walk. In this walk, you’re going to be paired between a strong child in maths and a weak child in mud. When you went from point A to point B, you’re going to stop there, do some revision on times table and do that what is going on there is extending the classroom to an another space.

Skip to 42 minutes and 58 seconds But that programme is situated within the Sustainable Development Goal number three, which then brings health people to the conversation, then brings education people to the conversation, brings international people that conversation and and whatever you learn from that experience can be extended beyond that particular context which is a programme or a particular location to other places. So you are riding on a positive flow of I think what is a new nature which you’ve created.

Can sport foster a common vision for international goals?

“Where does sport make the difference? Where is the difference? How does that happen? And why does it happen? If we can answer those questions, we would have moved the agenda from an evangelical position, to a sport for development community.”

Ollie Dudfield (Head of Sport for Development and Peace at the Commonwealth Secretariat) and Oscar Mwaanga (Programme Director of International Sport Management & Innovation at the University of London) discuss the big question: can sport foster a common vision for the international goals?

Their discussion covers the following questions:

  • How can sport best contribute to this vision of Agenda 2030? [00:05 - 03:05]
  • The issue of a targeted approach and trade-offs: can a substantial focus on specific issues cause some of the broader impacts of sport-based policy and programming to be lost? [03:06 - 10:55]
  • Scale: how can we address the challenges of scaling up impact? [10:56 - 17:44]
  • Do we need to shift from specific programmatic interventions to looking at policy reforms and broader changes within the sport for development community? [17:45 - 26:59]
  • Interconnectivity: global communities, accelerated digitisation and the future of the field [27:00 - 36:51]
  • What would your two to three pieces of advice be to a policymaker or practitioner who wants to enhance and maximise the contribution that sport can make to the SDG agenda? [36:51 - 43:27]

“If a programme sits in a structure that has inequalities, we need the validation of that programme to have some statements that respond to that reality. My advice to policymakers is, as you design a programme, make sure there’s an extra layer of responsibility: to what extent does the design of this programme actually reflect inequalities?

Please ensure that there’s a statement in there that talks about what are your privileges as an individual creating it. What is the historical truth about how that programme responds and to what extent is it going to propagate that?” [38:56]

Share this video:

This video is from the free online course:

Sport for Sustainable Development: Designing Effective Policies and Programmes

The International Platform on Sport and Development