Naomi Kervel
Naomi.kervel@student.ru.nl S4167473PLAYING AS A TEAM MAKES
THE DIFFERENCE
Using sports to strengthen local peacebuilding
programmes.
Executive Summary
The objective of this research is to analyse how sports activities, and, more specifically, how so-called Sport for Development and Peace (SDP) programmes can contribute to peacebuilding. It has been argued that there are multiple positive effects of sports, in Western societies as well as in development contexts. As SDP programmes became implemented more regularly, more academic research has been done concerning these types of activities as well. This has led to the development of new theories dealing with SDP programmes or rather with positioning SDP programmes in the existing literature on development and peacebuilding. This research first of all aims to position and relate SDP programmes to the theories and expectations of local, social peacebuilding. Furthermore, this thesis provides an overview of policies towards SDP programmes and how these programmes are used and implemented. It also addresses the (expected) benefits, how these benefits relate to the theoretical expectations and what this in turn means for theory and praxis.
The research relates SDP programmes to expectations derived from a combination of peacebuilding literature and SDP literature, rather than just the SDP literature. As such this thesis helps to better position the role of SDP programmes in the field of peacebuilding. In particular the role of SDP programmes in relationship building and peacebuilding have been studied. Based on theoretical notions regarding these peacebuilding dimensions, expectations have been formulated. These expectations are a combination of notions derived from the academic literature and the anticipated follow up as formulated by organisations active in this field.
In fulfilling these objectives qualitative research has been conducted, in order to build a better understanding of the peacebuilding activities on the one hand, and on the functioning of SDP programmes and their impact on the other. This has been done by interviewing a cross-section of representatives of various levels of implementation and of programmes in different contexts. These interviews provide a new insight into the field of SDP programmes and the impact that can be identified, as well reflect on how choices for policies and the accompanying activities are made. The results of this research are rather positive regarding the potential contributions of SDP programmes to peacebuilding. The programmes are able to engage new participants in peacebuilding processes. This allows a new group to be exposed to other activities building resilience to conflict, by building relationships across community borders and by changing the behaviour of participants as well as the attitudes of communities. As such, SDP programmes can significantly contribute to peacebuilding at a local level.
However, the impact of the programmes is strongly limited by the conditions and limitations of local contexts and international support. By addressing the limitations and conditions a larger range of peacebuilding issues can be addressed and more impact can be created. Most importantly, the conditions that need to be addressed are cooperation with local actors and connecting SDP activities to other peacebuilding practices. This approach supports the sustainability of the programmes and emphasizes the potential, bringing new areas of impact within reach, such as change of behaviour and trauma healing.
The dedication and commitment to making sports an essential part of the peacebuilding approach in the end makes all the difference to the impact. The willingness to invest in SDP programmes by actors across all levels makes the active use of outcomes on multiple levels possible: individually, socially, as well as cross-community. A team of actors can bring about a significant change in the social dimensions of peacebuilding. A lacking effort by one or several teammates, however, makes an
essential difference in the impact SDP programmes can have on larger, overarching peacebuilding objectives. Playing as a team makes the difference for the impact of the SDP programmes.
Content
Executive Summary...1 1. Introduction...5 1.1 Research Objectives...5 1.2 Relevance...6 1.2.1 Scientific relevance...6 1.2.2 Societal Relevance...7 1.3 Conceptual Framework...8 1.4 Ethical Reflections...122. Sport for Development and Peace (SDP)...13
2.1 Peacebuilding...14
2.1.1 Civil Society...15
2.1.2 Relationship building...16
2.1.4 The contribution of SDP to relationship building...18
2.1.5 Peace education...20
2.1.6 The contribution of SDP to peace education...22
2.2 Limitations encountered...23
2.2.1 Criteria for intervention...23
2.2.2 Limitations of the interventions...25
2.2.3 Expectations based on conditions and limitations...25
Final Remarks...26 3. Methodology...27 3.1 Operationalisation...27 3.2 Data Collection...28 3.3 Interviews...31 3.3.1 Respondents...31 3.4 Analysis...33 3.4.1 Coding...33 4. Analysis...35
4.1 Sport in Dutch Peacebuilding...35
4.1.1 Dutch Sport-for-Development network...36
4.1.2 Dutch Organisations involved in peacebuilding...37
4.1.3 Sports in Dutch development policy...38
4.3 SDP programmes in civil society peacebuilding...42
4.3.1 Reflecting on the expectations...43
4.4 SDP programmes’ contribution to relationship building...44
4.4.1 Reflection on the expectations...46
4.5 SDP programmes’ contribution to peace education...48
4.5.1 Reflection on the expectations...49
4.6 SDP programmes’ additional contributions...50
4.7 SDP programmes’ conditions and limitations...52
4.7.1 Conditions...52
4.7.2 Limitations...53
4.7.3 Reflection on the expectations...53
4.8 Overview...54
5. Conclusions...58
5.1 Research Conclusions...58
5.2 Reflection on the research...62
5.3 Recommendations...63
5.3.1 Recommendations for further research...63
5.3.2 Recommendations for praxis...64
References...65
Annex 1: Interview guide...69
Annex 2: Coding Tables...71
List of Tables Table 1: Life-skills in peacebuilding...20
Table 2: Interviews...31
Table 3: Coding options...33 Cover photo: International Sports Alliance.
Acknowledgements
Writing this thesis has been a rather long process, with several ups and downs. Without the support of several of the people around me, this process would have been even more difficult. First of all, I would like to thank Dr. Bert Bomert for his advice and guidance throughout this writing process. Both for the advice on the thesis – the writing in particular – as for the support for the switch of topics. The discussions regarding the topic of my thesis, and my interests in general regarding my studies and further career, have been incredibly valuable.
Another major, thank you goes to the International Sports Alliance, the organisations where I was able to conduct my internship. During the few months of my internship I learned a lot, about the work of Sport-for-Development sector, about the implementation of sports in peacebuilding and about the organisation itself and about myself. Working at ISA has also supported writing this thesis tremendously, as most of the interviews have been conducted with respondents in one way or another connected to ISA. Discussion with colleagues and the projects conducted at ISA , implicitly helped me to gain the understanding of the matter. Aspects of what I have learned throughout my internship will also reflect throughout my thesis.
Beyond my internship I would like to thank ISA for giving me the opportunity to remain a part of the team and start working for the organisation. Even though it has slowed the process of writing my thesis, it has been an incredible, fun and educative process in any other regard. The people I have been able to meet and work with, the topics and issues I have been a part of over the last few months, and the projects I will be working on in the coming months have been very inspiring. Topics like ‘The golden circle’ and ‘MEL’ will probably always stay in the back of my mind. Over the last months I have been part of an amazing team to all of whom I owe gratitude for everything I have been able to learn from you and the amount of inspiration you have given over the last year. In particular I would like to thank Jesper, as my internship supervisor, and Ward and Leonie for the new opportunities they have given me to keep working at ISA.
Lastly I would like to thank my family and friends, whom throughout this long process of writing my thesis have been there to support me. Without you listening to some endless rants about my thesis I probably would not have been able to continue working on this. The motivation you have given me to finish, the new ideas and energy have been essential. No matter how much you knew, or didn’t know about the topic did not matter for you to give some useful advice or motivation.
1. Introduction
Since the 1990s the sector of Sport for Development and Peace (SDP) has developed quickly (Giulianotti & Armstrong, 2011). The recognition of the social relevance and meaning of sport resulted in the use of sport for addressing social issues. The capacity of sport in uniting people, building relationships and promoting universal values has been praised all around. In the words of Nelson Mandela, “Sport has the power to unite people in a way little else can.” (Mandela, 2000) However, in opposition to the arguments of the positive influence of sport on social cohesion, on the other extreme there are views that sport and peace have no connection at all, or that sport could even promote conflict (Giulianotti & Armstrong, 2011; Kraftchek, 2012). George Orwell’s often-quoted words are exemplary for this vision: “Sport is war minus the shooting.” (Orwell, 1994)
Regardless of the potential downsides of SDP programmes, a widespread interest has remained. ‘Official’ recognition of the relevance of sport came from the United Nations, the International Olympic Committee and a broad range of other (inter)national organizations, according to which sport has changed from a luxury item into an important tool for social change and investment in the future (Van Eekeren et al., 2013). Sports activities and SDP programmes in particular became a tool to strengthen activities of development and peacebuilding, such as addressing health and gender issues and social cohesion. The SDP programmes have been functioning separately to stimulate development or as part of broader strategies and these programmes then are seen as tools for engagement and teaching certain positive values and skills (Cardenas, 2013).
In the context of peacebuilding, it is argued that various elements and dimensions of sport projects (can) have a positive impact on socio-cultural and political issues. The position of sports in the community, in between a political and civil society level, is key for the role in progressive social change. The interactive and informal nature of sports has the power to attract social groups in a community which are otherwise often hard to reach (van Eekeren et al., 2013; Sugden, 2013; Tuohey & Cognatio, 2011). The possibility to attract so many social groups in a community gives sport the potential to aid peacebuilding by helping in (re)building relationships, reintegration of soldiers and reconciliation processes (Van Eekeren, et al., 2013). These aspects where sport can contribute to peacebuilding and social transformation have been widely discussed; however, so far little is known about the exact impact SDP programmes can and do have.
The increasing interest and enduring appeal of SDP programmes in relation to the limited knowledge about the impact of the programmes to peacebuilding makes it an interesting topic to study. Considering the sparse and scattered knowledge about the actual relationship between the positive aspects of sport and the support of peacebuilding, the topic of ‘Sport for Peace’ is also a very relevant subject for further study.
1.1 Research Objectives
Sport for Development and Peace (SDP) programmes have often been pictured as successful tools for peacebuilding projects and development activities. The field of SDP has been growing since the 1990s and currently counts a myriad of organizations that participate in numerous field projects. Nevertheless, there is little documentation and research about the successes and outcomes of these programmes. In particular the relationship between SDP programmes and peacebuilding and development activities is limited, although insight in this relationship is of course highly relevant for the construction of projects (Donnelly, 2011; Van Eekeren, et al., 2013).
SDP programmes usually focus on the interaction at a local level, involving various local groups and actors (Cardenas, 2013; Van Eekeren et al., 2013; Giulianotti, 2011). These programmes are than part of broader peacebuilding programmes that address structural issues larger than the community itself. By collecting and analysing relevant information about SDP programmes the dynamics of peacebuilding through SDP can be better understood. In addition, an analysis of this information can support the Sport-for-Development theory framework, so as to understand and assess the successes of SDP programmes in peacebuilding and beyond.
The main objective of this research is to analyse the contribution of SDP programmes to peacebuilding processes, thereby identifying the necessary criteria for the success of these programmes. This objective will be reached by embedding the potential for SDP programmes in insight in and knowledge about grassroots peacebuilding. In order to do so, previous research into the functioning of SDP programmes and theories regarding implementation will be confronted with theory and knowledge concerning other forms of grassroots peacebuilding.
SDP programmes are often collaborative programmes, a cooperation between (inter)national non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and local organisations. The international background increases the number of limitations of the programmes imposed by external forces, for example limitations caused by funding cycles and/or the specific wishes of foreign donors. Since on a global scale there is a myriad of SDP cases, involving numerous local, national and international stakeholders, for practical reasons the choice has been made to focus on programmes initiated by Dutch organisations which have involved sports activities in their peacebuilding programmes. Based on this context, a part of this study will also address how the activities of organisations using SDP programmes relate to the theoretical understanding of SDP programmes. Given this context, the following research question has been defined.
Research question:
How can Sport for Development and Peace (SDP) programmes contribute to peacebuilding in civil society settings, based on the contributions and constraints of the SDP programmes as initiated by the Dutch peacebuilding sector?
In order to be able to answer this main research question, several sub-questions have to be addressed first. The questions are formulated as general questions, relating and applied to the case of the Dutch-initiated programmes.
- How can SDP programmes be used and integrated in civil society? - Which functions does civil society have in peacebuilding?
- What are the contributions of SDP programmes to civil society peacebuilding? - What are the constraints of SDP programmes in civil society peacebuilding? - How are the SDP programmes implemented?
- Which external limitations are encountered by SDP programmes in peacebuilding? - (How) can the impact of constraints of SDP programmes to peacebuilding be limited?
1.2 Relevance
1.2.1 Scientific relevance
In general there is a clear lack of knowledge and insight regarding the impact of SDP programmes. This lack of knowledge can be divided into three dimensions that should all be addressed.
The first dimension is based on the often-heard argument that sports can and does support development and social change in society (Cardenas, 2013; Van Eekeren et al., 2013). Nevertheless, there is only a limited understanding of how sports affects social change or of the mechanisms and underlying factors influencing the success (or failure) of these programmes (Donnelly, 2011; Lyras & Welty Peachy, 2011). For a better understanding of these underlying mechanisms further research is necessary. Interviews with representatives of peacebuilding organisations could help in gaining a more thorough understanding of why they opt for the use of sports in their programmes and, more in general, of getting insight in the main objectives of specific programmes.
Secondly, and in line with the first element, the programmes as well as scholars and practitioners themselves could benefit from more extensive empirical data, and information about the programmes, participants, activities and impact (Van Eekeren et al., 2013; Lyras & Welty Peachy, 2011; Sugden, 2013). As it is hard to extend the set of empirical information by collecting specific numerical data about the various programmes, and that the data gathered cannot control for contextual differences. The variety of contexts in which SDP programmes are implemented, and the variety of ways in which programmes are organised seems to be unsuitable for quantitative data gathering. More qualitative research supports the need for data and understanding of the SDP programmes. Understanding of the empirical work can come from trainers, both local and international, in the field of SDP programmes, that can explain the activities, contributions and impact based on their experiences. By collecting data about the type of activities and experiences by implementers across implementation levels more detailed information can be provided about the functioning of a SDP programme and its contributions and impact.
Finally, it has often been argued that sport in SDP programmes is a tool to rebuild relationships, to provide a meeting ground and to mobilize groups that are often difficult to reach. However, the relationship between SDP interventions and theories of peacebuilding is still vague. The same goes for the assessment of the negative impact sport may have on society (Van Eekeren et al. 2013). Research so far has mostly focussed on describing the various projects and discussing the potential (positive) impact these programmes might have; the link to peacebuilding has not been developed properly yet (Donnelly, 2011; Van Eekeren et al., 2013; Giulianotti & Armstrong, 2011; Kidd, 2011). Therefore, it is still hard to assess the successes and limitations of SDP programmes in light of their further-reaching goals of peacebuilding and development.
In the end the goal of this research is to contribute to a broadening of knowledge regarding both peacebuilding mechanisms and the contributions SDP programmes can make to improve peacebuilding. An additional contribution might be found in a better understanding of SDP programmes as such.
1.2.2 Societal Relevance
The question of how sport-based interventions can best be incorporated in peacebuilding and conflict transformation efforts is still under-addressed (Tuohey & Cognatio, 2011). More insight in and understanding of the impact of SDP programmes help in creating more sustainable projects and in finding their position within the Peace and Development sector. Conducting this research should help organisations to organize their programmes and apply different strategies to increase their impact so as to make their contribution to peace and peacebuilding more sustainable. In having better adapted programmes, chances of success increase and the impact of a programme grows, with in the end a positive impact on the local communities where the programmes are conducted.
Reviewing the programmes with the objective of learning about the impact and limitations of the programmes and projects is not only useful for scholars, but also for the formulation of successful programmes, taking into consideration the criteria, stumbling blocks and limitations encountered address which steps have to be applied in the future or changes that have to be made. The programmes are strongly based on assumptions of anticipated changes; based on these assumptions funding is given. Donor organisations nowadays require a more profound understanding and continuous testing of expected changes and outcomes (Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken, 2016). This thesis contributes to these crucial elements by identifying contributions and constraints for optimizing successes of projects and supports the process of developing new programmes.
In light of the broader goals, such as achieving international development goals, it is important that the programmes are as successful as possible, to make sure that the right investments and the best allocation of funds are made. By analysing SDP, the potential is developed to improve the programmes in such a way that they will be more successful and better applicable in the future. More in-depth knowledge about the programmes and a better design will increase the impact of the programmes and improve peacebuilding processes.
1.3 Conceptual Framework
In the conceptual framework the key concepts concerning SDP programmes are introduced. These key concepts are explained by a short discussion about their relevance for the research and the relationship between the various concepts. A more extensive discussion of concepts and theories will be provided in the next chapter.
Peacebuilding
Creating a safe environment through peacebuilding is necessary to establish sustainable peace and avoid a relapse into conflict (Boutros-Ghali, 1992). The term ‘peacebuilding’ is used to describe the long-term processes and activities that are conducted to prevent outbreaks of violent conflict and to transform conflict in a sustainable way (Paffenholz & Spurk, 2006). In terms of Galtung’s analysis, peacebuilding not only implies the end of violent conflict but it addresses the underlying causes and layers of violence and creates a structure of peace that is based on justice, equality and cooperation. Whereas peacebuilding processes can cover changes at multiple levels (international, national, regional and local), this research focusses on local peacebuilding, in particular on two areas of local level peacebuilding issues – predominantly on a social-psychological level – that contribute to peacebuilding: processes of (re)building of relations within and between communities, and the development of skills that strengthen the community in changing, diverting and transforming violent behaviour, often referred to as peace education.
The first dimension addressed is the process of (re)building of relations within and between communities. Here the emphasis is on building cross-cutting ties between people – individuals and groups – directed at limiting the levels of violence between antagonistic groups (Varshney, 2001). Establishing a dynamic and participatory process by engaging all layers of the community and enabling and enhancing the transition and development is essential for peacebuilding. The establishment of social and cooperative relations within and between communities is important for the support of the broader peacebuilding efforts in local communities (Ang & Oliver, 2015). In peacebuilding, activities based on people-to-people activities are about simple elements, aiming to find common interests which support the building of shared knowledge. Sport in particular is helpful
in establishing connections within these shared interests, by offering the possibility to support positive social interaction resulting in bringing divided communities together (Gawerc, 2006; Giulianotti & Armstrong, 2013).
In light of this, it is relevant to look at the relationships and contact between antagonistic communities and how these relationships can be addressed and influenced through SDP programmes. By optimizing the contact moments among people from antagonistic groups, in particular the youth, the potential to diminish prejudices and build relationships is improved (Pettigrew et al., 2011). SDP programmes facilitate moments of interaction and possibilities for mutual engagement, so as to limit the prejudices embedded in the relationships among the groups. Analysing the contribution of SDP programmes in peacebuilding through the lens of the so-called Contact theory helps in positioning this support for peacebuilding, in offering opportunities to improve or adjust the programmes.
Beyond (re-)establishing connections, there has to be a change in behaviour of the antagonistic communities, as well as a feeling to develop peace and cooperation within and among these communities. To achieve such a positive conception of peace and support thereof by community members, resilience to conflict and the ways in which to deal with it have to be addressed; this is commonly achieved through an integrated peace education approach. Changing attitudes towards conflict and creating a longing for peace requires the development of individual and social skills of community members, offering new ways to deal with conflict and apply peaceful behaviour. Using peace education practices helps individuals and community members to apply the acquired skills in a non-violent manner, avoiding conflict and addressing it in daily life (Ang & Oliver, 2015; Fountain, 1999; UNICEF, 2012). This transformation of knowledge into skills cannot be created by education alone; it also requires an interaction and specific training outside of classrooms, for instance within entertainment programmes. This is where the issue of sport comes into the picture.
Sport for Development and Peace
The SDP sector aims to engage people from disadvantaged communities in physical activities so as to positively influence diverse social outcomes, such as public health, social inclusion, economic development, intercultural exchange, and conflict resolution (Cardenas, 2013; Van Eekeren et al., 2013; Lyras & Welty Peachy, 2011; Schulenkorf & Adair, 2013). Sports-based peacebuilding programmes provide a new way to build positive social connections within and between communities. In the process of building positive social connections they address the first element of peacebuilding this research focusses on, relationship building. The strength of sports-based interventions stems from its often argued universal popularity, its potential to motivate and inspire people and its capacity to break through cultural barriers (Cardenas, 2013). Through its interactive nature and informal character sports are appealing to groups that are otherwise often hard to reach. Engaging these groups is an important part of peacebuilding, in creating an inclusive approach. The targeted groups that can be attracted through sports – for instance, the young, girls, or former soldiers – are crucial for sustainable peace, because they are the future of the community and are still able to change their (future) attitudes. By attracting these groups they can work towards reducing prejudices and rebuilding relationships, allowing for conflict resolution and peacebuilding to emerge within these groups (Giulianotti, 2012). SDP programmes can easily be adapted to local conditions and contexts, in order to connect to the specific needs of local communities. These dimensions of SDP programmes provide opportunities to reach populations at risk, and groups that are necessary to
support the building of bonds and the social outcomes aimed for (Cardenas, 2013; Giulianotti & Armstrong, 2011).
Peace education addresses the second dimension of peacebuilding as identified above, namely skills development. As established meeting grounds, SDP programme sites can become recreational spaces outside of classrooms that provide an interactive environment with the potential to teach the participants skills that support their resilience to conflict and potential for building harmonious relations (Fountain, 1999; Lyras & Welty Peachy, 2011). The programmes involve the development of skills which can be translated into off-field skills impacting participants’ lives to establish the relationships advocated for. The skills that are taught address inter-personal skills such as cooperation among groups or problem solving, as well as individual skills such as coping with emotions and stress and critical and creative thinking. Acquiring these skills provides individuals with tools to change their behaviour and more efficiently address the issues that come their way in everyday life (Lyras & Welty Peachy, 2011). By employing these skills (young) people can become citizens that bring about change and cooperation among antagonistic groups.
The goals achieved through SDP programmes are intermediate goals that fulfil the necessary circumstances for conflict resolution and peacebuilding (Van Eekeren et al., 2013). Achieving progress in the areas described is not the sole issue that needs to be addressed and is in itself thus insufficient to complete the process of peacebuilding. These areas are essential elements for peacebuilding, however, as peacebuilding cannot be established without addressing social processes and social justice.
The numerous organisations involved in this field all use different methods and approaches, engaging different stakeholders and actors; more often than not actors across multiple levels of a community are engaged (Cardenas, 2013; Giulianotti & Armstrong, 2013). A SDP programme might be a separate programme with the sole objective of implementing sports programmes, while it might also be a part of a cooperation of organizations and/or programmes intended to achieve a wide range of social issues for which sport is used as a supplement (Cardenas, 2013; Giulianotti & Armstrong, 2013; Kidd, 2011). Projects are usually conducted at a grassroots or local level, areas where organizations can have the most influence in reaching and attracting people. The core objective of most SDP programmes is to support youth development. This is, however, usually achieved by the training of coaches and organisations. In creating a substantial impact at the local level, cooperation between community-based organizations (CBOs) and (inter)national organizations is required. The extent of integration of the SDP organizations with other parties influences the extent to which peacebuilding may be achieved. Addressing development at multiple levels is often achieved through embedding the development of youth within community organizations; actors within the community support the sustainability of the programmes and the impact they will have in the long term.
Civil Society
As introduced above, cooperation between community-based organizations and local actors is important for conducting programmes and initiating change. The area where these organisations, local actors and community members engage, is often referred to as the civil society. This concept is part of this research, relating to the interaction of local actors and (inter)national organisations. Civil society operates in a diversity of spaces, consists of a range of actors and has strong ties with both the private and the political sphere (Paffenholz & Spurk, 2006; Pouligny, 2005).The main functions of civil society relate to protection, intermediation, participatory socialization, community building,
integration and communication; all, more or less, relate to the two dimensions of local peacebuilding that are central to this research.
The organisations involved in SDP programmes are based in civil society, connecting people and organizations. The organizations address the actions of citizens regarding shared interests in the community, in order to address the behaviour of citizens in conflicts. CBOs invest in change behaviour and in fostering socialization between the participants. SDP organizations support socialization and community building by providing programmes regarding participation activities that are key activities of civil society (Paffenholz & Spurk, 2006). The involvement of international actors for training, education, capacity-building and funding extends the sphere of peacebuilding to international conditions. Through its connection to international organisations there is a greater possibility of connecting global issues to the local level, or, the other way around, connecting local issues to higher levels. This domain is often referred to as the global civil society (Paffenholz & Spurk, 2006). The SDP sector is located within this emerging global civil society by working together with local, as well as (inter)national organizations addressing social issues (Giulianotti, 2011). SDP programmes find their strengths in the power to mobilize and connect people in the community, at the same time building cross-community relations (Cardenas, 2013). The extensive cooperation between international organizations and CBOs is particularly important for maintaining cultural awareness in the programmes and for a successful implementation and impact of these programmes. Involving CBOs is important to ensure that all layers of society are addressed and the impact of SDP programmes can be stretched beyond the young and other directly engaged participants. An inclusive approach to peacebuilding is important for creating structural changes in society as a whole, and for making a safe, secure and sustainable environment (Lyras & Welty Peachy, 2011).
The relationships between civil society, peacebuilding and SDP programmes are important in the context of this thesis. All programmes and organizations included in this research connect an international involvement with local levels and aim to strengthen and foster change within the local community. Integrating national and international actions supports and develops sustainable change within communities and makes the programmes appealing and accessible (Lyras & Welty Peachy, 2011). Empowering local communities gives the opportunity to address the relations and issues of conflicts in the long term, providing the potential to enhance the resilience of the community to divert violent behaviour. Having just short term programmes initiated by international partners makes the attempts less appealing; the impact is diminished, as it is not a programme supported from within the community, which is of course a requirement for a successful programme (Kidd, 2011; sportanddev.org, 2016b).
SDP programmes within the wider field of peacebuilding are thus relevant elements in terms of achieving intermediate outcomes of peacebuilding, in this research most notably relationship building and peace education. It has been argued that these programmes are good facilitators of relationship building and grounds for new educational experiences, in which peacebuilding skills can be taught and developed. The interactive meeting ground that has appealing programmes and activities is a space where otherwise difficult to reach groups are supported and provided with the tools to change their attitudes. On a larger scale, inter-community activities support cross-community peacebuilding. The incorporation of CBOs helps to establish sustainability within the programmes so that they have a lasting effect. In the end the SDP programmes contribute to achieving intermediate goals of peacebuilding (Van Eekeren et al., 2013).
1.4 Ethical Reflections
This research required a rather large amount of work dealing with local organizations, in sometimes difficult and sensitive contexts. These contexts required a careful reflection on questions posed and work conducted in order to maintain academic integrity. Projects are often initiated in environments that are sensitive to provocations of issues related to (former) conflict.
In the framework of this research, I have done an internship at the International Sports Alliance (ISA), an organisation specialising in the use of sports for development objectives and positive youth development. Through this organisation I have been able to collect a lot of data, knowledge and insights about the use and implementation of SDP programmes. Furthermore, my work at ISA has enabled me to get in touch with numerous people and organisations that work in the field of peacebuilding and/or sports. The variety of regions in which ISA and other SDP projects are conducted requires careful consideration of the questions for the various locations in which respondents are approached. Different local contexts implied a need to carefully consider the questions that can and those that cannot be addressed. This might have posed a dilemma for the research, because in order to provide stable and broadly applicable data and conclusions and get outcomes that can be compared, it is necessary to have similar questions. To overcome these problems, interview questions needed to be carefully defined and adjusted in order for the responses to remain comparable.
Because the empirical analysis required information about past and contemporary projects, serious care had to be taken in the way the interviews were organized and questions were formulated. In particular, sensitivity was important during the interviews in which local project leaders might relate to conflict or the distinctions between various groups involved in the SDP programmes.
Initially, the aim of the research was to get inside information from local project leaders, rather than from the participants; also in that case questions should be sensitive to the local situation. Chances of respondents being more nuanced towards the various groups increase as the projects are generally structured around local trainers. Nevertheless, there might still be some unresolved issues in the relationships between various parts of society that are brought together in the SDP programmes; these unresolved issues were an item I had to be aware of. Potential difficulties and the need to change interview questions were identified by speaking with the Dutch programme officers who coordinate the projects and are more aware of local problems.
A final ethical difficulty might have arisen from my work as an intern for ISA. Most of the local partners are directly involved with ISA and receive training and funds from this organization. This relationship between the organization I worked for and the local partners might have resulted in difficulties for respondents to answer the questions in the interview honestly, out of fear for losing (financial) support. This dilemma has been diverted by being as clear as possible about the objectives of this research, which is ultimately to improve the programmes and certainly not to find any reasons to eliminate any of them.
2. Sport for Development and Peace (SDP)
Sport for Development and Peace (SDP) programmes gained a lot of support by the international community throughout the 1990s (Van Eekeren et al., 2013). Most SDP programmes commonly focus on supporting organisations, communities and countries in achieving the United Nations Millennium Development Goals and its successors (Giulianotti & Armstrong, 2011). The recognition of the international community for sports as an effective tool to combat societal problems, such as health issues, economic self-reliance, peaceful coexistence and women empowerment resulted in a variety of programmes using sports to address these issues.
SDP programmes generally aim to engage people from disadvantaged communities in development activities by offering them the possibility to participate in physical activities. It has been argued that engaging people in physical activities positively influences various and diverse social issues, such as physical health, social inclusion, economic development, intercultural exchange and conflict resolution (Cardenas, 2013; van Eekeren et al., 2013; Lyras & Welty Peachy, 2011; Schulenkorf & Adair, 2013). Except for physical health – which can directly be related to participating in sports – the impact SDP programmes may have on social issues is rather indirect. The goals set out to be achieved by SDP programmes are intermediate goals, contributing to a solution of a social issue rather than directly resolving the entire issue. The growing use of sports for social issues is mostly attributed to the appeal of sports as a tool, engaging all groups within a community, increasing the involvement of community members in social problems, resulting in processes of change (Cardenas, 2013; Van Eekeren et al., 2013).
SDP programmes thus commonly work on establishing the necessary circumstances to achieve solutions for larger overarching social issues, such as economic development, gender equality or conflict resolution. As SDP programmes only can contribute under specific circumstances and dimensions to the transformations required to solve social issues, SDP programmes usually need to cooperate with other actors in creating an all-inclusive package to achieve the overarching goals. These actors can be any community actors and international partners relevant to address the issues at hand. The possibilities that sports provide for the community actors to engage and customise is a reason for the support of SDP programmes, and are an essential part for the SDP programmes’ contribution to promoting social change (Sugden, 2013). The capacity to create local support and adapt to local customs makes sports a suitable tool to support local peacebuilding projects.
In the next sections the relationship between SDP programmes and conflict resolution / peacebuilding will be discussed more in-depth. The intermediate goals of SDP programmes and the contributions SDP programmes may have on overarching social issues as peacebuilding will be further explored and discussed. First of all the discussion focusses on peacebuilding in general, followed by a discussion of the dimensions of peacebuilding that encompass SDP programmes, before debating the theoretical contributions of SDP programmes to peacebuilding. The theoretical framework will offer expectations for each of the following sections. The expectations that have been formulated will reflect upon both the expectations of impact that SDP programmes have on peacebuilding, as a reflection on the expected organisation of the SDP programmes by the implementing organisations.
2.1 Peacebuilding
Peacebuilding is used to describe the long-term process and the accompanying activities that are conducted in preventing outbreaks of violent conflict and transforming a community to maintain sustainable peace (Paffenholz & Spurk, 2006). The commonly used terms of ‘negative’ and ‘positive peace’ point at the difference between the absence of physical violence, negative peace; and positive peace, being the absence of structural and cultural violence (Gawerc, 2006; Ramsbotham et al., 2011). The absence of structural and cultural violence in the notion of positive peace indicates the need for social approaches among people, in order to overcome intolerance, create justice and as such positively contribute to the social interaction and dynamics of communities.
The realm of peacebuilding processes is broad and may include anything from Security Sector Reforms, transitional justice, and disarmament to social projects in local contexts. The peacebuilding process is intertwined and nested between the various issues affecting a conflict, as any type of conflict may relate to and root in other sources of conflict. In order to create a change towards peaceful coexistence, it is necessary to address the multiple dimensions and causes of conflict by establishing an integrated and multidimensional peacebuilding approach. (Mac Ginty & Williams, 2009; Ramsbotham et al., 2011)
In the context of local social conflicts the perception of conflicting goals among communities or groups is an important reason for continuation of a violent conflict. Beyond addressing the structure and root causes of a conflict, the intolerance that has been generated by the conflict and that is embedded in the bitter memories of the people need to be addressed (Gawerc, 2006). The memories, negative perceptions and distrust might lead to a continuation of structural and cultural violence, hampering the move towards positive peace. The often ingrained perception of the other as the enemy cannot be forgotten solely by addressing the causes of conflict.
Restructuring the dynamics within a community is a long-term process in peacebuilding, strongly affected by socio-economic and cultural factors. Essential steps in establishing positive peace locate the social dynamics of a conflict in the ‘normalization’ phase of peacebuilding, where the long-term dynamics among the groups are addressed. Conflicts between people are often fuelled by negative perceptions and attitudes of the ‘other’, and vice versa. Intolerance towards the other becomes a leading cause of violence and perpetuation of the conflict. Misperceptions and attitudes towards the other result in structural and cultural violence, and as such need to be addressed in order to overcome the issues causing structural violence (DeMulder et al., 2009). For taking this step, it is important that the people themselves want to achieve peace. In order to address these issues of perceptions and attitudes, people have to find common goals, objectives, ideas; dialogue among the parties should be established (Ramsbotham et al., 2011). Given the objective to change the perceptions, one of the common goals is to work on building relations among (formerly) antagonistic groups, through contact, dialogue and interaction, so as to decrease mistrust, fear and misperceptions.
Another tool to create mutual understanding among antagonistic groups and change attitudes is through introducing peace education for community members in official curricula and through participating in informal activities (Ramsbotham et al., 2011). Peace education helps to develop a community in applying the values of conflict resolution and non-violence in daily practice. In a community engaged in peace education people are more likely to work on relationships and building ‘common ground’ among them (Johnson & Johnson, 2006). Through peace education behaviour of group members can be addressed and changed so as to create long-term effects for peaceful coexistence among communities (Gawerc, 2006).
An important element in changing the dynamics of social conflict is creating an inclusive process for people from all communities in order to change the underlying issues causing structural and cultural violence (Paffenholz & Spurk, 2006). As such a return to peaceful behaviour and cooperation between different communities and groups requires addressing the relationships between them, and engraining new ways of interaction among the parties through peace education. These goals alone will not be the only steps necessary to achieve peaceful coexistence; they are, however, essential intermediate goals that have to be achieved in order to reach the larger overarching objective of peace.
The localized dynamics in conflicts also require the involvement of local actors to embed their voices and views into the peacebuilding process for creating a more viable dynamic of conflict resolution. In terms of peacebuilding approaches multiple ideas have been used; most of them use local organisations and civil society actors in the process. The role and dynamics of local and international actors in a civil society-based approach will be discussed below. The approach of locally organised peacebuilding relates to the theoretical framework, discussing the need for relationship building and peace education strategies. These strategies are fundamentally linked to localised peacebuilding processes, as they require the involvement of large groups of people affected by the conflict (Paffenholz & Spurk, 2006). Furthermore, they help in understanding the context in which many SDP programmes take place.
2.1.1 Civil Society
In order to minimize the amount of structural violence people experience and inflict, the community needs to be involved in resolving issues of structural violence (Agwanda & Harris, 2009). Therefore it is important to embed civil society and grassroots activities into peacebuilding strategies. The programmes at this level of peacebuilding often relate to social projects and the impact of peacebuilding on everyday life. Without local support for peacebuilding activities, attempts to establish peace at a higher level will very likely not be successful as they lack a backbone for implementation (Gawerc, 2006).
In a post-conflict society a structured civil society is often hard to identify. Nevertheless, communities tend to have many community-based organisations (CBOs) and (international) NGOs that try to fill this space (Paffenholz & Spurk, 2006; Pouligny, 2005). A civil society approach, and the involvement of CBOs, is an integral part of new development approaches. In the peacebuilding process, consisting of many small and diverse issues, the CBOs and local stakeholders can address support for peacebuilding and tailor the peacebuilding process to local needs. Their permanent presence in the community supports continuous progress towards a peaceful community (Fisher, 2011; Mac Ginty & Williams, 2009; Ramsbotham et al., 2011).
Within the space of civil society, people and organisations interact on a voluntary basis around shared interests, purposes and values (Merkel & Lauth, 1998, in Pouligny 2005). There are many functions in the realm of civil society – for instance protection, intermediation between state and citizens, participatory socialization, community building, integration and communication – and several of these functions overlap with the objectives of peacebuilding. In regards of social peacebuilding processes civil society can have the most impact in topics of socialization, communication and integration of the community (Gawerc, 2006; Paffenholz & Spurk, 2006).
Even though locally rooted approaches are extremely important in changing the social dynamics of a conflict, the issues they attempt to change remain related to the broader process of peacebuilding (Ramsbotham et al., 2011). Within the realm of civil society and peacebuilding, this leaves a space for
international organisations to connect the local peacebuilding activities to the broader social processes. International organisations tend to take a place to interact with local organisations and fulfil several functions of the civil society. As such, they try to connect the issues addressed at a local level to the approaches for peacebuilding initiated at regional, national or international levels. The involvement of international actors can strengthen the agenda and support for peace within the community, region or state. The combination of skills and connections of local and international organisations empower them to make changes within the community (Pouligny, 2005)
Beyond creating an agenda for peace and a community ready to support the changes, international organisations, in cooperation with local communities, might be able to overcome the inertia created by governments, or the lack of government control of a situation that prohibits change (Asadulla & Chaudhury, 2013). In other words, collaboration between local, international and/or regional partners may offer opportunities to create a viable movement for peace, able to overcome the roadblocks individual actors may encounter in their attempts to build peace.
Sports as a tool for peacebuilding in local communities is thus particularly relevant for addressing the social dynamics among groups. SDP programmes (in)directly relate to two major objectives of peacebuilding, being relationship building and peace education. In the context of peacebuilding the issues of relationship building and peace education are strongly intertwined, given the need for stable social constructions within and between communities (Ang & Oliver, 2015). In the following sections the theoretical impact and needs for relationship building and peace education will be addressed. Based on the theoretical notions several hypotheses regarding these themes have been formulated.
2.1.1.1 Expectations
The above theoretical overview indicates the need for the involvement of local actors to create a sustainable peacebuilding process. Their rootedness in local cultures and traditions makes them an essential party to be involved and connect the peacebuilding processes to the needs of the community. Their connection and involvement with international actors can strengthen the peacebuilding process in a variety of ways. The theoretical overview above has led to the following expectations for the role of civil society in sports-oriented local peacebuilding practices:
- Local actors are essential in the local peacebuilding process in order to provide acceptance of changes and support others in transition.
- Interaction between international and local actors improves the impact of the programmes. - Young people in particular are targeted in locally organised peacebuilding activities.
2.1.2 Relationship building
Relationships between groups and individuals are often a core issue for sustaining peace or conflicts (Ramsbotham et al., 2011). The perceptions of oneself and the ‘in-group’ in relation to the ‘other’ and the ‘out-group’ influence behaviour and the attitudes of peace or conflict between them (Maoz, 2000). In overcoming the dynamics of conflict, perceptions people and groups have of each other are central. Relationships based on fear, mistrust and hatred form immense obstacles to peacebuilding among communities. For improving the relationships and socialisation among people an initial step is using a locally rooted approach for cooperation with actors already involved in relations within and between communities (Mac Ginty & Williams, 2009). Starting from a locally-based approach allows the establishment of an inclusive approach that can appeal to the wider community (Gawerc, 2006).
Attitudes and perceptions about the people within and also beyond one’s own group are ingrained within the group, enforcing their societal thinking about everyday issues within and among groups (Agwanda & Harris, 2009). These perceptions about the ‘other’ might result in prejudices, intolerance and fear, thereby constituting an important cause of conflict and (recurring) hostilities. (Gawerc, 2006; Ramsbotham et al., 2011). Perceptions within groups about the self and the other limit the number of connections people have with others, making them less likely to change their beliefs, while increasing the cleavages between groups. For building relationships it is important to build ties across cleavages, for people to find mutuality among the groups.
Creating a sense of belonging is important for an individual, this supports the feeling of security, which is why relations within a group are also important. If there is no change in attitudes within groups, it will most likely not result in a change in the attitude of individuals, as that would imply losing one’s group belonging (Schulenkorf et al., 2011). Furthermore, it is difficult to change individual beliefs when the in-group keeps enforcing a different strand of communal thinking about the other. If a group does not open up to conflict resolution and learning about the ‘out-group’, individuals will be less likely to do so, which makes it harder for contact between groups to have a positive or transformative influence.
In particular groups that are often side-lined in the peacebuilding process, such as young boys and girls, women or former soldiers, need to be involved, since they strongly influence the group dynamics and support for peace (or conflict) in the longer run (Haudenhuyse, 2012). These more marginalized groups in peacebuilding processes are often incremental for the future, given their life expectancy. Involving them in a process that might lead to better relationships is essential for a sustainable change of beliefs.
In order to reduce the prejudices that can be so limiting for peacebuilding processes, it has rightly been argued that facilitating interaction among the various groups is of significant value. Intergroup contact helps people in breaking down barriers and facilitates the process of peacebuilding (Lyras & Welty Peachey, 2011). Initial steps in building ties among groups is finding commonalities at informal levels, and building knowledge and acquaintances among the members (Gawerc, 2006). Engagement at an informal level establishes opportunities for looking beyond the issues of fear and mistrust.
2.1.3.1 Contact Theory
The so-called Contact theory has brought about rather extensive insight in the effects of contact and interaction on the relationships between antagonistic groups. Contact theory argues that, under certain conditions, contact between antagonistic groups can reduce prejudices among groups. Contact and dialogue between groups create a process where the groups involved can deal with disagreements among them in a non-violent manner (Maoz, 2000). Establishing and supporting contact among group members helps in changing perceptions, prejudices and attitudes concerning the ‘other’, which are, as discussed above, often at the basis of perpetuating a conflict between groups.
Conditions that have to be met for the criteria derived from the Contact theory in order to have an effect, have originally been formulated by Allport. According to him positive effects of intergroup contact only occur in situations that satisfy the following four key conditions (Allport, 1954, as cited in Pettigrew, 1998:66-67):
1. Equal status: all groups involved in intergroup contact expect and perceive equal status among them;
2. Common goals: in order to reduce prejudice through contact, participants strive for similar outcomes;
3. Intergroup cooperation: the participants must have and establish interdependent efforts to reach their goals, without any in-group competition;
4. Support of authorities, law and customs: this final condition relates to the context of the contact authorities and regulations in a group make, in creating the acceptance of contact. Whereas initial contact between groups has shown to provide positive effects, living up to the above-mentioned conditions further supports the possibility of increasing positive effects. In addition to these conditions for initial contact among groups, there are several other variables of contact that can strengthen the positive effects. First of all, the positive effect can be increased by providing contact in repetitive ways and intensifying the engagement during contact (Ata et al., 2009; Pettigrew, 1998). Furthermore, establishing friendship potential among group members reduces the negative feelings of prejudice, anxiety and mistrust, while at the same time increasing feelings of empathy (Pettigrew et al., 2011). These variables indicate that not only contact in itself is beneficial, but also that the intention and quality of the contact might strengthen (or weaken) the effects of contact. Friendship potential is another identified condition for contact theory. This condition can be very important for in-group dynamics, in that it not only addresses the perception of the other but can also change the perception and dynamics of the in-group, thereby influencing individuals’ behaviour (Pettigrew et al., 2011; Ata et al., 2009).
Deeply engrained divisions among groups remain difficult to overcome, even if optimal conditions for contact have been fulfilled, as the underlying issues of the divisions are too large to be bridged. In cases where the divisions turn out to be too large, other powerful variables might still be at play, or previous steps in the peacebuilding process have to be fulfilled first. In these situations the social norms of groups are important variables that affect the possibilities for success or failure of contact (Ata et al., 2009; Erasmus, 2010). For positive relations to last, contact needs to be repetitive, as positive relations and ideas as such are not only important to solve the conflict, but continuing contact among groups is essential in maintaining peaceful coexistence (Pettigrew et al., 2011). Relationship building among groups can be supported by creating contacts between groups. Relationships have to be based on neutral or positive conceptions of the other, rather than relationships based on feelings of hatred and fear. In this sense Contact theory gives a background for the further study of SDP activities, as it provides a framework regarding contact and interaction facilitated by SDP activities.
2.1.4 The contribution of SDP to relationship building
The following step is to discuss the literature on how SDP can contribute to relationship building, and in changing relations, perceptions and opinions about ‘in’- and ‘out’-groups. Contact theory as described above will help to contextualise the assumed contributions of relationship building.
First and foremost, sports are commonly perceived as an appealing activity for large parts of a community, that easily attracts (young) people in engaging in activities such as peacebuilding that they normally would not be involved in (Cardenas, 2013; Giulianotti & Armstrong, 2011). The appeal of sports opens doors for hard to reach groups to connect and interact with others in and beyond their own community. Sports activities allow people to meet, whereas otherwise these encounters would not take place (Van Eekeren et al., 2013; Giulianotti, 2012). In short, the appeal of sports offers relationship building potential.
In addition to engaging people, it has been argued that sports promote positive intergroup contact through a focus on informal activities that require interaction among the participants (Welty Peachey et al., 2015). The first way for SDP programmes to supporting a reduction of prejudices is through providing learning environments about the out-group. The activities imply common goals for the participating groups and all team members are, at least theoretically, of equal importance to the game. The interactive nature of games intrinsically requires the cooperation of all participants (Cardenas, 2013).
The second way is through the enhancement of empathy for the out-group (Lyras, 2012a, 2012b, in Welty Peachey et al., 2015). Scholars commonly argue that sport goes beyond facilitating the initial levels of contact, thereby fulfilling most of Allport’s conditions, by having an interactive nature. The interactive nature of team sports requires the participants to cooperate and connect with one another in order to be able to play; after all, one cannot be a team on one’s own (Van Eekeren et al., 2013; Giulianotti, 2011; Cardenas, 2013; Sugden, 2006). The interactive nature of sports is an intrinsic element of many sports activities and as such provides a natural, accessible way for young people to get into contact. Through the interaction participants in SDP activities gain a better understanding about the out-group (Lyras, 2012a, 2012b, in Welty Peachey et al., 2015).
The third way in supporting a reduction of prejudices is by reducing anxiety about the out-group. The accessible nature of sports creates a form of engagement that is likely to limit feelings of fear and intolerance, given the informal nature of the activity (Lyras, 2012a, 2012b, in Welty Peachey et al., 2015; Skinner et al., 2008). Participants are more free from constraints of the community when sports fields are established as spaces that do not distinguish on characteristics of race, conflict, religion. The diminishment of the prominence of these dividing factors in a space such as a sports field provides opportunities to change perceptions, prejudices and feelings (Welty Peachey et al., 2015). Through contact in sports activities, in line with the conditions of the Contact theory, sports activities contribute to changing the perception about other groups and as such support the building of relationships.
By engaging in a so-called sports plus approach, issues at play in a community can easily be incorporated in the sports activity. This creates a space where an activity is organised that is inclusive and contributes to peacebuilding by connecting the activities to dialogue and reflection (Coalter, 2010; Giulianotti, 2011). Through a connection with cultural elements and education, SDP programmes can lead to cross-cultural acceptance and collaboration among the participants (Lyras & Welty Peachey, 2011). It allows actors to engage in a community at all levels, and to organise supportive activities to strengthen the impact of the activities, while engaging both in-groups and out-groups to change the perception about the other (Maoz, 2000; Welty Peachey et al., 2015). Awareness of local structures, by placing the activities right in the centre of a community, strengthens the dedication of the community to a project. Involving the community is essential for creating a sense of necessity and inclusiveness with the local actors and to change the dynamics of the conflict and the nature of the relationships (Bar-Tal, 2000; Haudenhuyse et al., 2012). Local coaches have a leading role in the implementation of peacebuilding practices through sports as they have a position of authority and a connection to other community actors.
2.1.4.1 Expectations
Sports can thus provide positive contact moments; through interaction sport can contribute to changing prejudices and attitudes. These elements have regularly returned as indications that SDP programmes foster positive changes in attitudes about the out-group (Litvak-Hirsch et al., 2016).
Based on the opportunity sports provide for creating impactful contact among participants, the following expectations regarding the use of sport for peacebuilding are formulated:
- Sports are used by development organisations to improve the relationships among antagonistic groups or communities.
- Sports activities actively try to change perceptions about the other through contact. - Sports positively impact the relationships among antagonistic groups and communities.
2.1.5 Peace education
To move beyond just the relationships within a group, a community needs to have more than inclusive and engaging, positive relations within it, or even among groups. For a real move towards sustainable peace, the local community needs to be supportive of the conditions, but also willing to create these conditions for peace within its group (Bar-Tal, 2000). To create the conditions for peaceful behaviour and act upon the positive relations that can be established, the behaviour of participants and communities needs to be addressed in order to establish long-term effects (Gawerc, 2006). Beyond creating positive interaction among the groups, this implies that groups need to see mutual goals and objectives, which requires mutual cooperation. Changing the behaviour is more than changing behaviour towards the other group, it also needs a change in behaviour towards conditions of peace and conflict. In order to maintain positive intergroup relations and define and achieve mutual goals, peace education is essential for a community. To achieve positive outcomes, interaction needs to be based on consensual acting. Peace education is a method to achieve an institutionalisation of these consensual and cooperative actions. Peace education works on embedding the core values of conflict resolution and non-violence in the behaviour of individuals and communities (Ramsbotham et al., 2011). By addressing the behaviour, peace education contributes to the peace process by bringing mutual goals and cooperation among antagonistic groups within reach (Bar-Tal, 2000; UNICEF, 2012).
Education in general is an important and key strategy in conflict resolution and peacebuilding and it can contribute to the quest for peace and justice (DeMulder et al., 2009). Education can provide new opportunities for young people to move beyond the implications and use of conflict and violence in daily lives. Furthermore, education is important in areas where individuals with different backgrounds interact, because it requires the knowledge and capacity of individuals to understand each other and reach their goals. For this step the development of life-skills is important, which goes beyond regular knowledge-based education. Peace education addresses the development of individual and social life-skills that allow the members of a community, and a community as a whole, to deal with problems and conflict in a more harmonious manner (Ramsbotham et al., 2011). The emphasis on life-skills provides the community with tools and strategies for changing one’s behaviour, as well as tools to deal with issues in everyday life situations (Welty Peachey et al., 2015). The skills are required in intractive settings, and as such cannot be learned from books alone, the development of life-skills requires interactive activities (Fountain, 1999).
UNICEF has developed a list of valuable skills for young people so they can thrive in life. For each of the main areas – HIV prevention, health promotion, human rights, social issues, prevention of violence and peacebuilding, sustainable development – it has also listed the relevant skills in these contexts. The following table contains a reflection on the life-skills and their use in the area of peacebuilding and violence prevention (UNICEF, 2012).
