Taking Children’s Voices in Disaster Risk Reduction a Step Forward

Both flood and drought disasters affect large parts of southern Africa (Zavis 2004; UNOCHA 2007; UN 2007). Although droughts are common in the region, the current decade has seen floods of unprecedented magnitude in Zimbabwe, which have resulted in devastating socioeconomic impacts. Floods have claimed numerous lives and have caused significant property damage. For example, in 2000 cyclone-induced floods claimed 700 lives, left more than 500,000 people homeless, and caused USD 1 billion in infrastructural damage in Zimbabwe and Mozambique (Wamukonya and Rukato 2001). In such cases, because of their unique physiological, psychological, and developmental attributes, children tend to suffer disproportionately when disasters harm the physical spaces where they live, learn, and play (Peek 2008).

The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR 2004) defines vulnerability as a set of conditions and processes resulting from physical, social, environmental, and economic factors that increase the susceptibility of children towards the impacts of hazards. Simply stated, vulnerability means the potential for loss. Thus children have the capacity to be wounded (Turner II et al. 2003; Füssel 2007) because of their age and developmental attributes. Children’s vulnerabilities (Table 1) can therefore be classified into psychological, physical, and educational (Peek 2008).

Whilst children can be physically vulnerable to flood disasters their vulnerability includes psychological factors that can be influenced by loss of family members, material loss, exposure to disaster, low levels of social support, and displacement. Involvement or threat of disasters can interfere with their daily living, particularly through children’s reaction that can cause significant distress (La Greca et al. 2002). Children are more likely to be killed or injured than adults, and are generally more susceptible to health disorders, diseases, and malnutrition (Lawler and Patel 2012) because of poor diet, age, and unsafe environments. Floods may force children to miss or drop out of school as a result of destruction of schools or to help families recover from events (Babugura 2008; Baez et al. 2010; Lawler and Patel 2012). Girls are said to account for the majority of children taken out of school (Babugura 2008) suggesting the impact of disasters differs across genders of children.

Knowledge of children’s vulnerability helps in trying to build theories and models that explain human experiences in disasters (Anderson 2005) because, without a sustained focus on children, their special needs may be neglected (Peek 2008). Research that addresses the vulnerabilities of children during disasters in Zimbabwe is also very limited. Literature is limited to children’s vulnerabilities in terms of food security and malnutrition (Schipper 2006; Skinner 2006; UNICEF 2007a, 2007b; Wolff 2007), ignoring other needs, such as protection from abuse and harm, education, and the right to participate in matters that affect their lives, health, and well-being (Jabry 2005; Babugura 2008).

Children can contribute to personal and community resilience (Southasiadisaster.net 2014). Despite the risks, children frequently demonstrate resilience in the face of extreme adversity (Jones 2008; Lopez et al. 2012). Their vulnerability can be reduced and resilience enhanced when they have access to resources and information, are encouraged to participate in disaster preparedness and response activities, and can access personal and communal support (Peek 2008). Children have the capacity to communicate effectively to the wider community and their involvement in DRR would ensure their safety (Plan International 2010). Given the chance to participate in DRR, they can contribute greatly before, during, and after disaster events (Table 2).

Reviews of children’s participation in DRR have shown that they yield positive outcomes (Lopez et al. 2012). Back et al. (2009) carried out a study in Mozambique and found that children have developed a greater knowledge of risks and how to minimize it through their participation in DRR activities. A similar study by Nikku et al. (2006) showed that through incorporation of children’s participation in disaster preparedness, rescue, rehabilitation, and relief phases, a community’s ownership and sustainability of DRR programs can be enhanced. In the Philippines children worked together with adults to restore degraded mangrove ecosystems, resulting in livelihood gains, protection of spawning grounds for fisheries, biodiversity gains, disaster protection from typhoon winds and storm surges, adaptation to climate change impacts, and the removal of atmospheric greenhouse gases that cause climate change (Tanner et al. 2009). In another report, children used their risk mapping and vulnerability assessments to persuade school officials and community planners to relocate their school, previously situated in a high-risk landslide zone, to a safer area (UNICEF 2011). Save the Children (2002) also reported that children have been involved in community-based management of water resources in the Zambezi Valley of Zimbabwe. The research by Save the Children indicated that when children are recognized as active participants in DRR activities they can strengthen community resilience. But in spite of children taking on adult responsibilities and becoming involved in some DRR activities, they are rarely consulted in the design of disaster management policies and programs (Manyena et al. 2008; Nikku 2012).

Children’s participation is also in line with the international commitments towards child rights such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (UN 1989) and the Declaration of the Rights of the Child (DRC) (UNHCHR 1959). The right of children to participate in DRR is embedded in the UNCRC of 1989. The UNCRC focuses on protection, provision, and participation. Protection and provision are addressed by legislation, but participation as stated in Article 12 of the UNCRC is often forgotten (Sarkar and Mendoza 2005). A participatory role is less supported (Archard 1993) than the engagement of older demographic cohorts because the role of children is understood differently among countries (Lister 2007). Active involvement with children is least developed and most questioned because of its ability to undermine adult authority (Lundy 2007). Article 12 (UN 1989, p. 4) states that “State parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.” Article 12 thus allows considerable scope for interpretation of when children, individually and collectively, possess sufficiently mature capabilities to interact productively with adults.

Mitchell et al. (2008) state that current research views children as passive victims with no role to play in communicating risks, participating in decision-making processes, or preventing disasters. There seems to be no model that singles out the potential role of children as resources in DRR (Twigg 2004; Ronan and Johnston 2005). Participation rights in DRR can be viewed as aspirational and not yet fully realized (Alderson 2008). Of even more concern is the lack of empirical evidence to support involvement of children in Zimbabwe. Thus, children’s capacities to communicate risks and take direct action to reduce risks have been neglected (Haynes and Tanner 2013).

Recognition of a strong argument for the need to involve children in DRR has gained momentum following the adoption of the UNCRC (UN 1989) in which governments agreed to ensure that all stakeholders understand their duties in relation to upholding children’s rights (Welty and Lundy 2013). There is a lack of children involvement, and evidence to support it, in spite of the presence of these guidelines. Many countries view children’s participation rights as aspirational and not yet fully realized (Alderson 2008) and are struggling to integrate the idea in practice, creating a gap between the rhetoric and the reality. In trying to close the gap, Lundy (2007) developed a Voice Model as a new way to conceptualize Article 12 of UNCRC. According to Lundy (2007, p. 933) the Voice Model focuses on (1) Space: given the opportunity to express a view; (2) Voice: facilitated to express their views; (3) Audience: listened to; and (4) Influence: point of view acted upon.

For children to express their views freely, the model suggests the need to create an opportunity for children to be involved (space) and ensure that they are helped to express their views (voice) (Welty and Lundy 2013). In this article, we consider specifically a child’s right to express a view, which is the first step in conceptualizing Article 12. Figure 1 illustrates how we have adapted this model to analyze the ways in which children’s voices can be heard in DRR. The model shows the relationship between (1) space and voice, and (2) audience and influence. The first stage is to ensure that children have a right to express their views and then have the views given due weight (Lundy 2007).

The use of this model in this article is appropriate for several reasons. The model clearly shows how children’s voices can be facilitated in all issues that affect their lives. It also shows the link of Article 12 with other relevant articles in the realization of a child’s right to participate. These understandings are important in assessing whether or not children’s voices are being heard and suggest ways of ensuring that children’s views are considered in DRR. The model proposes ways in which children’s views can be heard, which is the main focus of this study.

Zimbabwe is a disaster-prone country suffering particularly from the devastating effects of droughts, floods, veld fires, epidemics such as cholera and malaria, and the HIV/AIDS pandemic (Table 3). Muzarabani is one of the most vulnerable areas exposed to these hazards. The term “Muzarabani” is a local name that means floodplain or an area that is frequently flooded. The area suffers from disasters triggered by weather-related hazards such as droughts and floods and epidemics such as cholera and malaria. Although year-to-year droughts have been experienced especially in the last decade, the current decade has seen floods of unprecedented magnitudes. Perennial flooding is the leading cause of losses from natural hazards and is responsible for a greater number of damaging events in Muzarabani. Changes in environmental conditions (precipitation, changes in a river’s course) have worsened the situation in the area.

Although Muzarabani receives infrequent heavy rainfall, it is also subject to seasonal droughts. Droughts are becoming more frequent and the dependence on natural resources and rain-fed agriculture makes the area highly vulnerable to the erratic rainfall. These climate extremes (floods and droughts) contribute to outbreak of cholera and malaria through increased breeding sites and high temperatures (malaria) and contamination of safe water (cholera). Cross-border trading due to food insecurity ensures the wider spread of disease and contaminated food between Zimbabwe and Mozambique.

Floods in Muzarabani are often associated with other hazards such as cholera, diarrhoea, food insecurity, and malaria. Malaria and diarrhoeal disease outbreaks affected over 1000 families during the 2007 flood event (ZRCS 2007, 2008a, 2008b). Susceptibility is increased through socioeconomic impoverishment caused by the environmental extremes. Cyclone-induced floods in 2000 claimed the lives of 700 people and left more than 500,000 people homeless and caused over USD 1 billion of infrastructural damage in Zimbabwe and Mozambique (Wamukonya and Rukato 2001). Shumba (2000) reported that the 2000 flood event claimed more than 100 lives, left more than 300,000 homeless and more than 70,000 hectares of agricultural land and thousands of tons of stored food were destroyed. The Nzou-Mvunda and the two Hoya bridges (upstream and downstream) were washed away as a result of the 2007 flood event (UNOCHA 2007). To access schools, clinics, and other services, with the help of community leaders and World Vision Zimbabwe using local resources, the community constructed a footbridge (Fig. 2) to link the schools and the health center with the community, to help children cross to schools in case of a flood.

The extreme climatic conditions (floods and droughts) create a fragile economy characterized by hunger and famine. Most farming activities in Muzarabani are located along river banks and on adjoining floodplains. The community has preferred to take the risk of farming in the flood zone to improve food security, but this location makes farmers more vulnerable to flood disasters. The community view flood disasters as an advantage because they tend to attract donors. During every disaster period, nongovernmental organizations assist local farm communities with basic food items, clothing, and blankets. Development projects were also initiated so that communities can recover from flood impacts. This has also created such a donor syndrome in the community that some people do not want to be relocated because they expect to benefit from donor aid when the next flood occurs. Apart from attracting donors, floods bring fertile soils suitable for maize production. Households grow food crops on the floodplain during the dry season based on the residual soil moisture from flooding (locally known as mudzedze). Mudzedze land is said to provide yields that are two to three times greater than the yields from their large scale farms. But floodplain cultivation has the disadvantage of contributing to heavy siltation of rivers and dams downstream, and leads to increased flooding downstream.

Most households reside along river banks so that they can benefit from fertile soils after a flood event as well as for easy access to water sources. Generally people who are poor live in traditional circular huts made of pole and roofed with thatch, and few people live in modern homes. Literacy levels are low, with high rates of school dropout and absenteeism. Children must cross rivers to school where bridges were destroyed and never repaired after Cyclone Eline in 2000. Children provide significant household labor in the area and are viewed as economic assets. Some children are also employed outside their home as domestic help and shepherds by the time they become 14 years old. These extramural workers usually receive very low salaries for this work (USD 25 per month). Most girls receive only a primary level education, and this contributes to early marriages in the area and low literacy levels.

This article provides insight into the role of children in DRR in Muzarabani in northeast Zimbabwe (Fig. 3). It explicitly explores the challenges faced by children in the event of a disaster. The intention of the study is to use a qualitative research approach to explore the implications of building community resilience through the incorporation of youth into the DRR process.

Semistructured interviews, focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and participant observations were used to assess the effects of disasters upon children as well as the involvement and contribution of children in DRR activities. School-based research was conducted in three primary schools and one secondary school in Chadereka Ward in Muzarabani. This approach was selected because it provides a good representative sample of children of various ages. The sample respondents comprised of 40 school children in Muzarabani in three age bands: 8–11; 12–15; and 16–18 years (Table 4). The 0–7 age group was left out because early primary school students were too young to answer some of the questions. Semistructured interviews were conducted with children from the four schools in the study area (Fig. 3).

Studies that involve children require ethical approval in order to protect their rights and privacy and minimize potential risks (Denzin and Lincoln 2005). As a result all ethical issues surrounding children respondents were observed. Before the start of the project the researchers explained the purpose of the study. The research aim and objectives were clearly explained to all the participants. Children were asked for their consent orally. Consent was also sought from the children’s parents and guardians. Children were given the consent forms that they gave to their parents to sign. Signed consent forms were collected before the interviews. Since this was a school-based research, permission was also sought from the headmasters of all the schools involved, Councillor, and Chief. The District Education Officer was informed about the project. Children were told that there were no wrong or right answers but they were supposed to give their views and opinions about the topic. The research procedures were clearly communicated to children and their concerns were also listened to. All participants were advised of their rights to withdraw or refuse to participate in the research at any stage. Anonymity and confidentiality were assured to all participants within the limits of the law. To minimize adult influence all the interviews were carried out at the schools but away from the teachers. This was a school-based research therefore all semistructured interviews and focus group discussions took place at the two schools. The main aim of the study was for children to describe their perceptions and experiences of disasters. They were also asked to rank the disasters that affect them. Questions on the effects of disasters and children’s roles were asked during the interviews. Children were also asked to describe their role in the community and in DRR activities. Each individual interview took an average of 45 min.

A total of 10 key informant interviews were performed: 2 with school administrators (the headmasters of a primary and a secondary school); 2 with parents; 2 involved officers of nongovernmental organizations; and one each with a ward councillor, a chief, a nursing sister employed by the Ministry of Health, and a district administrator. The two parents who were interviewed were the chairpersons of the school development committee (SDC), one from the secondary school and the other from the primary school. These parents were chosen as key informants because they represent school children in the communities and parents at school. Key informant interviews were used to describe the ways in which children are involved in DRR activities from an informed point of view. Questions like: “Whenever you have DRR meetings do you include children representatives;” “Do you discuss disaster issues with children;” “Do you consider children’s views in planning any DRR activities” were asked by the interviewer. The interviews also described the role of children in their local society. Interviews with key informants were held at places convenient to each interviewee, and each interview took about 45 min.

A focus group discussion (8–10 students) was accomplished in each of the four schools. School A had 9 participants (4 girls and 5 boys) with an average age of 12.7. One girl who participated in the interview did not turn up for the discussion. School B had 8 participants with average age of 12.5 and gender balance. Two of the children who participated in the interviews were absent from school during the focus group discussion. School C had 8 participants (4 boys and 4 girls) with average age of 13.1 and 2 interviewees refused to participate in the focus group discussions. School D was a secondary school and had 10 participants (5 boys and 5 girls) with average age of 16.8. The issue of separating the children by gender was not considered since all were mixed schools. The focus group discussions were held at each school where it was easy to gather children of different age groups and gender. Focus group discussions allowed the researcher to collect information from children drawn from different areas. It also allowed children to speak out without the influence of parents, since most of the issues addressed parental decisions on children’s involvement in DRR. The local Shona language was used since the interviewers were very fluent in it.

Interviews explored the effects of disasters, the role of children, and the level at which local children are involved in risk reduction. Focus group interviews explored children’s perception of risk and the impact of disasters. Children discussed the questions, helping each other with the answers. At times they reminded each other about details. Children also managed to ask each other additional questions, which were recorded to provide supplemental data. Focus group discussions are good venues for children because they are more relaxed with friends and not isolated one-on-one with an adult researcher (Eder and Fingerson 2003; Einarsdóttir 2007). The interview questions were semistructured to resemble conversations rather than interviews per se. The discussions were carried out over a period of 1 h.

Permission was sought from the head teachers of all the four schools, the ward councillor, and class teachers. The district education officer was informed about the project. Consent was also sought from children and their parents, and the research was explained to the children. It was emphasized that there were no wrong or right answers, but rather it was stressed that children were expected to give their views and opinions about a topic. The research procedures were clearly communicated to children and their concerns were also respected.

Fieldwork was undertaken between 2011 and 2013 and assessed the impacts of disasters and involvement of children in DRR activities. The following questions were addressed by the study: (1) what are the effects of disasters on the lives of children? (2) what is the role of children in DRR activities? and (3) are children’s views taken into consideration in DRR planning?

Research team members took notes during the individual interviews with other two note takers specifically designated for the focus group discussions. All these notes were later transcribed, representing the participants’ own words and the interviewer’s descriptions and observations of the situation in the study area. The quotations in this paper are therefore translations from Shona into English with minimal distortions because the lead author is a native Shona speaker.

The article identifies children’s disaster experiences, their potential roles, and how they are involved in DRR. This section presents an overview of children’s experiences and vulnerabilities together with a summary of the way they are involved in DRR activities in Muzarabani, Zimbabwe.