/var/lib/tomcat6/webapps/pdnadmin/data/documents/3105

Summary

Disaster management has been dominated by top-down relief efforts targeted

at adults, who are assumed to be attuned to the needs of their families and the

wider community, and to act harmoniously to protect their immediate and long-

term interests. Whilst a growing number of development approaches focus on

reducing the risk of disasters, they tend to treat children as passive victims with

a limited role to play in communicating risks or preventing and responding to

disasters.
This paper challenges these assumptions by examining how children’s voices are

represented and heard in disaster risk reduction (DRR) policy and decision-making

spaces, and by assessing the level of capacity children have for preventing

disasters vis-à-vis their parents. This challenge and the research presented

here are prompted by the anecdotal field reports provided by child-focused

development agencies, which suggest that children in developing countries are

making significant contributions to minimising disaster risks.
Through this lens, the paper explores three linked areas of enquiry that help to

frame the emerging ‘child-centred approach to DRR’. First, it considers a history

of youth empowerment through children’s active participation in decision-making

forums. Second, it looks at whether the international human rights architecture

provides for a child’s right to protection from disasters; and third, it asks whether

children can be effective as communicators of risk within their own households

and communities.
These three elements contextualise the results of field research in El Salvador

and the Philippines, which explored what opportunities exist for the voices of

children and their groups to be heard within local and national DRR policy

spaces and the experiences and capacity they have for doing so. The concluding

section considers why children may be suited to the role as DRR advocates and

as communicators of disaster risk, and indeed, whether this is desirable, before

raising a number of further questions emerging from this research.

Acknowledgements

This paper is an output of the Institute of Development Studies and Plan

International research project ‘Children’s voices in disaster risk reduction policy

spaces’, managed by Dr. Tom Mitchell and Dr. Nick Hall. Sincere thanks to

Nick Hall for his continued guidance and support and to other Plan staff,

particularly Kelly Hawrylyshyn, Baltz Tribunalo and Mercedes Garcia for their

help in enabling the research to take place. Thanks to Elsie Loh, Katie Oven, Wei

Choong, Mauricio Gaborit and Emmanuel Luna for contributing to the production

of this paper, and to the Centre for Disaster Preparedness and UC Jose Simeon

Canas more generally for their help and support in the field. Further comments

are welcome, and can be sent to Dr. Tom Mitchell,

t.mitchell@ids.ac.uk

Children in a Changing Climate – research
Institute of Development Studies
Brighton

Children as agents for change for Disaster Risk Reduction:

Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines

Mainstream approaches and theoretical debates in disaster management tend

to ignore the role of children and young people as communicators of risk and

as facilitators of disaster risk reduction (DRR). Instead, disaster management is

dominated by top-down relief efforts targeted at adults, who are assumed to

be attuned to the needs of their families and the wider community and to act

harmoniously to protect their immediate and long-term interests. At the same time,

disaster events and their severity in terms of human well-being are increasing

internationally. In many areas, the impacts of climate change are adding to

existing shocks and stresses and presenting new risks in others, while

widespread poverty and inequality, particularly in developing countries,

reinforces vulnerability and exacerbates impacts (e.g. White et al., 00).
With this rising tide of disaster events, disproportionate numbers of women and

children are being killed (Enarson and Morrow 1998; Cutter 199; Fordham

1999), exemplified by the 00 Indian Ocean Tsunami where only one in three

survivors were women or children under the age of 1 (Synthesis Report of the

Tsunami Evaluation Coalition 006). Between 1991 and 000, the lives of an

estimated million children were affected by disasters and conflict (Plan UK

00). However, while gender issues in disasters have enjoyed a higher profile

in recent years (Enarson and Morrow 1998; Fothergill 1996; Fordham 1998;

00), current research tends to assume children are passive victims with no role

to play in communicating risks, participating in decision-making processes, or

preventing disasters (Ansell 00). None of the more recent theoretical models

of risk communication (Ronan and Johnston 00) or guidelines for good risk

communication practice (Twigg 00) single out the unique needs and potential

role of children as advocates or agents of DRR. This is despite the fact that almost

all models and guidelines detail the heterogeneous nature of those at risk and the

wider socio-economic and cultural differences in the process and delivery of DRR.
Many practitioners have considered the merits of communicating and educating

children about the risks of natural hazards to support disaster preparedness (for a

summary see Wisner 006), but only a small minority have evaluated the benefits

of teaching children about disasters for the benefit of the family and wider

community (see Ronan and Johnston 00). The ability of the children to act to

reduce their vulnerabilities and risk of disasters has been largely ignored outside

of the development field. The vast majority of the literature on the role of children

in disasters is devoted to the psychosocial impacts they endure (Norris et al.

00; Ursano and Norwood 00) and this has commonly focused on younger

children, rather than older children and youth (Chen and Thompstone 00).
Despite positive, yet unpublished, anecdotal evidence from child-centred DRR

approaches being pursued by development agencies such as Plan International,

UNICEF and Save the Children, analytical research on the capacity of children to

reduce the impact of disasters is missing. In many developing countries, children

form the bulk of the population and a high proportion of the death tolls in a

disaster (Wisner 006). Excluding children from the disaster planning process

threatens their safety when the disaster strikes and ignores a valuable resource for

risk communication, education, advocacy, and help with practical risk reduction

1.0

Introduction

Children as agents for change for Disaster Risk Reduction:

Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines

activities. Experience of working with youth volunteer teams in El Salvador,

Haiti and the Philippines on community risk mapping and mitigation activities,

has shown that children and young people have a much greater capacity to

participate in DRR than many people assume (Plan UK 00).
This paper and the research on which it is based, represents a preliminary

attempt to critically analyse child-centred DRR, to present the related empirical

findings in a systematic way and to provide a set of debates, which contribute

to developing a conceptual background and rationale for working with children

to reduce disaster risk. Specifically, it examines the opportunities and capacities

for children’s voices to contribute to DRR policy spaces; and will be a key input

to a larger study addressing the issues and utility of children as communicators

of disaster risk1. Through this lens, the paper begins by exploring three linked

areas of enquiry that help to frame the emerging child-centred approach to DRR

and the specific research question relating to children’s voices in DRR policy

spaces. First, it considers a history of youth empowerment through children’s

active participation in decision-making forums. Second, it looks at whether the

international human rights architecture provides for a child’s right to protection

from disasters; and third, it asks whether children can be effective

as communicators of risk within their own households and communities.
The main body of the paper outlines the methodology and findings from

empirical research conducted in the Philippines and El Salvador, which explored

child-centred DRR by asking what opportunities exist for the voices of children,

and their groups, to be heard within local and national DRR policy spaces and

what experiences and capacity they have for doing so. The research results

from each of the four field sites visited (two in each country) are compared in

a short discussion section, before the conclusion considers the implications of

these findings for child-centred DRR and sets out some ideas as to why children’s

agency on DRR may be stronger than previously thought. As this paper is a first

step within a broader research programme on understanding and informing

a child-centred DRR approach, the paper finishes by outlining further questions

emerging from this preliminary research that may help to shape

future investigations.

1.0 Introduction

The larger project ‘Critically analysing risk communication pathways: Lessons from youth-centred

disaster risk reduction approaches in El Salvador and the Philippines’ is led by Dr. Thomas Tanner of
IDS and is funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council. This project started in 2007
and will end in 2010.

Children as agents for change for Disaster Risk Reduction:

Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines

As research on children’s voices, participation and rights is more advanced

in other development fields, it is important to frame child-centred DRR within

a wider understanding of such concepts.

Child Participation and Voice

There are many ways of defining what is meant by child and youth participation.

In 19, the US-based National Commission on Resources for Youth defined

‘youth participation’ as:

“…the involving of youth in responsible, challenging action

that meets genuine needs, with opportunities for planning

and/or decision-making affecting others in an activity

whose impact or consequence is extended to others — i.e.,

outside or beyond the youth participants themselves.”

(National Commission on Resources for Youth, 1975)

A more contemporary, yet still broad definition is provided by the Save the

Children ‘re:action toolkit’, which described it thus:

…[children] sharing ideas, thinking for themselves,

expressing their views effectively, planning, prioritising and

being involved in the decision making process.

(Save the Children, 2000: 13)

Practitioners and researchers have since been working towards establishing

a code of conduct for meaningful child participation, by recognising the need

to nurture the strengths, interests, and abilities of young people in order that they

can take charge of the decisions that affect them. Accordingly, Checkoway and

Richards-Schuster (001) define youth participation as a process where young

people have real influence in the decisions that affect their lives and not just

a token or passive presence in adult agencies. Participation, then, is measured

by its quality. In terms of community evaluation, youth participation is defined

as the involvement of youth in knowledge development, defining problems,

gathering information and using the results (Checkoway and Richards-Schuster

00). By participating in community evaluation, young people can define what

they perceive to be problems, rather than having to accept issues that have been

identified and mediated by adults or authorities. Despite this progress Chawla

(00) claims that the inclusion of the voices of children and youth represents

a new frontier in participatory policy development.
The idea of ‘child and youth participation’ and what it means in practice,

remains contested. Hart (199) adapted a model developed by Arnstein (1969)

to be youth specific.

2.0

Key Concepts

2.1

Children as agents for change for Disaster Risk Reduction:

Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines

It depicts a continuum or degrees of participation on the rungs of a ladder; the

bottom rung represents non-existent or minimal participation with full participation

seen on the top rungs of the ladder. This is exemplified in Table .1a below.

Rungs of the Ladder

Degree of Participation

8.
(Top) Children and young people
initiated, shared decision with
adults

Children and young people have the ideas, set up
the project, and invite adults to join with them
in making decisions.

7.
Children and young people
are directed

Children and young people have the initial idea and
decide how the project is carried out. Adults are avail-
able but do not take charge.

6.
Adult-initiated shared decisions
with children

Adults have the initial idea but children and young
people are involved in every step of the planning and
implementation. Not only are their views considered,
but they are also involved in taking the decisions.

5.
Consulted but informed

The project is designed and run by adults but
children and young people are consulted. They have a
full understanding of the process and their opinions are
taken seriously.

4.
Assigned but informed

Adults decided on the project and children
and young people volunteer for it. Adults respect their
views.

3.
Tokenism

Children and young people are asked to say what they
think about an issue but have little or no choice about
the way they express those views or the scope of the
ideas they can express.

2.
Decoration

Children and young people take part in an event, e.g.
by signing, dancing or wearing t-shirts with logos on,
but they do not really understand the issue.

1.
Manipulation

Children and young people do or say what adults
suggest they do, but have no real understanding of the
issues, or are asked what they think. Adults use some of
their ideas but do not tell them what
influence they have had on the final decision.

2.0 Key Concepts

‘The ladder of child and youth participation’,

Hart (1997)

Table .1a

Children as agents for change for Disaster Risk Reduction:

Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines

The ‘ladder of participation’ is an effective method for evaluating the level

of meaningful child and youth participation. In the DRR context, children

may help with short term actions such as planting trees or communicating

information to their family, however, it does not become true participation until

children take control and their views become actions through their own agency.

The table also highlights some important issues regarding the ethical grounding

for youth involvement and the need for a truly inclusive and transparent process.

At least half of the ‘rungs in the ladder’ involve some element of manipulation of

children in order to achieve ends that they may not have been consulted on or

of which they were not even aware. Thus, despite the rhetoric reflected in many

reports, publications and speeches, the realities of youth participation

are often misunderstood, misdirected or controlled for purposes that are at

odds with the interests of children and young people (Driskell 00; Hart 199;

Chawla 00).
Traditionally, the aim for those who work with and communicate with children

and youth has been to invest in their future; to educate and empower tomorrow’s

adults. Although valid, this perspective often causes actors to overlook the abilities

of children and youth to make positive changes to the community and wider

contexts today. While the emerging youth development field has recognised

the value of children and young adults as both decision-makers and drivers

for positive social change, designing successful interventions and programme

formats, which allow children and young adults to participate on an equal level

with other actors, is difficult for many organisations and societies to fully accept

or sustain (Moore 000). This is despite the fact that children in developing

countries often take on adult responsibilities as part of their daily lives. Children

may support household income generation, undertake household chores and care

for family members.
Roshani (199) notes that many projects do not succeed due to the target

population being treated as bystanders rather than active participants. By failing

to be given ownership in a project, young people often become overly dependent

upon others for programme development, organisation and leadership. Roshani

(ibid.) identifies that a sense of pride and empowerment are developed through

active involvement in the planning and development of programmes. In addition,

programmes benefit greatly from youth involvement, as they are more aware

of the needs of their peers and the best ways to reach them. As Roshani states,

‘each young person who is involved will gain knowledge and a sense of being

connected to something, while the community will benefit from having a successful

project’ (ibid. p.).
The notion of youth empowerment is not new and has the support of numerous

policy documents and white papers, for example: the Lisbon Declaration (1998);

The European Commission White Paper on Youth (001); and the Youth Pact

(00). Yet despite these high profile initiatives, it appears they represent little

more than a desired outcome and contain limited evidence of child and youth

empowerment and decision-making in action. Successful participation, it seems,

requires a significant shift in public attitudes towards a society which not only

encourages children and youth to express their opinions, but also involves their

voices in the decision-making process.
Nonetheless, a number of authors have criticised child and youth participation

for concentrating on the good it will bring society rather than the positive and

Children as agents for change for Disaster Risk Reduction:

Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines

sometimes negative effects for the children and youth themselves. Similarly, some

see it as a form of social control that is frequently driven by an adult agenda (e.g.

Prout 000; Shucksmith and Hendry 1998). In addition, the process and methods

used in child and youth participation and consultation have been observed

to create wider, more negative effects. As the Education, Culture and Sport

Committee note:

A small minority of chosen or self-selected individuals

enjoy and benefit from ongoing participatory activities

and groups, while the majority who are not consulted or

have experience of short one-off consultations tend to feel

resentful, alienated and cynical.

(Scottish Executive 2002: 4)

In order to ensure that approaches to youth involvement do have children

and young people’s interests at heart, and to increase the chances of successful

outcomes, a number of guidelines, standards and definitions have been devised.

For example, Driskell (00) defines meaningful participation in

the following terms:

Local

- While participation might be implemented on a regional,

national scale and even international scale, its implementation

is focused on the needs and issues of the local community.

Transparent

- The aims of the participatory project are clear

to all involved.

Inclusive

- Accessible to all members of the community.

Interactive

- A community wide dialogue with children and adults

talking and listening to each other.

Responsive

- Facilitators need to be flexible in order to respond

to changing conditions and needs. The process must not be rushed,

with enough time given to enable all children and young adults

to voice opinions and listen to others.

Relevant

- Participation involves combining children’s local

knowledge and unique perspective with information and skilled

perspectives from outside the community that is considered

needed by the young participants and facilitators.

Educational

- A learning process for all - sponsors, officials,

facilitators, etc.

2.1 Child Participation & Voice

Motivations and Obstacles for

Children’s Participation

There are a number of reasons why young people may choose to participate

or not. These may stem from concerns about the world around them, seen from

a perspective quite different to the adult world, or are qualities and characteristics

of the child themselves. The International Youth Foundation developed a set of

‘given competencies’ (the Cs) they believe children need in order to participate

successfully (Table .1b). These skills are developed through opportunities for

participation, enabling children and youth to become successful partners and

stakeholders in society (Golombek 00).

The five Cs (Golombek, 2002 p.7)

It is recognised however, that a child’s motivation to participate may also reflect

less prescriptive characteristics and situations. For example, an excluded child

may also be driven to participate in a campaign or social movement. Arguably,

this personal experience of exclusion may make the child’s participation even

more powerful, influential and successful.
While there may be clear benefits of child and youth participation for

young people, Iyengar and Jackman (00) describe the trend of political

disengagement among young people, noting that in developed countries

participation in political processes continues to decline among youth groups.

In particular, Iyengar and Jackson (ibid.) highlight the consequences of age-

related imbalances as political figures respond to the preferences of voters, not

non-voters, leading candidates and parties to ignore the rights, needs and issues

affecting the young. This again highlights the importance of youth participation

with clear pathways between youth voice and political influence, as without

voting rights, children can only become active and responsible citizens, who

realise their policy influencing power, through participation (Chawla 00;

Hart 199; De Winter 199).
Table .1c on the next page, presents a number of reasons for child and youth

involvement or lack of involvement.

1. Character

Responsibility and accountability

2. Confidence

A sense of self worth based on their ability
to take the initiative and make choices

3. Connection

A sense of belonging to their community

4. Competence

Are able to develop and learn the educational
and or vocational skills needed to earn a living

5. Contribution

A civically minded responsibility to invest their
time, ideas and talents to improve their communities

Table .1b

Children as agents for change for Disaster Risk Reduction:

Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines

‘Motivations of children and youth to participate’.

Summarised from Molloy et al. (2002)

Checkoway and Richards-Schuster (00) also recognise this uneven motivation

to participate, but also highlight that the family and community context in which

children live often presents barriers for their engagement:

Young people participate, but their participation is uneven.

Some young people participate with fervour, whereas others

express interest but are unsure how to proceed, whereas

others try to proceed but lack support from adults or face

obstacles in the community (p.21)

Iyengar and Jackman (00) discuss the question of potential ‘treatments’ of

the problem of politically disengaged children and youth. Citing evidence

from the U.S., they suggest that in some cases classroom-based civic learning

courses have attempted to foster attitudes towards community that are known

to encourage greater child and youth engagement. Other examples point

towards participation in non-political community activities as a catalyst for

the development of pro-social and participant orientations. Nevertheless, they

conclude that such attempts at civic education are still insufficient to get young

voters to the polls when they reach the legal age.

Table .1c

What motivates children and youth

to participate?

Why do some young people not want

to participate?

Belief in the importance of expressing
their views

Have other priorities

Belief in the possibility of influencing
decision making

Scepticism about the efficacy of their
participation. Believe young people
cannot influence change

A drive to make a difference

Not motivated to make a difference as others
are paid to take the responsibility and/or those
in charge know what they are doing

Are aware of the ways young people
can participate

Not aware of how they can participate

Parental / family influence (having parents,
family or friends involved in the area)

Not involved in social or family groups
where involvement occurs

Background knowledge and an interest
in the area (also developed through
participation)

Lack of interest or knowledge

Self confidence (this is also developed
through the act of participation)

Lack of self confidence

Brush-off and ignore peer group attitudes

‘It’s not cool’ - negative peer group influences

2.1 Child Participation & Voice

However, more often than not, the desire of children and youth to become

involved often requires a supportive enabling environment through the facilitation

of an outside group to help them gain access to the decision-making process.

Without this facilitation, it is apparent from the research literature that children

and youth generally feel powerless and excluded from the adult realm of political

processes. In areas of local and national government, the experience of those

who have been permitted to participate in council and parliament meetings has

often been one of observation rather than taking part:

‘it was made clear that we were to sit at the back

and keep quiet’ (Molloy et al. 2002: 72).

This lack of commitment by decision-makers to accept youth views and the

failure of organisations to adequately represent youths can lead to a process

that is neither empowering nor effective in influencing change.
However, as with all participatory processes, the children and youth who are

willing and able to participate are often unrepresentative of the communities

in which they live. As Checkoway and Richards-Schuster (00) observe, socio-

economic factors and levels of education are very influential predictors for

participation, and they note that adults often perpetuate the inequalities in child

and youth participation by involving further those who are already involved or

who hold key positions in the community. Chawla (00) concurs by stating that

‘children are not a homogeneous group and like the rest of

society are made up of people with different backgrounds,

circumstances and needs. It is therefore important to reach

out and include those who are most vulnerable and who

are easily overlooked’ (16-17).

Those who are most vulnerable are often, depending on the nature of gender

identities in the community, either girls or boys, the youngest participants, and

those from marginalised ethnic or social groups.

How is successful participation gauged?

How then is successful participation gauged? For example are actual legislative

and policy changes required to indicate success? Or, recognising children’s

evolving capacities and the constraints of different social and political climates,

could an initiative that enabled children’s views to be taken into consideration

but was not directed by children be considered successful?

Children as agents for change for Disaster Risk Reduction:

Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines

Bridging the generation gap

Mixing adult, child and youth partnerships is fundamental for successful

participation of young people. Traditionally this relationship has been

one-sided with adults communicating to and working on behalf of young people.

Checkoway and Richards-Schuster (00) emphasise that child and youth

inclusion should not merely be seen as the involvement of yet another community

group. Rather, it represents the involvement of an excluded group whose

participation is not familiar to most adults and has the potential to challenge

the status quo in a more fundamental way. In order to effect change of

a community’s entrenched values, it is necessary for old norms to be challenged,

prejudices to be overcome and new ideals and skills to be embraced, by adults

and youth groups alike. Common problems and areas of conflict between

adults and youth are set out in Table .1d.

Common Areas of Conflict between Children and

Adults. Adapted from Iyengar and Jackman (2003: 29).

Pravah, a non-profit organisation in India which helps to facilitate a process

whereby young people can become leaders for social change, has tried to

overcome these areas of conflict in a number of ways. The following points

are largely based on their experience supplemented by other literature

(Iyengar and Jackman 00: 0-):

Children and youth are often expected to be engaged in processes

conceived by adults. Instead, they must be supported to carry out

their own projects and enabled to conduct scoping research in areas

they feel are important. This may mean that adults have to support

and facilitate projects they do not agree with.

Children and youth are still developing and thus need space and

opportunity to do so. They need experience within organisations and

sectors of society in order that they can face social realities with time

for reflection and freedom for independent action.

Table .1d

According to adults, children are…

According to children, adults are…

Lacking in commitment

Too demanding

Self absorbed

Unwilling to give personal space

Undisciplined

Too regimented

Not interested in long-term plans

Oblivious to the here and now realities

Temperamental

Not interested in the emotional aspects

Inexperienced

Not ready to give chances

Only interested in having fun

Boring

2.1 Child Participation & Voice

Rules and regulations are normally dictated to children. Instead, with

meaningful participation, there should always be an initial process

of consensus building, between adults and children, to decide what

the rules of engagement will be.

If youth are involved in the initial planning, it is easier for them

to relate to longer-term plans. However, adults also need to realise

that idealistic dreams, hope and a drive to make a difference today

are a critical resource for community development. These dreams,

which are often missing in older generations, must be nurtured

and supported.

Adults often interpret children’s emotional attitudes as a weakness,

while adults are often considered too stoical. Young people need

to feel free to express their feelings while at the same time learning

how to think more objectively by separating facts from emotions.

Because of their age, young people will often lack experience

when compared to adults. However, many adults will often be

inexperienced in working with children and appreciating the

benefits of child-centred programmes. Therefore, a good child-

centred programme will build and widen the experience of both

youth and adults.

Adults are considered boring while children are assumed to only

want to play and have fun. Again, appropriate participatory

techniques, activities and responsibilities which engage children and

maintain their enthusiasm whilst being productive are necessary.

In addition, children are often immersed in the entertainment of pop-

culture and those who are more privileged will be technologically

savvy. Techniques to engage children must therefore keep pace

and remain innovative.

Getting the voice of children heard

A number of methods for advocating youth interests, issues, and concerns

have been identified as being particularly successful. Below are a number

of these methods rated by children and youth according to their potential

to generate attention and to strengthen their voice in the decision-making

process (after Molloy et al., 00: 61-6):

Petitions – popular and easy but need to be accompanied by media

attention to be effective.

Protesting – will raise the profile of an issue but not thought to be

an effective way to influence change and may be dangerous.

Letter writing – needs persistence, and letters from the young

are easily ignored.

Children as agents for change for Disaster Risk Reduction:

Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines

Attending local authority and council meetings – face-to-face

meetings where children can discuss their concerns were considered

most effective.

Additionally, children and youth in the UK were found to perceive that social

status would influence the impact of their voices, with ‘better off’ families more

likely to be listened to and have influence upon decision-making (Molloy et

al. 00). However, importantly, cultural and language barriers were only

considered to be a problem for older generations. Children within ethnic groups

were considered able to adapt more effectively than their parents and were more

comfortable with their new environment, sometimes acting as translators between

their parents and the local government authorities (Molloy et al. 00).

The role of children as translators of information between an outside agent

and their families is highlighted repeatedly and is an important consideration

for later discussions in this paper on the role of children and youth as conduits

and mediators of risk information. This ‘translator role’ increases the power of

the child, and can be supported by the child’s language skills, where their parents

and grandparents do not understand the language in which the information

is communicated but the child does. This may also be relevant to poor and

marginalised communities, where children may be more exposed to education,

have higher levels of literacy than their parents and more opportunities to engage

than their parents. It can also describe the child’s knowledge of technology,

which may be considerably more sophisticated than that of the older generations.
For example, Iyengar and Jackman (00) consider young people’s over-

representation as computer and internet users as a great advantage in terms

of access to information and each other. However, this access is not even, those

who are able to will use mobile phones and computers to pass messages on to

peers, while others will have to rely on the process of word of mouth and other

less organised and slower, lower impact means. This differentiated access has

important implications in terms of understanding the ways that young people

perceive community and personal identity and redefine decision-making processes

in order to take such factors into account. Perhaps most crucially, child and youth

participation must help young people fulfil their needs: to find interesting and

entertaining things to do; to achieve security, safety and employment; to socialise

with their peers; to take risks; to be independent and to feel successful.

2.1 Child Participation & Voice

From the previous section, it is clear that organised child and youth participation

is desirable if conducted in a manner that adds legitimacy to the voice of

children, on the child’s own terms, while also underpinning their personal

development and motivations. However, in many cases, there is little to compel

political agencies or other external actors to secure the participation of young

people in decision-making. Consequently, distinctions have to be drawn between

the legal and moral responsibility for children’s voices to be heard and for

their safety and security to be given added attention. This section draws on

international child rights literature and architecture to explore how current legal

frameworks support a child’s right to protection from disasters and their right

to participate in measures to reduce disaster risk in their communities.
In this regard, it is important to draw a distinction between the rights a person

may have under law (also known as ‘positive’ rights) and rights they may have

morally (Archard, 00). Over the years, the rights of children have been

identified and advocated for until they were incorporated within the Declaration

of the Rights of the Child (DRC). Though non-binding, these instruments were

considered ‘soft’ laws. It was however not until the introduction of the Convention

on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in 1989 that children’s rights were officially and

legally recognised. Nevertheless, legal and moral rights are not two mutually

exclusive sets of rights (Archard 00). A right a person may have under law

may be the same as a moral right. At the same time, however, the law and

morality do not always perfectly coincide. Many institutions and organisations

have already adopted a rights-based approach to disaster management, which

usually encompasses human rights as recognised in international law and also

other rights which the organisation believes should be recognised as human

rights on a moral basis (Twigg 00). For example, the child’s right to safety

and protection from disasters may be based on the fact that children are greatly

affected by disasters, and as they are in a position of greater vulnerability due

to their age, they thus require special protection from the impacts of disasters,

in order to uphold their rights to survival, protection and development. Further,

as children are not passive victims but are capable of advocacy and action, they

should not only be accorded the right to protection but also guaranteed

the right to participate in their own protection, specifically in the disaster

mitigation and recovery process. It may therefore be argued (which many disaster

and development organisations do) that children have the right to protection and

disaster mitigation on these moral grounds despite the fact the right has not yet

been explicitly recognised in law.
If moral rights are able to gain wide enough global acceptance and recognition,

they may eventually culminate into an international convention. Precedents of this

include the International Labor Organisation (ILO) Convention Concerning the

Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child

Labor was adopted in 1999 and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the

Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict was adopted

in 000. These are examples of the development of children’s rights and how

moral rights may eventually be encapsulated into legal international conventions,

which may be ratified by States Parties. Until then, however, moral rights are

2.2

Supporting a Child’s Right to Safety?

Children as agents for change for Disaster Risk Reduction:

Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines

technically not considered legally binding or enforceable.
Two international instruments deal specifically with the rights of the child – the

CRC, which is the most widely ratified international convention, and the DRC,

which is only declaratory. Despite being merely declaratory, the DRC has played

an important role in the recognition of children’s rights as it reflected a change

in perception of children as not merely ‘objects’ or ‘little adults’, but persons who

deserve not only equal protection to adults, but special protection due to their

unique position of vulnerability.

The Geneva Declaration and the

Declaration of the Rights of the Child

The Geneva Convention as adopted by the League of Nations in 19 originally

had five articles (Last 199). It was amended and extended to become the DRC,

which was adopted in 199 by the UN General Assembly. There are three

principles in the DRC, which are particularly relevant to the child’s right to safety

and protection from disasters. Principle of the DRC declares that:

The child shall enjoy special protection, and shall be given

opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means, to enable

him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially

in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and

dignity. In the enactment of laws for this purpose, the best interests

of the child shall be the paramount consideration.

It is clear that the impact of a disaster would hinder a child’s development and,

as such, it can be easily concluded that ‘special protection’ must be provided

to the child from these negative impacts. In this way, disaster mitigation is an

important component in minimising risk of disaster and fulfilling Principle of the

DRC so that the child may be able to develop in a ‘healthy and normal manner’.

It is also noted that the type of disaster intervention required here must go beyond

just the provision of physical survival needs. Principle requires a holistic

approach to the protection of the child, to ensure that the child’s mental, social

and emotional development must not be impaired as well.
Similarly, Principle of the DRC requires that the child ‘shall be entitled to grow

and develop in health’. Though the wording of the Principle refers specifically

to pre- and post-natal care of children, it is not limited to this. The Principle goes

on to provide that ‘[t]he child shall have the right to adequate nutrition, housing,

recreation and medical services’. Children, therefore, should be provided with

an environment where he or she may grow and develop in health (therefore, not

one of high disaster-risk, being instead protected as much as possible from the

occurrence of disaster and all its negative effects) and be provided with good

housing, nutrition and medical services. This principle can therefore be used

to support DRR interventions to build resilience. Further, as this Principle is not

restricted to times of normality (cf. times of disaster), the Principle can also be

used for grounds that disaster relief in the form of food, housing and medical

services be provided to children in the event of a disaster and throughout

recovery. The rights of the child affected by calamity or conflict are explicitly set

2.2 Supporting a Child’s Right to Safety?

out in the Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent

Movement and the NGOs in Disaster Relief (199); and the Sphere Humanitarian

Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response (00).
Principle 8 specifically declares that ‘[t]he child shall in all circumstances be

among the first to receive protection and relief’. The Principle was originally

declared to address the plight of children during wartime. There is nothing in

the DRC, however, which would prevent this Principle from being extended to

cover the situation of children during times of disaster. Though clearly stated

and accepted by the UN General Assembly, this principle has been criticised

for being impractical, unacceptable in many cultures, simplifying complex issues

and elevating children’s rights beyond what is necessary (therefore, above that

of the responsibility of adults) (see Last 199). The Principle had originally been

Article III out of the original five, but was dropped down to Article V in the ten

articles of the 198 DRC and then to Principle 8 in 199. Nevertheless, the

Principle recognises clearly that children shall ‘receive protection and relief’ even

though it may not be as widely accepted that they should be the first to receive

it. The principle therefore remains valuable in the advocacy for the provision of

protection and relief for children in times of disaster.

Convention on the Rights of the Child

The CRC represents children as the subjects of rights, possessing fundamental

entitlements that must be protected. They are recognised as having agency and

as having a voice to be listened to. As mentioned previously, the CRC does not

specifically mention the right of children to be protected from disaster or the

right of children to disaster mitigation. Though the CRC has traditionally been

interpreted to cover a political, legal and development context, it is evident below

that the CRC also deals with many matters relating to disaster mitigation.
Firstly, the CRC guarantees that all actions taken by public entities (including

private social welfare institutions) have the best interests of the child as a primary

consideration. Article of the CRC states:

1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public

or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative

authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall

be a primary consideration.

Article of the CRC also requires the States Parties to ‘ensure the child such

protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being…and, to this end,

shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.’ It is clear that

the occurrence of a disaster would have a negative impact on a child’s well-being

and would not be in the best interest of the child. As such, it could be argued

that disaster mitigation by the States Parties is imperative to the protection of

the child’s well-being. It can therefore be argued that in order for States Parties

to comply with this requirement, they must ensure sufficient ‘legislative and

administrative measures’ are taken toward disaster mitigation so that the child’s

well-being would be adequately protected and cared for.
Articles 6, and of the CRC are all relevant to the protection of the child

against the adverse effects of a disaster. Article 6 of the CRC recognises

Children as agents for change for Disaster Risk Reduction:

Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines

a child’s inherent right to life. It requires that States Parties ‘ensure to the

maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child’. Article

of the CRC recognises the right of the child to enjoy the highest attainable

standard of health and to ‘facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation

of health’. It provides in detail the appropriate measures that States Parties are

to take in implementing this right, including diminishing infant and child mortality,

ensuring the provision of medical assistance and healthcare and combating

disease and malnutrition through the ‘the application of readily available

technology and through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean

drinking-water, taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental

pollution’. Further, Article of the CRC protects the right of a child to have

a standard of living that is adequate for his or her physical, mental, spiritual,

moral and social development. The primary responsibility for the fulfilment of

this right has been placed on the parents or guardians of the child ‘within their

abilities and financial capacities’ but States Parties also have to ‘take appropriate

measures to assist parents and others responsible for the child to implement

this right and shall in case of need provide material assistance and support

programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing’.
Along with Article of the CRC, Article 6, and places responsibility

on the States Parties to recognise the rights of a child to life, health and adequate

standard of living for development (by accessing adequate nutrition, clean

drinking water, clothing, housing, etc.).
As these rights are not restricted to times of normality (cf. during times of disaster),

these rights in effect also call for the protection of children against harm caused

by disaster. It is clear that disasters can severely inhibit a child from realising his

or her right to life and may clearly have an adverse effect on the child’s health

and ability to develop. It is in this sense that these rights recognised by the CRC

culminate together in making the child’s protection from disaster and access

to disaster relief a ‘right’ which belongs to the child.
In relation to participatory rights of a child in the disaster mitigation process,

Article 1 of the CRC guarantees the child’s right to express his or her views

freely in matters affecting the child. Article 1 states:

1. States 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.

Similarly, Article 1 of the CRC also protects a child’s right to the freedom

of expression, which includes the right to seek, receive and impart information

and ideas. Article 1 states:

1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this

right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information

and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing

or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the

child’s choice.

2.2 Supporting a Child’s Right to Safety?

This right would incorporate the right of a child to receive information

in relation to their risk of disaster as well as the right of the child to express

and impart their ideas in response to this information in any way they wish,

whether ‘orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other

media of the child’s choice’

The CRC is however limited in a number of ways. Like other international

instruments, the CRC does not have a significant impact unless it is enacted into

domestic legislation. States ratifying the CRC are required to bring their national

legislation in line with its provisions and are required to report to the Committee

on the Rights of the Child (the monitory agency) on their progress of implementing

the CRC (Hammarberg, 1990). It is, however, recognised that signatory states

pay no more than lip service to the CRC (Archard 00). States fail to submit

annual reports on time and widespread abuses of children continue despite State

ratification. As the CRC only requires States to report and does not provide for

any stronger enforcement powers to the Committee, the CRC has had limited

practical and legal impact. There is, for example, no international court where

cases of alleged breaches may be brought, and where signatory states are

bound by the final decisions of the court (such as the European Court of Human

Rights). Further, Article of the CRC gives many States Parties a way out of full

compliance with the CRC. Though Article of the CRC requires ‘States Parties

[to] undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures for

the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention’, it only

requires States Parties to undertake ‘measures to the maximum extent of their

available resources’ in relation to the economic, social and cultural rights found

in the CRC. This means that States Parties may use the ‘excuse’ that they do

not have the necessary resources to comply with the CRC in protecting these

economic, social and cultural rights. These types of rights specifically are

important in relation to the provision of disaster relief

Human rights approach to disaster

mitigation and relief

Apart from specific international instruments dealing with children, there are

other international human rights instruments (such as the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights (UDHR), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

(ICCPR), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

(ICESCR)), which may address the right to protection and relief from disasters

in general. As with those specific to children, none of these explicitly guarantee

the rights of a person (whether adult or child) to protection or relief from disasters

but it is evident that such rights are implied by various international human

rights instruments.

Children as agents for change for Disaster Risk Reduction:

Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines

It is noted however that the Convention does not guarantee that the child’s opinion be given any

weight (therefore, there is no obligation for someone, such as an organisation/adult/parent/guard-
ian, to actually do what the child says). The Articles only guarantee the child’s right to express their
views and ideas and not necessarily for these views and ideas to be implemented (Archard 2004).
What is required, however, is that decisions relating to a child must be made in his or her best inter-
ests in accordance with Article 3 of the CRC.

For example, the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami destroyed freshwater supplies in many of the af-

fected areas which severely hampered the ability of the survivors to access clean water. About 70
per cent of the water supply in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, was damaged, and many wells, water
pipes, hand pumps and public taps were destroyed in Sri Lanka and Southern India. The situation
also created the potential for water borne diseases to spread (Penrose and Takaki, 2006).

For example, Article of the UDHR states that ‘[e]veryone has the right to life,

liberty and security of person’. Article of the UDHR guarantees that:

[e]veryone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the

health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food,

clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services,

and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness,

disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in

circumstances beyond his control.

It is implicit in these articles that people, whether young or old, should be

protected from circumstances that would affect their ‘life, liberty and security’

and that would stop them from having an adequate standard of living. This would

include the right to food, clothing, housing, medical care and the necessary social

services in the form of relief in times of disaster.
Article 19 of the UDHR also guarantees the person’s right to access information,

for example, regarding the risks faced in their community, to express their views

and opinions, and in effect, participate and comment on any disaster mitigation

process that may be in progress. Article 19 states that:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this

right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and

to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any

media and regardless of frontiers.

Where there is no disaster risk reduction process being undertaken, Article 19

guarantees the right of a person to advocate for the need of one.
The ICCPR also guarantees the right to life (Article 6) and the right of people

to ‘seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds’ (Article 19).

The ICESCR guarantees a person, and his or her family, rights to an adequate

standard of living, including to adequate food, clothing and housing (Article 11)

and the right of everyone to enjoy the ‘highest attainable standard of physical

and mental health’ (Article 1), including States Parties’ responsibility to take

the necessary steps for ‘[t]he improvement of all aspects of environmental and

industrial hygiene’ (Article 1..(b)), which includes:

…the prevention and reduction of the population’s exposure to

harmful substances such as radiation and harmful chemicals or other

detrimental environmental conditions that directly or indirectly impact

upon human health (emphasis mine)

(UNESC 000)

It appears that Article 1.(b) is broad as it also embraces ‘an adequate supply

of food and proper nutrition, and discourages the abuse of alcohol, and the use

of tobacco, drugs and other harmful substances’ (UNESC 000). Further, Article

1 also requires States Parties’ to take the necessary steps for ‘[t]he prevention,

treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases’

(Article 1.(c)) which is particularly relevant in a post-disaster environment,

as well as to create ‘[t]he conditions which would assure to all medical service

and medical attention in the event of sickness’ (Article 1.(d)).

2.2 Supporting a Child’s Right to Safety?

All these provisions are relevant to ensuring that people, as well as children,

are protected from disasters, that steps are taken toward DRR, that people’s views

(whether children or adults) have a right to be heard in these DRR processes, that

all have a right to access information regarding disaster risks, and that they are

provided with the necessary relief should a disaster occur.

These provisions supporting a child’s right to safety and wellbeing, provide

important pillars for a rights based, child-centred approach to DRR. However, it

is also important to evaluate what added value a child-centred approach to DRR

can offer. Do children possess the skills and qualities required to be successful

advocates for DRR and effective communicators of disaster risk? In this area, the

body of literature is not as well developed as for child rights or participation;

however there are successful examples of children acting as communicators

of health risk information. Children learn about water, sanitation and health

risks and pass this information onto their peers, parents and the wider community

(Child-to-Child Trust 00; Gibbs et al. 00). In addition to health care

projects, these ‘child-to-child’ and ‘child-to-adult’ risk communication approaches

have been adopted by NGOs including Save the Children and the Iraqi Kurdistan

Mine Action Agency as part of their mine awareness campaigns in Afghanistan,

Yemen and Iraqi Kurdistan (Child-to-Child Trust 00; Aziz Hamand 00).
Lessons from the wider literature on risk communication may further help

to contextualise the benefits of engaging young people in DRR. In the last two

decades, there has been a substantial challenge to dominant modes of risk

regulation and conventional top-down expert-to-public risk communication

(Kasperson and Kasperson 00). A focus on human, rather than only physical,

dimensions of vulnerability has been vital to this shift, and has informed

a more rigorous examination both of uncertainty, and greater participation

and deliberation in risk discourse and communications (Wisner 006; Wynne

199). Resulting risk communication theories can be clustered in four traditions:

a systems tradition, with sources, messages, channels, and receivers (Lee 1986);

a behavioural tradition, based on perceptions, attitudes, and cognitive mapping

(Slovic 1986); a cultural tradition, where values, equity and rights determine

viewpoints on safety (Rayner 198); and most recently, a participation tradition,

which advocates early deliberation between public and other ‘risk’ stakeholders

to determine acceptable levels of risk (Chilvers 00; Wynne 199). To date,

however, discourse on risk communication, which has drawn heavily from the

public understanding of science literature, has failed to fully explore the role of

young people as either sources or recipients of risk knowledge (Kasperson 199;

Douglas and Wildavsky 198; Kasperson and Kasperson 00).
Two explanations are ventured for children not figuring in these traditions. Firstly,

risk communication has always been associated with information flows from the

top downwards, with scientific institutions at the top and the public at the bottom,

though this has been repeatedly challenged by many sociologists of risk (e.g

Wynne 199; Wilbanks and Kates, 1999). This has diverted attention away from

the diversity within communities and placed it on relationships between science

and society. The second relates to paternalism, and the commonly held belief that

Children as agents for change for Disaster Risk Reduction:

Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines

2.3

Children as Communicators of Risk

parents make decisions about the level of risk their child faces (Adams 199).

Therefore, risk communication models assume parents have the responsibility,

capacity, will and free reign to make choices about risks their children face -

without questioning the rights and agency of the child to make a difference.
To consider how child-centred-DRR approaches fit into risk communication models,

it is crucial to review the relative levels of trust placed in different communication

sources (Haynes et al. 00; Lindell and Perry 00), and the decision-making

processes people go through in receiving, verifying and acting on risk messages.

Additionally, researchers have found that risk messages must have cultural and

individual meaning to be effective, but this is neither obvious nor easy to achieve

(e.g. Bye and Horner 1998). Within this context, child-centred risk communication

can be related to the child’s willingness to trust information sources, ability

to convey messages with a meaning shared by their families and friends, and

their ability to be impartial and trusted by recipients, as they are not political

or powerful actors. Children tend to be less influenced by religious, supra-natural

and fatalistic beliefs (Pilgrim 1999) and are less subjected to indoctrination.

They also have time to meet and participate in activities; they can stay focused

and can understand messages and retain them (Aziz Hamad 00).

In addition, as most children are also embedded within the family, this

relationship means risk information and mitigation actions may be continually

re-affirmed, whereas external sources rely on small windows of opportunity to

convey messages and influence actions. From a conceptual viewpoint, such

understanding will also frame potential incompatibilities between adult-centred

and child-centred approaches to risk communication, between dominant risk

discourses emphasising the role of science and expert knowledge, and those

emphasising uncertainty and different ways of framing risk (Wynne 199;

Wisner et al. 00).
Parker and Handmer (1998) note the importance of unofficial or informal

communication networks which evolve within communities. Tapping new

messages into these informal information mechanisms is a perpetual challenge

for risk communicators and it is anticipated that utilising the networking abilities

of children will greatly improve the efficacy of this process. This however,

remains conjecture, but a minority of studies have identified that children

can pass messages on and have a positive impact on their parent/guardian

and other adults’ awareness of issues (Saphir and Chaffee 00; McDevit

and Chaffee 000; Crawford et al. 1990; and Ronan and Johnston 001).

Ronan and Johnstone (00) identified that a programme initiated at school,

which emphasised interaction and homework to be completed with parents

and guardians, to be an effective format to increase levels of family disaster

preparedness. However, it is important to acknowledge that not all children

in vulnerable societies live in a ‘perfect’ family environment.

2.3 Children as Communicators of Risk

As set out above, child-centred DRR is the product of thinking on child rights,

on child and youth participation, voice and empowerment; and of hypotheses

relating to the power and agency of children as effective communicators of

disaster risk. However, while some initial experiences of child-centred DRR

programming have been positive, this is a new area of research and practice

with an accompanying set of unknowns and questions to be answered.
Consequently, the research presented here, the product of field studies in El

Salvador and the Philippines, represents a first attempt to explore some of the

issues a child-centred approach to DRR provides. In terms of specific research

questions, we ask:

What opportunities exist for the voices of children and their groups

to be heard within local and national DRR policy spaces and;

What experiences and capacity do children and their groups

have for doing so?

These research questions were the product of negotiations between the lead

partners in delivering this research - the Institute of Development Studies and

Plan International - and are areas of enquiry that are designed to inform Plan

International’s current child-centred DRR programming across a number of

countries. The research was conducted as a comparative study of El Salvador

and the Philippines, two countries in which Plan’s child-centred DRR work is

most advanced. It was also designed to compare two communities in each

country, one community where Plan’s child-centred DRR programme had yet to be

implemented and one community where it was well established. This allowed the

research team to test the efficacy of a child-centred DRR approach as measured

against a ‘control’ community.
A participatory approach was adopted with a focus on self-assessment of coping

and capacity. The research was conducted through focus group discussion

sessions and visioning exercises with children and youth groups, their parents

and local policy makers. In-depth interviews were used with policy and decision

makers at the national and regional level. A set of guiding questions were used

to facilitate discussion that included the causes of disasters, past disaster events

and their consequences, and current response and coordination. At community

level, methods included risk mapping and ranking, visioning exercises, transect

walks, stakeholder and influence mapping and theatre. Sessions were recorded

through a digital voice recorder, video, photographs, notes and typed notes.

The methods employed were flexible in order to adapt to the dynamic

research environment.

Research Study

3.0

Children as agents for change for Disaster Risk Reduction:

Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines

Field Sites

El Salvador and the Philippines are exposed to significant meteorological and

geological hazards including hurricanes/typhoons, earthquakes, landslides

and floods. Recent events include the 001 El Salvador earthquake and the 006

Guinsaugon landslide in the Philippines. As these events suggest, disasters are

a development concern, predominantly caused by poverty, inadequate land use

planning, poor construction standards and dysfunctional or absent institutions.

Raising the basic level of awareness about disaster risks and risk reduction is

therefore a major requirement across all sections and sectors of society in order

to reduce the vulnerability of exposed populations.
The fieldwork was conducted during March and April 00

in the following locations:

Location

Purpose

Manila, Philippines
San Salvador, El Salvador

To interview key stakeholders involved in
disaster management at the national level.

Chalatenango, El Salvador

To interview key stakeholders involved in disas-
ter management at the regional level.

Southern Leyte, Philippines
Petapa, El Salvador

To work with children in a community where
Plan has a strong presence and has initiated
their child-centred DRR strategy.

Albay, Philippines
El Jocote, El Salvador

To work with children in a community where
Plan has recently initiated engagement but
on themes other than DRR. These communities
provide a good baseline comparison.

3.0 Research Study

The following section presents the findings from the research studies

in the Philippines and El Salvador.

The Philippines

Formal and informal pathways

Analysis revealed a number of official and unofficial pathways for children and

youth groups to communicate their views about the disaster risks they face and

how they would like these risks to be reduced. These include talking informally to

their families, their friends and their teachers; more formal classroom discussions

and through the student’s seat on the Parents, Teachers and Community

Association (PTCA); through official representation at youth forums and councils;

theatre productions; NGO newspaper articles; and art exhibitions. Box .1

highlights the example of a children’s theatre group who have communicated

their views about landslides in Southern Leyte through street theatre.

4.0

Findings

4.1

Example of Street Theatre on the Guinsaugon

Landslide 006 - Philippines

Theatre was cited by the children and youth as a very popular means of

transferring their concerns to the wider community. Themes of recent productions

have included landslide disasters (causes, event and recovery), child trafficking,

ecology, family relationships, HIV, substance abuse and birth registration.

The scripts are written by the children but facilitated by the youth leaders who

take the roles of directors and choreographers. The theatre is a mobile ‘street

production’ performed from one village to another with limited props and some

lighting and music. On occasion, the theatre group (Teatro Basillik) is also

invited to perform to visitors and tourists. Donations are accepted following the

performance in a ‘pass the hat’ fashion. This income is managed by the children

for further productions or to help with wider needs in the community, such as

school uniforms.
The theatre play has two main objectives. Firstly, it is seen as a form of stress

release and recovery, as the children, many of whom are survivors of recent

disasters, can share their stories and experiences. Of equal importance is the

power of the production to also communicate the children’s views and messages

in support of the right to protection and for DRR. After each performance,

a discussion is facilitated to allow the audience to express their opinions and

reactions to the topic presented. Previous productions, for example following the

Punta, San Francisco landslide in 00, have been shown in Manila and

in Europe. These have helped spread the children’s message beyond Southern

Leyte aided by press conferences following the performance, where the media

have asked the children about their experiences.

Box 4.1

Children as agents for change for Disaster Risk Reduction:

Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines

While the children and youth talked about informal means of getting their voices

heard, there are few examples of formal pathways. This can partly be explained

by the predominantly reactive disaster management system in the Philippines,

where at many levels, disaster preparedness seems to be confused for DRR.

There appear to be numerous organisations and councils with overlapping

responsibilities for disaster management, all are burdened by institutional

redundancy, and few function effectively. Within this disorganised system, there

is no effective avenue (official or unofficial) for the voices of children to directly

influence DRR policy. The children identified a number of obstacles affecting

their ability to communicate on DRR, which included: a lack of time due to

competing demands; financial constraints meaning they needed to help their

families; a lack of interest and support from their parents; and an unwillingness

of the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK – Philippines Youth Council) and official local

government organisations to engage with disaster risk issues.
However, the transition of children to youth leaders, and in turn, to becoming

influential members of the community, was noted by the children and youth as an

important route for them to impact on policy. The children often cited the SK as

a possible route for children’s voices to be heard. However, many of the children

and youth felt that the youth council was either not active or those involved were

not interested in the views and concerns of the children in the community, but only

in furthering their own political careers. Even when the SK did consult with them,

no further action was taken, generating a lack of trust and cynical view of the

power and integrity of the SK:

“The SK are irresponsible and are always busy

doing nothing.”

Male, out of school youth, Nahulid, Southern Leyte

In addition, political affiliations were cited as a serious barrier to policy

change, with people blocking or not listening to the ideas of those who were

not in a favoured or particular party. These obstacles are exemplified by the

experiences of children following the 006 Guinsaugon landslide

, where youth

leaders working with children in the temporary evacuation camps had found

their interaction with the Disaster Coordinating Council ‘very disappointing’.

They stated the officials did not want to listen and were apathetic to the needs

and views of the children. However, the ability of children to voice their view

on DRR is more positive than this example suggests as in other administrative

districts, such as Nahulid in Southern Leyte, children’s voices are more formally

represented on the Barangay Development Council. This is the result of the

barangay captain (local mayor) being particularly aware of the important

perspectives children can bring to community development issues. On the

occasions where children’s voices were being listened to by policy bodies,

it almost always coincided with an adult in a position of power being sympathetic

to the voices of the children. Identifying these key actors and working to sensitise

them to the insight and power of children’s voices appears to be a key component

for the success of child-centred DRR programming.

4.0 Findings

The Guinsaugon landslide occurred between 9am and 10am on the 17th February 2006, killing

approximately 1000 people within the municipality of Saint Bernard in Southern Leyte. The Barangay
of Guinsaugon was completely destroyed. The local school was attended by 246 students and only
one pupil was rescued.

The willingness of an adult in a position of power to listen to the views of

children was also crucial in the case of the school relocation in Santa Paz, the

most significant example of the power of children’s voices on disaster risk found

during the field visit in the Philippines. The Mines and Geosciences Bureau

(MGB) conducted a risk assessment of landslides in Southern Leyte in 006,

determining that eight barangay were at high risk within the Municipality of

San Francisco. These included Santa Paz Sur and Santa Paz Norte, with the

MGB recommending that exposed households should be relocated. These two

barangay were home to a high school and an elementary school, both of which

were considered to be extremely exposed. Following debates about whether and

how to relocate the school, the headmaster opened the decision to a community-

wide referendum to include a vote for each of the children of the school. Broadly,

the children were in favour of the relocation, and their parents against it, because

the parents were concerned about their children having to travel to school in a

different community and the loss of livelihoods associated with the relocation of

a school (e.g. loss of lunch business for local shops, as well as loss of political

power generated from having an education facility based in their barangay).

In addition, different political affiliations of the leadership in the two barangay

led to confusion over the exact detail of the risk communication from the

MGB, with opposing politicians highlighting contrasting interpretations to their

supporters. The children’s organisations in the school (Supreme Student Council

and Student Government Organisation) embarked on an education campaign

about the physical processes of landslides and large numbers of students wrote

to the School Division Superintendent expressing their desire to relocate.

The actions by the students helped them to win the vote by 101 to 9, signalling

the relocation of the school.
Due to concern from the Provincial authorities, a more protracted timetable for

the school’s relocation was shortened to just two days following heavy rains. A

temporary tent school was erected over one weekend with children and parents

helping to put up the tents and children digging drainage channels due to the

temporary school’s location close to a paddy field. The tents, water supply and

toilets were provided by Plan Philippines, along with a scholarship programme

helping poorer students to afford uniforms and school supplies. The children

reported feelings of excitement about the whole process and did not express

any regret about the decision to move. They did report difficult conditions in the

temporary school, particularly the heat in the tents, though the children helped to

line the tents with banana leaves to cool them. In 00, a new school opened in

Pasanon, a safer location a few hundred metres from the temporary school. The

new school includes earthquake mitigation measures such as steel ties on the roof.

Toilets have also been built in each classroom in order to prepare for its use as an

evacuation shelter. However, the opening of the new school was met with protests

from parents still unhappy with the relocation and with the headmaster’s role in

facilitating the move.

Children as agents for change for Disaster Risk Reduction:

Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines

Children and their Families

The result of the vote was partly attributed to the children’s ability to influence their

own families, and parents reported being swayed by the passion and actions

of their children. This was reflected in interviews with the children who stated that

within their own families they could discuss their concerns and views with their

mothers but not their fathers. They stated that their mothers would then pass this

information on to their fathers if they felt it was important. Participants gave very

few examples of positive direct communication between the child and their father

about their concerns and issues. This phenomenon was further reinforced by

a discussion with a mothers group, who all unanimously agreed that their children

would always come to them first with issues and problems. Children felt that

mothers were more likely to believe and listen than the fathers who were ‘not that

open’ to their children.

“The mother is the first person that the children approach

when they want to say something rather than their father…

the mother becomes the middle woman.”

Mother from the temporary evacuation centre, St Bernard

Participants in Southern Leyte spoke anecdotally about the actions of children

prior to the Punta landslide in 00 who, alerted by the heavy rain, tried

desperately to drag their parents out of the house. However, many perished

as the parents would not listen to their children, did not balance the risks in the

same way, and instead had a fatalistic attitude. Furthermore, from the research,

it appears that some of the children are more aware and concerned about high

magnitude and less frequent hazards (such as landslides and typhoons) than their

parents, who are more worried about dangers on the road, drowning, illnesses

and house fires. Consequently, it appears adults place more emphasis on the

day-to-day hazards, which they feel they have some degree of control over, but

children place greater emphasis on less controllable, low probability but severe

consequence events. This finding requires triangulating with further research,

but provides a hint that child-centred DRR may be supported by children’s innate

framing of risk and hazards.
While the research found that children in the Philippines generally had

a sophisticated understanding of how to reduce disaster risk, Filipino culture

restricts their influence, as adults and parents have the authority in decision-

making and children are expected to follow. In addition, those most respected

in the community are the village elders. It was clear that all the children hoped

that their parent’s perspective could be changed to ‘children can offer something’,

as children felt they had the power to act and could make a substantial

contribution instead of maintaining a passive role. From these initial research

findings, it is clear that child-centred DRR cannot focus on children in isolation,

and must be seen as a community-wide programme involving their parents

and community leaders too. In the case of the Philippines, it will be particularly

important to involve fathers in order to promote a trusting and valued attitude

towards children’s communications within the home. This process could go further

to take the form of well-evaluated action research where children are encouraged

to communicate and educate their family about the risks they face and make

changes around the home to reduce the risks identified.

4.0 Findings

In a wider context, and as DRR policy spaces are generally closed in the

Philippines at present due to weak and disorganised institutions, it is important

for the agency facilitating child-centred DRR not to just focus on programming

at the community level but to look into launching advocacy initiatives both locally

and nationally. National and local DRR organisations and institutions must be

built side-by-side with child-centred DRR programmes and they must be sensitised

to the value and power of children’s voices. Until policy spaces exist at a national

and regional level, it is very difficult for children to be heard on disaster issues

and the research suggests it is unlikely children have the experience, capacity

or agency to launch advocacy campaigns in isolation. Nonetheless, it is important

that advocacy campaigns are conducted as partnerships between children’s

groups and the external facilitating agency, as this helps to transfer skills and

experience to the children. Additionally, children are found to be effective voices

within campaigns, particularly when leveraged through the media.
One further observation from the research in the Philippines is that participatory

focus groups with children and the children’s theatre group were overwhelmingly

dominated in number by girls. In turn, the workshop for the ‘out of school/work’

youth was dominated by boys. This is supported by the wider trend seen in

the Philippines as a whole, where there are more girls than boys in school.

This difference becomes more marked in secondary and tertiary education.

However, within the research meetings with children and youth, neither boys

nor girls voices dominated, though participation from girls was considerably

higher. No discernable difference was noted between girls and boys vis-à-vis

their understanding of DRR, though this element was not carefully researched.

As a result, it is important for the facilitating agency to address biases in

representation, whether gender-related or of one particular socio-economic,

religious or ethnic group. This may be achieved by hosting meetings and events

solely targeted at one group to understand the barriers and issues surrounding

their lack of participation, before exploring ways to integrate them into the

wider programme.

El Salvador

The power of children’s voices

in reducing risks

The risk mapping, ranking and guided walk exercises in Petapa clearly

demonstrated the ability of the children’s community emergency committee to

identify and communicate risks from their own perspective. Beyond this, they have

also been able to identify actions necessary to reduce these risks and to articulate

these needs in different local policy spaces to generate concrete actions. A wide

range of risks were identified during participatory exercises, including those

related to natural hazards such as hurricanes and earthquakes, and those where

human activities were considered to be the key determinant of disasters by raising

vulnerability, such as burning slopes to clear them for cultivation. Water-related

concerns, including contamination, over-abstraction, and erosion/flooding ranked

highly in both communities.

Children as agents for change for Disaster Risk Reduction:

Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines

4.2

High frequency risks were also commonly cited, with the blocked access road

particularly important in El Jocote. The children’s group in Petapa identified

the everyday dumping of litter as the highest priority risk due to the spread

of disease, contamination of air, soil and water, and the potential to block

waterways leading to flooding and landslides. The children’s emergency

committee has consequently undertaken regular clean-up campaigns in their

communities coordinated with the adult emergency committee. In addition, an

environmental education programme in Petapa has targeted awareness-raising

of risks created by tree felling, burning of field slopes to clear for cultivation,

and the extraction of sand and rocks from the River Sumpul. For example, tree

felling was the subject of a mural drawn on the school buildings and signs were

erected by the committee to forbid the extraction of rocks and sand from the river

for personal use. Within the School Emergency Committee, set up as part of

a national response to the 001 earthquakes and the precursor to the current

young people’s committee, children identified risks within the school grounds.

These included potential damage to classrooms from earthquakes and the

presence of steep drops next to walkways. With assistance from Plan, children

lobbied for installation of railings for these walkways.
The research findings exemplify children’s active role as responsible citizens

concerned with the wellbeing of their community, and suggest that there is

considerable potential for children’s and young people’s voices to act as agents

of change. The children involved were quick to express pride in their involvement

in the group and in its achievements to date. This contrasted with earlier stages

of the process in Petapa, when children had felt shy about expressing their views

and were mocked by their peers. By identifying risks and working with others

in the community, including the adult emergency committee, the children’s group

has created tangible changes that bolster self-belief and enthusiasm. Although

concrete actions have not been taken to date in El Jocote, the topic was also met

there with enthusiasm and interest.
This research suggests that such concrete actions may be crucial in allowing

children to develop confidence in their own capacity to act as agents of change

within and outside their community context. The research exercise itself allowed

the children to reflect on their abilities and achievements, as well as to consider

their communication channels and levels of influence to create change.

The results highlight the importance of using a risk management framework

to allow identification of low impact / high frequency ‘everyday’ risks as well

as disaster risks influenced by more occasional seasonal hazards such

as hurricanes and earthquakes.
These elements are an important part of a long-term approach to facilitating

DRR through engagement at community level, and are well represented in the

contrasting evidence between field sites in Petapa and El Jocote. In contrast to

Petapa, both adults and children in the smaller location of El Jocote had more

limited experience in valuing their own and each others’ perspectives and

harnessing the potential agency of all community members. The process of

empowering community members with a belief in both the value of children’s

point of view and their ability to take action to affect change is a valuable

outcome of child-centred DRR programming in El Salvador in its own right.

Such empowerment and self-belief in children’s voices as an agent of change

may be regarded as a crucial pre-requisite to fostering the regular management

of disaster risks.

4.0 Findings

Policy Spaces - Opportunities

for Engagement

The study of policy spaces for children’s voices was necessarily limited to the

Petapa case due to the relative infancy of the El Jocote community in disaster-

related work and the younger age profile of children participating in the research

activities. Policy spaces were identified through participatory stakeholder and

influence mapping exercises, and during informal discussions during breaks

and on guided walks. A range of both official and unofficial pathways were

identified for children and youth to communicate information about risks and risk

reduction actions. Informal pathways focused on talking with family members and

friends, and with teachers and the priest - a major authority in rural communities

in El Salvador. Formal pathways included links with teachers through the School

Emergency Committee, with adults by meeting with the community emergency

committee, and by direct liaison with local leaders in various bodies.
Table . below summarises communication levels and perceived degree

of influence with a variety of these formal channels in Petapa.

Communication Levels and Degree of Influence, Petapa

Children as agents for change for Disaster Risk Reduction:

Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines

Table .

Actor

Communications

Degree of influence

Teachers

Very good

High

Local water board

Very good

High

Adults in the community

Very good

High

Midwives

Very good

High

Community Priest

Excellent

High

Municipal Mayor

Poor

Medium

Community Development Associa-
tion (ADESCO)

Poor

Medium

Health worker

Poor

Low

Policy spaces within households

and communities

Informal communication pathways were found to exist primarily within their

households and the immediate community. Although parents and siblings were

mentioned during discussions as providing the most immediate communication

pathway for children in Petapa, they were not included in their stakeholder

mapping, which focused on formal pathways and actors. The results suggest

a positive relationship between the children’s emergency committee and that

constituted by adults in the community. The presence of family members in both

adult and children’s emergency committees in particular, created positive linkages

and fluidity between formal and informal pathways. These links can also help

to build trust, open further pathways and spaces, and increase influence with

other local actors, as evidenced in Petapa between children and the local

water board. The operation and actions of the children’s group extend into the

neighbouring community of Olosingo in Honduras. This is particularly important

given the collective action necessary for risk reduction related to common

property such as the riverbed and riverbanks.
Early experiences in Petapa highlighted the importance of including parents

and other community members in the process of forming and facilitating children’s

groups. When parents are excluded from the process of awareness raising,

action and empowerment, they may question the motivation or activities of their

family members. In the past, this has led to parents denying permission to children

to attend training, drills or campaign activities. The research suggests that there

has been some improvement in Petapa in this regard as the work has progressed,

but facilitating agencies need to be aware of potential problems around

exclusions, particularly in communities where disasters work is less advanced.

External policy spaces

Interviews, focus groups and visioning exercises with policy- and decision-makers

at regional and national level suggest a sound understanding of the disasters

context. Participants noted both the high levels of disaster hazards in the country

due to its geographical position and geomorphology, and the contribution of high

poverty levels to enhancing vulnerability. Solutions tended to focus on aspects

of vulnerability rather than hazard prevention, which should favour community-

based bottom-up solutions.
The impact of children’s groups supported by Plan El Salvador at community

level is both tangible in terms of actions undertaken and intangible in terms of

empowering the voices of children. Although the research was limited in terms

of time and location, the findings suggest that despite these successes, there

has been limited engagement to date within policy spaces outside community

boundaries. Such engagement is vital if children are to affect policies and

processes shaping development necessary for DRR, rather than affect actions

based solely around hazard prevention, disaster mitigation and preparedness

(see Box .). Research with actors outside the community suggests that this

limited engagement may be due to a variety of factors; not least among these

4.0 Findings

was the limited awareness of the existence of children’s groups and their

relationship with the national Schools Protection Plan (PPE). Generally, focus

group participants acknowledged a major shortfall between the potential role

of children in a normative framework for disaster reduction and their current

limited engagement with policy and decision-making processes outside their

communities. Children were candidly acknowledged as playing no current role

in DRR, but there was enthusiasm for including them in the future. This highlights

the importance of the role a facilitating agency can play in targeting individuals

in strategic positions in order to prepare an enabling environment that allows

children to initiate and sustain dialogue with them in the longer term.

Children as agents for change for Disaster Risk Reduction:

Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines

Box 4.2

Safe policy spaces: At risk from risk reduction?

The River Sumpul forms the border between the study communities and Honduras,

generating large flows during the wet season with the power to cause significant

scouring and riverbank erosion. The children of the Petapa Emergency Committee

identified the un-regulated extraction of rocks and stones from the river as a major

risk, leading to increased erosion and vulnerability to flooding of houses near the

river. Signs prohibiting extraction for personal use have since been erected with

the agreement of the local leaders.
Children recounted the story of the arrival of a lorry from outside the community

to load stones from the river. Acting on the strength of their convictions and

buoyed by their previous activities, a number of children went to the river to

protest at this activity, sitting on top of the lorry until it agreed to leave. Although

for personal use, this collection had apparently been sanctioned by local

authorities, revealing power relations central to the challenge of risk reduction.
Empowerment of children’s voices is likely to lead in future to children’s groups

directly challenging vested interests and power relations that adversely affect

vulnerability. These challenges, including direct action as seen in Petapa, while

laudable in their convictions, may inadvertently put children in positions of

potential danger. Such possibilities need to be carefully monitored by facilitating

agencies, who may be in a strong position to mediate in such situations and

ensure that action does not put children at risk unacceptably.

Key barriers to strengthening

children’s voices

Research with both children and focus groups revealed a number of barriers

to risk reduction practices embedded within national development processes.

Despite the well-developed understanding of DRR among focus group

participants, organisations and institutions remain geared largely towards

emergency activities and preparedness at best. Coordination mechanisms

between organisations are largely ad hoc and based on interpersonal

relationships rather than formal structures. The language and terms within the

disasters field and literature was also an issue raised by focus group participants.

Frequently changing terminology, definitions and emphases have the potential

to cause confusion for practitioners and policy-makers alike.
Resource constraints and limited wider awareness of disaster risks were cited

as factors limiting capacities to work beyond emergencies and preparedness

measures, and to proactively include children within their work. The differentiated

access to and distribution of resources based on political and religious allegiance

was also cited as a problem, providing perverse incentives for relief and

rehabilitation rather than preparedness or risk reduction. Cultural factors also

create barriers, in part instilled by widespread poverty, and often causing

a dislocation between identified risk priorities and everyday actions. These

include a reticence to relocate away from high-risk areas even when assistance

is provided and the continuation of traditional but vulnerability-enhancing

cultivation practices in the absence of alternative practices or livelihood

options. While litter was identified as a top ranking problem for example, many

participants in the exercises regularly dropped their litter during breaks as part

of normal cultural practice.
Perhaps most importantly, the research highlights a fundamental disconnect

underlying the discussions with adults and children. The prevailing understanding

of policy makers has conceptualised the role of children as passive participants

and recipients across a range of potential policy spaces. Stemming from a view

of children primarily as a vulnerable sector of society, children’s voices are

thereby contained and constrained, largely operating in the context of emergency

systems. Their role is therefore one of receiving instructions and adding value

to the efforts of externally generated activities, for example through community

brigades under local government systems. This is in stark contrast to the vision

of Plan as a facilitating agency and of children’s groups themselves, where

children take the lead and present their own vision of risks and risk reduction

actions. They are therefore empowered to act as the protagonists, seeking and

generating internal and external policy spaces, linking with adults in a horizontal

dialogue on risks and priorities.

4.0 Findings

Discussion and Conclusion

5.0

In summary, the research explored what opportunities exist for the voices

of children and their groups to be heard within local and national DRR policy

spaces; and what experiences and capacities the children and their groups have

for doing so. The research indicates that children and young people communicate

their views about the risks they face through a suite of formal and informal

pathways. Informal pathways included talking with family members, teachers

and friends. Formal pathways included linking with teachers through the School

Emergency Committee and Parents, Teachers and Community Association; linking

with adults through the Community Emergency Committee; and direct liaison with

local leaders from various bodies. Children and young people in the Philippines

were represented at youth forums and councils (for example in Nahulid, Southern

Leyte children are represented on the Barangay Development Council) and staged

theatre productions to raise awareness. Young people in Petapa, El Salvador

formed an Emergency Committee following the 001 earthquake.
In addition to the identification and communication of risks, children and young

people have also acted as agents of change particularly in the communities

where Plan, as an external facilitating agency, has been active. Examples

include the establishment of an environmental education programme in Petapa,

El Salvador to raise awareness on issues such as tree felling and the extraction of

sand and rocks from the river. Tree felling was also the subject of a mural drawn

on the school buildings and signs were erected by the committee to forbid the

extraction of rocks and sand from the river. A further example is the campaigning

by the children of Santa Paz National High School in the Philippines, which led

to the relocation of their school away from the landside prone slopes of Southern

Leyte. The children’s organisations in the school including the Supreme Student

Council and Student Government Organisation embarked on an educational

campaign about the physical processes of landslides. Students also wrote to the

School Division Superintendent expressing their desire to relocate. The children

subsequently won a community-wide referendum to relocate their school. Overall,

the level of understanding of DRR and the confidence of the children and young

people in Southern Leyte and Petapa, contrasts with those in Albay and El Jocote,

demonstrating the positive impact of the interventions of an external facilitating

agency, which is both tangible in terms of actions undertaken and intangible in

terms of empowering the voice of children.
A number of common observations can be drawn from the research and are

important by way of conclusion:

Children’s families are crucial actors in the process of child-centred

DRR as households are policy spaces in themselves, with the same

political dynamics, the same need for advocacy and lobbying,

and the same issues with influencing knowledge and action. The

child’s role within the household can be scaled up to the local

community and associated political spheres, particularly if parents

or grandparents are active participants of particular committees

or political bodies. The case of children’s emergency groups in

Children as agents for change for Disaster Risk Reduction:

Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines

dialogue and initiating joint programming with adult groups

in El Salvador can partly be explained by communication

channels being opened due to family relationships. Equally, family

relationships and their socio-economic setting can provide obstacles

to children’s engagement and facilitating agencies must

be careful to address these relationships too in their child-centred

DRR programmes.

How and why children communicate risks within the household

and how their understanding may be different from their parents

or grandparents is still unclear. However, this initial research

suggests that children have significantly different views on risk

compared to their parents (children show greater concern over

high magnitude, low frequency events whereas their parents worry

more about low magnitude, high frequency events). Links can

be made here with the work of Holdren (198) who observed

that ‘people worry most about the risks that seem most directly to

threaten their well being at the moment…….worries about more

subtle and complex threats will materialize if, and only if, the

most direct and obvious threats are taken care of’. Nonetheless,

experience from El Salvador suggests that making progress with

addressing low magnitude, high frequency events gives children’s

groups confidence, cements their position and agency within their

community and provides a launch pad to stronger relationships with

other bodies.

Children’s voices on DRR in wider policy spaces, both within the

community, regionally and nationally, is dependent on the existence

of functioning institutions on DRR and the willingness of key actors

within these institutions to value the voice of children and willingness

to give them a platform to participate. In the Philippines, specific

NGOs, community councils and provincial disaster management

bodies were sighted as sympathetic to the view of children.

Gatekeepers within these bodies are crucial, and the research

suggests both children’s groups and the external facilitating agency

must target them if children’s voices are to be heard in wider DRR

policy spaces. At a national level, external agencies must partner

children’s groups in advocacy campaigns designed to strengthen

DRR institutions and to open policy spaces in which children can

participate and contribute in a meaningful way. Media involvement

is desirable as a way to advocate change given that children’s

voices in the media are often welcomed and highlighted, but this

may require external agencies to develop particular strategies in this

regard. Many senior policy figures acknowledged the importance of

involving children and listening and acting on their views, but almost

all of those interviewed suggested this was an idealised future rather

than a current practice.

5.0 Discussion and Conclusion

Challenges for child-centred DRR

The children involved in the research cited a number of obstacles to their ability

and willingness to participate in DRR programming, such as competing demands

on their time, financial constraints in their families causing the need to work to

support their family, and a lack of interest in the topic from their parents. This

further reinforces the need to work with parents and other community members

in the process of forming and facilitating children’s groups. When parents are

excluded from the process of awareness raising, action and empowerment, they

may question the motivation or activities of their family members. In the case of El

Salvador, this has led to parents denying permission to children to attend training,

drills or campaign activities. A further concern is that the actions of the children’s

group in tackling disaster risk may put children in a situation of unacceptable risk,

which may damage trust in the child-centred programming of external agencies.
Children and adults also considered that socio-cultural factors were barriers to

tackling disaster risk at the community level. Findings in El Salvador suggest

this may in part be instilled by widespread poverty, which causes a dislocation

between identified risk priorities and everyday actions. These include a reticence

to relocate away from high-risk areas, even when assistance is provided; and

the continuation of traditional cultivation practices that inhibit attempts to reduce

vulnerability, in the absence of alternative practices or livelihood options.

Traditional hierarchical households and community structures, further constrained

by vulnerable livelihoods, appear to find it more difficult to listen to the voices

of children, as decision-making authority has never been considered open to

children.
At a regional and national level, scaling up child-centred DRR and securing the

participation and voices of children in policy bodies will continue to be difficult

while countries pursue predominantly reactive disaster management governance

systems, focused on preparedness for response. As a starting point, advocacy

around DRR is crucial, in order to demonstrate that DRR is not just seen as a

way of helping communities to be better prepared for a relief effort, but rather

as a crucial part of every development sector to ensure development does not

inadvertently increase vulnerability to disasters. Children can be part of this

advocacy effort, but until there are functioning DRR institutions in place, the

pathways for the voices of any group to be heard on this issue remain narrow.
However, the biggest challenge for child-centred DRR programming is the

prevailing adult perception that views the role of children and young people not

as proactive protagonists, but as vulnerable recipient-participants targeted within

externally generated disaster risk reduction plans and programmes. This requires

sensitisation and advocacy efforts towards changing perceptions, beliefs and

values, and means it is vital for child-centred DRR to draw on the child rights and

participation literature as a way of entrenching the power and importance of

children’s views within the prevailing socio-cultural setting. Long-term engagement

with politicians, community-leaders, families and children and young people is

vital if attitudes are to be changed and DRR advances are to be made. External

agencies need to commit resources to child-centred DRR programming in the same

community for the long term. This will help child-centred DRR achieve an aim of

seeing programme participants go on to be high-profile DRR policy actors who

make space for children’s voices to be heard on DRR issues. Demonstrating and

Children as agents for change for Disaster Risk Reduction:

Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines

communicating the successes of child-centred DRR, however small, must be

of paramount important to external facilitating agencies.

Are children suitable DRR protagonists?

While the research presented here does not provide enough evidence to be

conclusive, it is hypothesised that informed young people can network among

a community as trusted and potentially politically neutral actors dispelling

competing beliefs, convincing adults of new risks, and instilling more balanced

views. However, it is also well understood that knowledge and comprehension do

not necessarily lead to risk reduction activities and actions based on a rational

translation of this knowledge (Sims and Baumann 198; Kirschenbaum 00).

Building on this, evidence from El Salvador suggests that the children themselves

recognise the wider nature of risk reduction, for example, seemingly unrelated

external factors such as abuse and lack of love, can greatly influence their

vulnerability. Thus, children and youth should be considered as dynamic agents of

change rather than simply vehicles for risk communication.
However, the positive role that children and youth can play in DRR activities must

be viewed with caution. Is it too much to ask children to take on the responsibility

that is generally afforded by adults alone? Their innocence, which is a powerful

tool for message delivery can also be exploited by others with competing

agendas. By facilitating children to realise the powerful positions they hold in

society we may be in fact, contributing to their vulnerability. There is a need to

ensure that national policies and legislations can protect the Rights of the Child

(as per the UN Convention) to ensure their positions of power are not abused

and children are not taking on the responsibility of adults. The responsibility

of having to make decisions for the family at a young age, arguably deprives

the young person of their desire to just be children. However, it is important to

consider the childhood realities of the south. Here children are seen to take on

adult responsibilities including household chores, supporting income generation

and caring for others, as part of their daily lives. Arguably therefore, engaging in

DRR may be to their benefit rather than affecting their childhood innocence. With

this in mind further investigations should focus on the role of children and youth as

risk communicators and as knowledge intermediaries in their own families; and

examine the impacts, both positive and negative, that such involvement may have

on children and their childhood.

5.0 Discussion and Conclusion

Children as agents for change for Disaster Risk Reduction:

Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines

References

Adams, J. (199) Risk, London: UCL Press
Ansell, N. (00) Children, Youth and Development, London: Routledge
Archard, D. (00) Children: rights and childhood, London, NY: Routledge
Arnstein, S (1969) ‘A ladder of citizen’s participation’,

American Institute of Planners Journal, : 16-
Aziz Hamad, M. (00) ‘The child-to-adult method in mine-risk education’, Journal of Mine Action,

11.1, http://maic.jmu.edu/Journal/11.1/notes/aziz/aziz.htm (accessed 9 March 009)
Bartlett, S.; Hart, R.; Satterthwaite, D.; La Barr X.; Missair A. (1999)

Cities for Children, London: UNICEF / Earthscan Publications Ltd
Breakwell, G.M. (000) ‘Risk Communication: Factors Affecting Impact,’

British Medical Bulletin 6: 110-10
Bye, P. and M. Horner (1998) ‘Easter 1998 Floods’,

Report by the Independent Review Team to the Board of the Environment Agency, Bristol
Chawla, L. (00) ‘Insight, creativity and thoughts on the environment: integrating children

and youth into human settlement development’, Environment and Urbanization 1.: 11-
Checkoway, B. and Richards-Schuster, K. (00)

‘Youth participation in community evaluation’, American Journal of Evaluation .1: 1-
Checkoway, B. and Richards-Schuster, K. (001)

‘Lifting new voices for socially just communities’, Community Youth Development : -
Chen, J. and G. Thompstone (00) ‘Children and young people responding to the tsunami’,

Report of the Forum and Fair - Children and youth participation in tsunami response, Phuket,

Thailand, 1-16 November 00, Bangkok, UNICEF and East Asia Pacific Region Office,

http://www.unisdr.org/asiapacific/ap-publications/docs/unicef-child-participation-forum-fair.pdf

(accessed 9 March 009)
Child-to-Child (00) Mine risk education booklet,
http://www.child-to-child.org/resources/onlinepublications.htm (accessed 9 March 009)
Chilvers, J. (00) ‘Democratising science in the UK: the case of radioactive waste management’

in Leach, M.; I. Scoones and B. Wynne (eds) Science and Citizens: Globalization and the

Challenge of Engagement, London: Zed Publications
Convention on the Right of the Child (1989) UNHCHR.

Available at: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu/b/kcrc.htm
Crawford, I., Jason, LA, Riordan, N., Kaufman, J., Salina, DD, Sawalski, L., Ho, FC, & Zolik,

E. (1990) ‘A multimedia based approach to increasing communication and the level of AIDS

knowledge within families’, Journal of Community Psychology 18: 61-
Cutter, S.L. (199) ‘The forgotten casualties: women, children, and environmental change’,

Global Environmental Change .: 181-9
De Winter, M. (199) Children as fellow citizens, Abingdon, Oxon: Radcliffe Medical Press
Declaration of the Right of the Child (199) UNHCHR.

Available at: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu/b/.htm

Children as agents for change for Disaster Risk Reduction:

Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines

References

Douglas, M and A. Wildavsky (198) Risk and culture: an essay on the selection

of technical and environmental danger, Berkeley: University of California Press
Dovers, S. and J. Handmer (199) ‘Uncertainty, sustainability and change’,

Global Environmental Change .: 6-6
Driskell, D. C. (00) Creating better cities with children and youth:

A manual for participation, London: James and James/Earthscan
Earle, T.C. and G. Cvetkovich (199) Social Trust: Toward a cosmopolitan society,

Westport, Connecticut: Praeger
Enarson, E. and B. Morrow (eds) (1998) The Gendered Terrain of Disaster:

Through Women’s Eyes, Westport, CT: Greenwood Publications/Praeger
Fordham, M.H. (00) ‘Gendering vulnerability analysis: towards a more nuanced approach’,

in Bankoff, G.; G. Frerks and D. Hilhorst (eds) Mapping vulnerability: disasters, development

and people, London: Earthscan publications
Fordham, M. H. (001) ‘Challenging boundaries: A gender perspective on early warning

in disaster and environmental management’, Paper presented at the United Nations Division

for the Advancement of Women ISDR expert group meeting on environmental management

and the mitigation of natural disasters: a gender perspective, November 001 Ankara, Turkey.

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/env_manage/documents/EP-001Oct6.pdf

(accessed 9 March 009)
Fordham, M. H. (1999) ‘The intersection of gender and social class in disaster: balancing

resilience and vulnerability’, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 1.1:1-6
Fordham, M. H. (1998) ‘Making women visible in disasters:

problematising the private domain’, Disasters .:16-
Fothergill, A. (1996) ‘Gender, risk, and disaster’, International Journal

of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 1.1: -6
Freeman, M. (199) ‘Taking Children’s Rights More Seriously’,

International Journal of Law and the Family 6: -1
Gibbs, S.; G. Mann and N. Mathers (00) Child-to-Child: A Practical Guide, Empowering

Children as Active Citizens, http://www.child-to-child.org/resources/onlinepublications.htm

(accessed 9 March 009)
Gold, S.J. (199) Refugee Communities: A Comparative Field Study, Newbury Park,

California: Sage Publications
Golombeck, S. (Ed.). (00). What Works in Youth Participation: Case Studies

from Around the World. Baltimore, MD: International Youth Foundation.
Hammarberg, T. (1990) ‘The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child –

and How to Make It Work’, Human Rights Quarterly 1: 9-10
Hart, R.(199) Children’s Participation, London: Earthscan/UNICEF
Handmer, J. (000) ‘Are Flood Warnings Futile? Risk Communication in Emergencies’,

The Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies 000.,
www.massey.ac.nz/~trauma/issues/000-/handmer.htm (accessed 9 March 009)
Harmsworth, G. and B. Raynor (00) ‘Cultural Consideration in Landslide Risk Perception’,

in Glade, T.; A. Anderson and M.J. Crozier (eds), Landslide Hazard and Risk, Chichester: Wiley
Haynes, K.; J. Barclay and N.F. Pidgeon, (forthcoming) ‘The issue of trust and its influence on risk

communication during a volcanic crisis’, Bulletin of Volcanology, http://www.springerlink.com/

content/1816thj18pt/ (accessed 1 March 009)

Children as agents for change for Disaster Risk Reduction:

Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines

References

Hill, L. (006) ‘The Miracle of Versailles: New Orleans Vietnamese Community Rebuilds’,

New Orleans: The Louisiana Weekly
Holdren, J. (198) ‘The Risk Assessors’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 9
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) (00)

‘Appeal 00: International Disaster Response Law’ (Appeal no. 01.100/00) [online],

Geneva: IFRC (Published 00). http://www.ifrc.org/docs/appeals/annual0/011000.pdf

(accessed 1 March 009
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (00),

World Disaster Report 00, Connecticut, Kumarian Press
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (199), Code of Conduct for the

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief,

http://www.ifrc.org/publicat/conduct/index.asp (accessed 9 March 009)
Iyengar, S. and Jackman, S. (00) ‘Technology and politics: incentives for youth
Participation’, International conference on civic education research,

16-18 November 00, New Orleans
Iyer, J. (00) ‘Making it work: Pravah’s experience in working with young people’,

in Golombek, S. (ed.), What works in youth participation: case studies from around the world,

Report by the International Youth Foundation, Baltimore
Jasanoff, S. (1998) ‘The political science of risk perception’,

Reliability Engineering and System Safety 9: 91-99
Kasperson, R.E. (199) ‘The Social Amplification of Risk: Progress in Developing an Integrative

Framework in Social Theories of Risk’, in Krimsky, S. and D. Golding (eds) Theories of Risk,

Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, -18
Kasperson, J.X. and Kasperson, R.E. (00) The social contours of risk, London: Earthscan
Kirschenbaum, A. (00) ‘Preparing for the inevitable: Environmental Risk Perceptions and

Disaster Preparedness’, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters .: 9-1
Kent, G. (001) ‘The human right to disaster mitigation and relief’,

Environmental Hazards : 1-18
Lansdown G. and Karkara R. (006) ‘Children’s right to express views

and have them taken seriously’, The Lancet 6.911: 690-69
Last, M. (199) ‘Putting Children First’, Disasters 18.:19-0
Lee, T.R. (1986) ‘Effective communication of information about chemical hazards’,

The Science of the Total Environment 1: 19-18
Lindell, M.K. and R.W. Perry (00) Communicating Environmental Risk in Multiethnic

Communities, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications
Lisbon Declaration on Youth Policies and Programmes, (1998) Lisbon, Portugal, 1 August 1998.

Available at: http://www.unesco.org/cpp/uk/declarations/lisbon.pdf
Lubit, R. and S. Eth (00) ‘Children, Disasters and the September 11th World Trade Centre

Attack’, in Ursano, R.J. and A.E. Norwood (eds) Trauma and disaster: responses and

management, Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing
MacLeod, H. (000) ‘Holistic care of children in complex humanitarian emergencies’, in Janz, M.

and J. Slead (eds) Complex humanitarian emergencies, California: World Vision International

Children as agents for change for Disaster Risk Reduction:

Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines

References

Márquez, G.G. (1988) Love in the Time of Cholera, London: Penguin
McDevit, M and Chaffee, S.(000) ‘Closing gaps in political communication and knowledge’,

Communication research .: 9-9
Mileti, D.S. and C. Fitzpatrick (199) The Great Earthquake Experiment: Risk Communication

and Public Action, Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press
Molloy D.; White M. and Hosfield N. (00) ‘Understanding youth participation in local

Government: a qualitative study’, final report prepared for Department for Transport, Local

Government and Regions, UK
Moore, R. (000) ‘Youth participation, grow it or kill it - the formula for both’,

Children’s Issues .: 6-8
National Commission on Resources for Youth (19) ‘Youth Participation: A Concept Paper.

A Report of the National Commission on Resources for Youth to the Department of Health,

Education and Welfare’, Office of Youth Development, New York, NY: National Commission

on Resources for Youth
Norris, F.H.; M.J. Friedman and P.J. Watson (00) ‘60,000 disaster victims speak: Part II.

Summary and implications of the disaster mental health research’, Psychiatry 6.: 0-60
Parker, D. J. and J.W. Handmer (1998) ‘The Roles of Unofficial Flood Warning Systems’,

Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 6.1: -60
Penrose, A. and Takaki, M.(006) ‘Children’s rights in emergencies and disasters’,

The Lancet 6.911: 698-699
Pilgrim, N.K. (1999) ‘Landslides, Risk and Decision-making in Kinnaur District: Bridging

the Gap between Science and Public Opinion’, Disasters .1: -6
Plan-UK (00) Children and Disaster Risk Reduction. Plan-UK Briefing Note,

http://www.plan-uk.org/newsroom/publications/ (accessed 9 March 009)
Poortinga, W. and N. Pigeon (00) ‘Trust, the asymmetry principle, and the role of

prior beliefs’, Risk Analysis : 1-186
Prout, A (000) Children’s participation: control and self-realisation in British late modernity,

Children and Society, 1.: 0-1.1, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons
Rayner, S. (198) ‘Disagreeing about risk: The institutional cultures of risk management and

planning for future generations’, in Hadden, S.G. (ed.) Risk Analysis, Institutions, and Public Policy,

New York: Associated Faculty Press
Renn, O. and D. Levine (1991) ‘Credibility and Trust in Risk Communication’, in Kasperson, R.

and P.J. Stallen (eds) Communicating Risk to the Public, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers
Ronan, K.R. and D.M. Johnston (00) Promoting community resilience in disasters.

The role for schools, youth and families, New York: Springer
Ronan, K. R. and Johnston, D. (00) ‘Hazard education for youth: A quasi-experimental

investigation’, Risk Analysis .: 1009-100
Ronan, K. R. and Johnston, D. (001) ‘Correlates of Hazard Education Programs for Youth’,

Risk Analysis 1.6: 10-106
Ronan, K.R. and D.M. Johnston (1996) ‘Volcanic eruptions and children: Assessment and school

based intervention’, paper presented at the Pan Pacific Hazards 1996 Conference, Vancouver
Ronan, K.R.; D.M. Johnston; M. Daly and R. Fairley (001) ‘School children’s risk perception

and preparedness: a hazard education survey’, The Australian Journal of Disaster

and Trauma Studies 1: 1-

Children as agents for change for Disaster Risk Reduction:

Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines

References

Roshani, K. (199) ‘Youth Participation in Youth Development’, paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the Comparative and International Education society, Mexico City, Mexico, March

199. [Summary provided by Kathy Paxton]
Saphir M.N and Chaffee, S. (00) ‘Adolescents’ contributions to family communications

patterns’, Human Communication research 8.1: 86-108
Satterthwaite, D.; Hart, R.; Levy, C.; Mitlin, D.; Ross, D.; Smit, J. and Stephens, C. (1996)

‘Children as a bridge to sustainable development’, in The environment for children,

London: Earthscan
Save the Children (000) ‘re:action: consultation toolkit’, Save the Children UK.

Available at: http://www.shb.scot.nhs.uk/initiatives/pfpi/documents/6.Reaction_toolkit.pdf
Scottish Executive (00) ‘Youth Participation’, Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe)

Briefing 0/, Monday 9th April 00
Shucksmith and Hendry (1998) Adolescents and Health Issues: Growing Up

and Speaking Out, London: Routledge
Sims, J. H. and Baumann, D. D. (198) ‘Educational Programs and Human Response

to Natural Hazards’, Environmental Behaviour 1.: 16-189
Slovic, P. (1986) ‘Informing and Educating the Public About Risk.’, Risk Analysis :0-1
Slovic, P. (199) ‘Perceived risk, trust, and democracy’, Risk Analysis 1: 6-68
Soong, T. (006) ‘Vietnamese groups groom young leaders’, New Orleans,

Louisiana:Times-Picayune,
The Sphere Project (00) Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response,
http://www.sphereproject.org/component/option,com_docman/task,cat_view/gid,1/

Itemid,0/lang,English/ (accessed 1 March 009)
Synthesis Report of the Tsunami Evaluation Coalition (006),
http://www.tsunami-evaluation.org/ (accessed 1 March 009)
European Youth Pact (00) - March 00, Brussels, Belgium.

Available at: http://europa.eu/youth/news/index_190_en.html
The European Commission White Paper on Youth: A New Impetus for European Youth (001).

Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumb

er&lg=en&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=001&nu_doc=681
The Ford Foundation (000) Worldwide Workshop on Youth Involvement as a Strategy for Social,

Economic and Democratic Development, Johannesburg, South Africa: Knoxville Press
Twigg, J. (00) ‘Disaster risk reduction: mitigation and preparedness in development

and emergency planning’, Overseas Development Institute Good Practice Review 9
Twigg, J., (00) The Right to Safety: Some Conceptual and Practical Issues, Disaster Studies

Working Paper 9, Benfield Hazard Research Centre, http://www.benfieldhrc.org/disaster_

studies/working_papers/pdfs/workingpaper9.pdf
Verhellen, E. (000) Convention on the Rights of the Child, Leuven/Apeldoorn: Garant
United Nations Economic and Social Council (UNESC) (000) Substantive Issues Arising in the

Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: The Right

to the Highest Standard of Health, E/C, 1/000/ (General Comment No. 1), http://www.

unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/E.C.1.000..En?OpenDocument (accessed 1 March 009)

Children as agents for change for Disaster Risk Reduction:

Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines

References

UNICEF (006) The state of the world’s children 00. Women and children – the double

dividend, New York: The United Nations Children’s Fund, http://www.unicef.org/sowc0/docs/

sowc0.pdf (accessed 1 March 009)
Ursano R.J. and A.E. Norwood (00) Trauma and disaster: responses and management,

Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing
US White House (006) ‘The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned’,

February 006, US White House Report
Villalta, V and N. Hall (006) ‘Progress Report to UK Governments Department For International

Development on the Children at the Centre of Disaster Risk Reduction programme’, (unpublished)
White, P.; Pelling, M.; Sen, K.; Seddon, D.; Russell, S. and Few, R. (00) Disaster Risk Reduction:

A Development Concern, London: DfID
Wilbanks, T.J. and R.W. Kates (1999) ‘Climatic Change in Local Places’,

Climatic Change .: 601-68
Wisner, B. (006) Let Our Children Teach Us! A review of the role of education and knowledge in

disaster risk reduction, UNISDR, http://www.unisdr.org/eng/task%0force/working%0groups/

knowledge-education/docs/Let-our-Children-Teach-Us.pdf (accessed 1 March 009)
Wynne, B.E. (199) ‘Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake

of Science’, Public Understanding of Science1.: 81-0
Wynne, B.E. (199) ‘Public understanding of science’, in Jasanoff, S.; G. Markle; J. Peterson

and T. Pinch (eds) Handbook of science and technology studies, Thousand Oaks: Sage, 61-88