Linking rural community livelihoods to

resilience building in flood risk reduction in

Zimbabwe
Patrick Gwimbi
Department of Environmental Health, National University of Lesotho
pgwimbi@hotmail.com

ABSTRACT
The increasing occurrence of disastrous flooding events and the mounting losses in both
life and property values in Zimbabwe have drawn attention to the flooding situation in
the country, especially the rural areas. This article explores the resilience of vulnerable
rural communities to flood risks associated within increasingly frequent and severe events
linked to climate change. Starting by reviewing the current literature on rural livelihoods,
resilience and vulnerability research, the paper argues for a coordinated teamwork ap-
proach in flood risk mitigation in rural areas. The paper concludes with several recom-
mendations for enhanced resilience to flood hazards.

KEYWORDS
resilience, livelihood, vulnerability, flood risk

Introduction
This paper advocates the capacity building of rural communities against negative
flood impact through livelihood resilience building and proposes a set of resil-
ience strategies to mitigate the negative impacts. The question of how vulnerable
communities, dependent on natural resources, can increase their resilience to
flood hazard shocks, stresses, and crises is central to the argument. Resilience
strategies in the context of the capacity building of marginalised rural communi-
ties in different aspects of resilience are advocated. Inevitably, it is the marginal-
ized groups that suffer most when floods strike (Madamombe, 2004; Gumbo,
2004; Vlachos, 1995). The main question of the study is: what resilience options
for flood risk reduction exist in rural areas? This question is answered by develop-
ing linkages between livelihoods, vulnerability and resilience building.
71 JÀMBÁ: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, Vol. 2, No.1, March 2009
 Linking rural community livelihoods to resilience building in flood risk reduction in Zimbabwe

The link between livelihoods and disaster exposure in rural areas

The link between disaster exposure and access to resources has been well docu-
mented elsewhere in disaster literature (Abdellati et al., 2003; Adger, 2000;
Brooks, 2000; Berkes, 1989). These dangers include increasing the likelihood of
populations living in more hazard prone areas, having less protection against di-
saster impact, lowering coping capacity during and after the hazardous event, as
well as negating many of the development gains achieved prior to the disaster
event (UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, 2002). As a result, suc-
cessive disasters in different parts of the world have demonstrated time and again
that the impact of a disaster in terms of life, assets, and potential for recovery is
borne disproportionately by many countries and within them by the poorest seg-
ments of the society (Alverez, 2006; Vlachos, 1995). Natural disasters, particu-
larly flooding and drought, impact directly on rural communities in Zimbabwe
(Shumba, 2000; Madamombe, 2004; Gwimbi, 2004). This has threatened food
security and family wellbeing in rural areas where the resource base on which they
rely has been undermined (Shumba, 2000).

Carney (1998) as cited by the International Institute for Sustainable Develop-

ment (IISD, 2003) defines livelihood as comprising the capabilities, assets and
activities required for a means of living. Central to this definition are livelihood
assets. According to IISD (2003), livelihood assets are the means of production
available to a given community that can be used to generate material resources
sufficient for the community’s survival. In the definition, the five forms of liveli-
hood assets are given as natural, social-political, human, physical and financial
capital. A livelihood is said to be sustainable if it can cope with and recover from
stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now
and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base. The more
asset bases a community have the more sustainable its livelihood. Priorities sup-
porting poverty reduction through the sustainable livelihoods approach need to
be supported in the disaster context, so as to strengthen the links between the
sustainable livelihoods approach and vulnerability reduction. Vulnerability, ac-
cording to Brooks (2003), is the likelihood or probability of harm to the system,
such as for example declining quality of life or loss of lives. The proportion of
human lives, assets, and economic activity that could be affected in a given place
should a given disaster occur is seen as a phenomenon that is related to level of
exposure to risk (Carney, 1998; UNDP, 2002).

While all assets are important for rural communities, natural resources are un-
doubtedly the most important (Carney, 1998). In Zimbabwe, rural communities
JÀMBÁ: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, Vol. 2, No.1, March 2009 72
 Patrick Gwimbi

are particularly dependent on natural resources (Gwimbi, 2004; Shumba, 2000)

and are therefore severely affected by deteriorating environmental conditions and
factors limiting access to them. A study by Gwimbi (2004) on the 2000 flood
impact in the Lower Muzarabani District in the Zambezi basin showed a signifi-
cant correlation between flood impact and the geographical location of the com-
munities in the floodplain. Generally, significant correlation coefficients were
noted between flood impact variables such as crop damages, dropping out of
school by children, flooding of homes and flood related illnesses and death, on
the one hand, and proximity to the flood plains. Disease outbreaks were associ-
ated with the disruption of the clean water supply (83%) and persistence of water
in the low-lying areas, which created breeding places for mosquitoes (96%).

Despite the high impact of floods on variables such as crop damage (80%), de-
struction of homes (55%), high incidence of illnesses related to floods (73%) and
high absenteeism from school (76%), more than 70% of the respondents in the
study had no plans to migrate from the lowland areas to high ground. Generally
the number of households reluctant to move from the floodplain increased with
more assets owned by households in the area. The state of vulnerability of rural
people is aggravated by their limited access to essential resources (UNDP, 2002).

In Africa’s rural areas, vulnerability to floods is closely linked to access to resourc-

es because these are a principal means by which people reduce their vulnerability
to famine. In southern Africa for instance, climate variability is a major problem
for many rural communities where the majority of the population still live and
are directly and indirectly dependent on rain-fed agriculture. An example of this
is the widespread flooding due to Cyclone Eline in 2000 over Mozambique,
South Africa, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Botswana and Namibia (Vaz, 2000). The cy-
clone-induced floods in the Zambezi Basin claimed the lives of 700 people and
left more than 500 000 people homeless and caused over US$1billion of infra-
structural damage (Wamukonya et al, 2001). In Zimbabwe the floods were the
worst in many years and highlighted the significance of disaster management at
community level. The death toll was increased by survivors who were left to suffer
a lack of food and clean water and a malaria outbreak stemming from mosquitoes
swarming and breeding in the floodwaters (Shumba, 2000).

Floodplains, as traditional areas of special importance for rural communities, of-

fer favourable conditions for human settlement, economic development and as-
sets for sustainable livelihood support. At the same time natural hazards threaten
these areas as hazardous floods go hand in hand with economic and other liveli-
73 JÀMBÁ: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, Vol. 2, No.1, March 2009
 Linking rural community livelihoods to resilience building in flood risk reduction in Zimbabwe

hood activities (Adger 2000; Rolfe, 2006). The limited capacity of local com-
munities to deal with the resulting disasters is one of the major challenges facing
local authorities in the region.

Flood risk resilience options available for rural communities

The context that makes flood resilience relevant is climate change. Alarming evi-
dence from around the world of increasingly frequent and severe weather events
cannot continue to be treated as if there were no link between the events and the
occurrence of disasters such as floods (United Nations, 2000). Climate change is
the world’s greatest long-term challenge (Berkes and Jolly, 2002), and addressing
it needs both political will and public support, including marginalized rural com-
munities themselves.

In southern Africa, for example, countries such as Mozambique, Malawi, Zimba-

bwe, and Zambia have many areas that suffer from periodic floods and cyclones,
often on a disastrous scale. The question of what is going wrong, and what lessons
can be learnt from the disasters, puts resilience building and other disaster mitiga-
tion measures under scrutiny. The effectiveness of these forms of flood mitigation
measures is tested in terms of how they persuade vulnerable communities to
adopt self-protective behaviours before the onset of floods. While analyses of the
risks and vulnerabilities of communities hit by floods have been conducted else-
where (Gwimbi, 2004; Madamombe, 2004; Ellis, 2000), many questions are still
raised in terms of what can be done to minimize the negative impact on com-
munities’ livelihoods. For example, how resilient would the communities be if the
floods were to strike again? Are there strategies in place and if so who is respon-
sible for their dissemination to the public? What information is encompassed in
the resilience building? Are the strategies accepted or ignored by the local com-
munities and, if ignored, what are the reasons? Brooks (2003) agues that the role
of the public needs to be recognised in resilience building because, while the
technical aspects of mitigation measures are important, their acceptance by the
public should not be underestimated. For a community to be resilient, its mem-
bers must have the capacity to bounce back if a disaster strikes (Walker et al.,
2004).

The resiliency concept needs to be better understood contextually before practi-

cal implications can be drawn about building resiliency in communities.
The term resiliency generally refers to those factors and processes that limit nega-
tive behaviours associated with stress and result in adaptive outcomes even in the
presence of adversity. Rose (2004), for example, defines resilience as a process of,

JÀMBÁ: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, Vol. 2, No.1, March 2009 74

 Patrick Gwimbi

or capacity for, or the outcome of successful adaptation despite challenging and

threatening circumstances.

Kulig’s (2000) view is that disaster risk reduction should focus on building resil-
ient communities, rather than merely responding to natural disasters. His argu-
ment is that there is a need to address the causes of vulnerability, and consider
doing so as an investment towards building resilient communities that will have
the capacity to face disasters in future. The resilience paradigm sees communities
as the focal points when dealing with the challenges associated with shocks and
stresses resulting from a hazardous event (Rolfe, 2006; Kulig, 2000).

Trosper’s (2002) view is that, to be resilient, communities must generally demon-

strate the ability to buffer the disturbance, self-organize before, during and after
the disturbance, and learn and adapt to the disturbance. Resilience strategies
should imply communities not only being able to cope and recover but also
changing to reflect different priorities arising from the disaster. This can be in the
form of building hazard-resistant structures, adaptive social behaviours, and dis-
semination of early warnings, among other strategies (Pelling, 2003). Resilience
literature also generally affirms that the concept should encompass not merely
surviving, but thriving and deriving benefits from the stressor as well (Adger et
al., 2005; De Bruijn et al., 2003; Rolfe, 2006).

The critical question is then: what livelihood options are available to communi-
ties that can enable them to become more resilient to flood risks while improving
their living standards? The options are many and varied.

Providing early warning information and advice to households on how to re-

spond to flood risk is one important resilient strategy to reduce risks to people
and property. It has the potential to play an important part in ensuring that the
households adapt well to the negative impacts of climate change. Without such
measures, households living with flood risk may have little option but to suffer
the consequences of flooding again and again. Households are more likely to
participate in their community when community leaders encourage active in-
volvement and they believe their contributions and ideas are valued by commu-
nity leaders, as well as seeing the benefits of being involved for themselves, their
children and the entire community.

Alverez (2006) is of the view that the participation of local people is important in
designing and planning the processes of flood risk management particularly with

75 JÀMBÁ: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, Vol. 2, No.1, March 2009

 Linking rural community livelihoods to resilience building in flood risk reduction in Zimbabwe

respect to policy measures. For that reason, he calls for the enhancement of indig-
enous knowledge systems in disaster preparedness especially flood risk communi-
cation among local communities. For example, a local flood warning system can
empower the local people, promote self-reliance and encourage participation by
local people to mitigate or prevent flood losses and damages. His argument is
that the tendency to impose ‘first world’ disaster management systems without
regard for indigenous cultures has led to disaster plans being regarded more as
symbols than as practical tools by local communities. Community participation
and application of local knowledge has the advantage of positively addressing the
local socio-economic concerns. It will also empower members with knowledge
and skills; which will further strengthen their capacity to contribute to develop-
ment initiatives. There is however scepticism surrounding the notion of indige-
nous knowledge systems in some authors of disaster literature (Alvard, 1993).
Some disaster management professionals have always been suspicious about
claims of native wisdom in the management of disasters. Alvard’s (1993) argu-
ment is that indigenous peoples may have a profound knowledge of their envi-
ronment, but it does not follow that they will use this knowledge for a conscious
conservation of their resources.

Communities also need to develop community disaster plans, ensure effective

communication amongst all members of the community and work with experts
in the field of disaster management. Kulig (2000) and Brown (2002) refer to the
role of communities in acting as sources of information, where pressures from
hazards in their localities in general, may pose potential risk factors. With capac-
ity building being at the centre of the building community resilience, coordina-
tion by donors as well as government agencies is fundamental.
Integrated conservation and development approaches would appear to add weight
to the holistic approach to flood management and increasing resilience against
flood risks. Adaptive management strategies not only pursue the goals of greater
ecological stability, but also of more flexible institutions for resource management
(Holling, 1978).

Conclusion
This paper attempted to assess some of the existing disaster literature on issues
surrounding livelihood and resilience of communities under flood risk in Zimba-
bwe. The starting point in this debate is a common understanding of the con-
cepts of livelihood, vulnerability and resilience, as well as an understanding of the
gaps between current resilience approaches. The views of several authors con-
JÀMBÁ: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, Vol. 2, No.1, March 2009 76
 Patrick Gwimbi

sulted are that the relationship between the dimensions of livelihood and resil-
ience is interactive and mutually reinforcing. In their argument, the forces of
nature cannot be stopped, but can be better understood and their effects mapped,
while humans learn to live with these forces. Central to the rural livelihoods re-
silience building debate are livelihood assets. While flood risks are not the only
threat to natural resources and livelihoods, the changes they induce in resource
flows will affect the viability of livelihoods unless effective measures are taken to
protect them through adaptation and other strategies. For vulnerable rural com-
munities, these strategies should include natural resources management using
knowledge systems readily available to the communities.

References
ABDELLATTI, H., OSMAN-ELASHA, B., GOUTBI, N., SPANGER-SIEGFRIED,
E., DOUGHERTY, B., HANAFI, A., ZAKIELDEEN, S., SANJAK, A., ELHASSAN,
H.M. 2003. Livelihoods and Climate Variability/AIACCAF14 Case Study, Higher
Council for Environment and Natural Resources Khartoum, Sudan.
ADGER, N.W., HUGHES, T.P., FOLKE, C., CARPENTER, S.R. & ROCKSTRON,
J. 2005. Social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science, 309(5737):1036-1039.
ADGER, N.W. 2000. Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Progress in
Human Geography, 24(3): 347-364.
ALVARD, M. 1993. Testing the ‘Ecologically Noble Savage’ Hypothesis: Interspecific
Prey Choice by Piro Hunters of Amazonia Peru. Human Ecology, 21: 355-387.
ALVAREZ, J. G. 2006. An institutional analysis of flood risk management.
A new approach applied in Scotland. Unpublished Masters’ dissertation. University of
Edinburgh
BERKES, F. & JOLLY, D. 2002. Adapting to climate change: Social-ecological resil-
ience in a Canadian Western Arctic community. Conservation Ecology, 5(2):514-532.
BERKES, F (Ed). 1989. Common property resources: Ecology and community-based
sustainable development. Belhaven, London.
BROOKS, N. 2003. Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: a conceptual framework.
Tyndall Centre Working Paper 38. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.
University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
BROWN, K. 2002. Innovations for conservation and development. Geographical
Journal, 168(1):6-17.
CARNEY, D (Ed). 1998. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What Contribution can we
make? DFID
77 JÀMBÁ: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, Vol. 2, No.1, March 2009
 Linking rural community livelihoods to resilience building in flood risk reduction in Zimbabwe

CHAMBERS, R. And CONWAY, G. 1992. Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical con-

cepts for the 21st century IDS. Discussion Paper 296. IDS. Brighton.
DE BRUIJN, K.M., VIS, M., KLIJN, F., VAN BUUREN, M. 2003. Resilience
Strategies in the Netherlands. International Journal of River Basin Management, 1(1):
33- 40.
ELLIS, F. 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford.
Oxford University Press.
GUMBO, D. 2006. Zimbabwe Country Case Study on Domestic Policy Frameworks
for Adaptation in the Water Sector. Paper presented at the Annex Expert
Group Seminar in Conjunction with the OECD Global Forum on Sustainable
Development on 28 March 2006. [WEB:] http://www.oecd.org/datao-
ecd/58/58/36318866.pdf
GWIMBI, P. 2004. Flood Hazard Impact and Mitigation Strategies in Disaster Prone
Areas of Muzarabani District (Zimbabwe): Exploring the Missing Link. Ossrea, Addis
Ababa.
HOLLING, C. S. 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. John
Wiley & Sons. New York.
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (IISD).
2003. Livelihoods and Climate Change: Combining disaster risk reduction, natural re-
source management and climate change adaptation in a new approach to the reduction of
vulnerability and poverty. A Conceptual Framework Paper Prepared by the Task Force on
Climate Change, Vulnerable Communities and Adaptation. [WEB:] http://www.iisd.
org/pdf/2003/natres_livelihoods_cc.pdf
KULLIG, J. 2000. Community resiliency: The potential for community health nursing
theory development. Public Health Nursing, 17(5):374-385.
MADAMOMBE, K. 2004. Zimbabwe: Flood Management Practices - Selected Flood
Prone Areas Zambezi Basin. Unpublished paper.
ROLFE, R. E. 2006. Social Cohesion and Community Resilience: A Multi-Disciplinary
Review of Literature for Rural Health Research. Department International
Development Studies, Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research. Saint Mary’s University.
Halifax, NS.
ROSE, A. 2004. Defining and Measuring Economic Resilience to Disasters. Disaster
Prevention and Management, 13(4):30714.
SHUMBA, O. 2000. An assessment of NGO Disaster Mitigation and Preparedness
Activities in Zimbabwe: Country Survey. SAFIRE. Harare.
TOMPKINS, E. L., And HURLSTON, L.A. 2003. Report to the Cayman Islands’
Government: adaptation lessons learned from responding to tropical cyclones by the
Cayman Islands’ Government, 1988 - 2002. Tyndall Centre Working Paper 35. Norwich,
UK.
JÀMBÁ: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, Vol. 2, No.1, March 2009 78
 Patrick Gwimbi

TROSPER, R. L. 2002. Northwest coast indigenous institutions that supported resil-

ience and sustainability. Ecologial Economics, 41: 329-344.
UNITED NATIONS. 2000. Sustainable flood prevention. Meeting of the Parties to the
Convention on the Protection and Use of the Transboundary Water Courses and
International Lakes. Economics for Europe Commission, United Nations.
UNDP. 2002. Reducing Disaster risk: A challenge for development. [WEB:] http://
www.undp.org.
UNITED NATIONS INTERNATIONAL STRATEGY FOR DISASTER RISK
REDUCTION (UNISDR). 2002. Living with risk: a global review of disaster reduc-
tion. [WEB:] http:// www.unisdr.org.
VAZ, C. 2000. Coping with floods: The experience of Mozambique. [WEB:] http://
www.thewaterpage.com/floods.
VLACHOS, E. 1995. Socioeconomic Impacts and Consequences of Extreme floods.
Sociology Department, Colorado State University. Colorado, USA.
WALKER, I.J. And Dolan, A.H. 2004. Understanding vulnerability of coastal commu-
nities to climate chance and related risks. Journal of Coastal Research, SI 39.

79 JÀMBÁ: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, Vol. 2, No.1, March 2009