Spatialization of Child Protection in Emergencies
As noted above, within the humanitarian field there are various initiatives that explicitly invoke an assumption that the young are best protected by enclosing them within a defined space.
The family and immediate community are seen as the central space where protection is best achieved and therefore efforts are commonly made to strengthen these institutions. However, there is an evolving range of initiatives pursued across different emergency contexts in which outside agencies, often working with local partners, pursue an approach involving the identification or creation of additional safe space. An obvious example of this is the “child-friendly space” - a notion invoked by many humanitarian organizations. According to the understanding of World Vision, for example, a “child-friendly space” is...a structured and safe place where children and youth meet other children to play, learn competencies to deal with the risks they face, be involved in some educational activities and relax in a safe place. It gives the children a sense of safety, structure and continuity that provides support amidst overwhelming experiences. (2005, p. 1)
In some locations, agencies are active in promoting the notion that the space of protection should be coterminus with the physical being of individual children. This can be witnessed in advocacy campaigns to treat “children as zones of peace” (CZOP). In addition, the territory to be kept apart from the surrounding conflict may be defined in terms of the institutional space that children are assumed to inhabit routinely - most obviously the school. Thus, for example, in Nepal, a campaign focussed around CZOP has led to a further campaign of SZOP - “schools as zones of peace.” The stated aim of the SZOP campaign is “to keep all schools free from political and other interference; discrimination, violence, and corporal punishment; neglect and exploitation” (CZOPP 2011). This speaks to a range of aims, only some of which relate directly to children’s needs for protection from the threats resulting from armed conflict. In the Nepali context, for example, discrimination in schools on the basis of caste is a long-standing issue that far predates the Maoist-led “People’s War.” The inclusion of an aim to end discrimination (as well as corporal punishment, neglect, and so on) illustrates the ways that the securing of space in the name of children’s protection often goes hand in hand with the pursuit of other aims that have little to do with risks arising from conflict. As for the general population in refugee camps so for children: enclosure can serve a range of functions beyond immediate protection.
5