Children’s right to be heard in Nordic crisis governance – Legal reflections and regional lessons
Author: Professor Emerita Kirsten Sandberg
Lessons from the pandemic – Child participation in Nordic countries
The Nordic countries adopted a variety of strategies in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, reflecting national contexts, public health priorities, and governance structures. While approaches differed, all countries implemented measures that had a significant impact on children’s everyday lives.
Denmark and Greenland acted early with comprehensive restrictions and border controls to limit the spread of the virus. The Faroe Islands emphasised flexibility by relying primarily on recommendations rather than legislation. Iceland introduced a series of targeted regulations affecting schools, while Sweden sought to maintain in-person education as far as possible. Norway treated the pandemic primarily as a public health crisis, with infection control and hospital capacity guiding many decisions, which led to periods of lockdown and service closures. In Åland, the Finnish emergency powers legislation temporarily extended state authority, affecting schools and children’s activities. Finland also implemented national-level measures, including school closures, which applied to Åland as well.
Children’s situation during the pandemic in a nutshell
Most of the Nordic countries had several periods of nationwide lockdown and restrictive measures to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. The severity and length of the restrictions varied from country to country.
For children and young people, to a varying degree in the different countries, this meant school closures, restrictions on leisure activities, and limited opportunities for social interaction and communication. The restrictions affected issues such as studying, healthcare and social welfare, leisure time, and social relationships. Adverse consequences for children’s well-being, learning, inclusion, and mental health have been documented. Positive effects were reported by some children, depending on their age and situation.
Children experienced difficulties with schoolwork as well as stress during distance learning. The pandemic changed children’s everyday lives and affected their safety, empowerment, and sense of future. While many children took responsibility for fighting the spread of the virus and obeyed the restrictions, they saw adults breaking the restrictions, which created mistrust among children. Children adjusted their behaviour, made fewer friends, and worried about their family’s health and finances. Extracurricular activities disappeared. School became more difficult as motivation dropped. Still, for some children being away from everyday school life meant less bullying and less feeling of exclusion.
In the Faroe Islands, all the schools consulted highlighted the benefits of the shorter school day, as students became more motivated and lessons more effective. The government highlighted as perhaps the most important lesson in the education sector that relationships between students and teachers, and among students, are crucial for learning.
Children had mixed feelings about parents working from home. Some thought it was nice to have more time together, especially young children. Others became desperate for the lack of private life, particularly older children. For many children, the situation became more demanding over time. Gradually there was more loneliness, depression, and children missing their grandparents, etc.
The normal safety nets to protect children had been put out of play. The under-reporting to the child protection services, particularly during spring 2020, raised concerns.
Some children in state care found it easier to be in touch with their social worker digitally while others found it more difficult when they could not have physical meetings.
The pandemic contributed to advancing the use of digital tools. Despite the challenges, digital learning was a positive effort to maintain education, but it also introduced new obstacles. Some families lacked a stable connection or the necessary computers or tablets. Children facing difficult social circumstances and poverty struggled even more to keep up with their peers.
All in all, children, young people, and their families were strongly affected, although in different ways, by the pandemic and the measures taken to combat it. In general, the effects of the pandemic were more severe for children who were already facing challenges in life.
Despite the extensive consequences for children, their voices and perspectives were largely absent from policy-making processes, which were primarily based on health considerations and the desire to minimise the risk of infection in the wider population. Children and young people were rarely consulted in decision-making processes and had few opportunities to influence decisions, whether at their school, in their community, or society at large. Moreover, decisions were not accompanied by explicit child rights impact assessments (CRIAs). While there were some positive efforts to provide child-friendly information, these initiatives did not reach all children equally, leaving many without access to the guidance they needed.
Children’s rights and best interests
The authorities approached the pandemic primarily as a public health crisis, and the consequences for children and young people were not sufficiently addressed. Children’s perspectives were mostly not represented in the nations’ leadership groups for corona strategy and measures, at least not the first few months. Measures were adopted without a careful assessment of the best interests of the child or the potential effects on children. This applied to broad population-wide measures, such as general lockdown, and to decisions specifically targeting children, particularly closure of schools and leisure activities. It also applied to various other protective and precautionary measures, such as related to respiratory protective equipment, the composition of groups or space arrangements, and the phasing out of measures.
Psychosocial support services to children were limited, and the system for identifying children in need was largely non-functioning, as children were not at school or in other settings apart from their family.
Gradually, children’s rights received more attention thanks to the efforts of the Ombudspersons in the different countries, and it became a national goal to protect children and young people. However, in most of the Nordic countries this goal was not achieved in a fully satisfactory way.
The pandemic also had some good effects. For example, in Åland, the Education Act was amended in ways that will make the education sector more prepared to meet future crises.
Children’s participation
In the Nordic countries, there is a varying degree of awareness and understanding among adults about the importance of listening to children and involving them in decision-making processes. Children and young people generally have limited opportunities to participate in democratic processes on decisions that affect their lives, both at the local and national levels.
As a general observation, children’s views were insufficiently heard and considered during the pandemic. Even in those countries where the authorities normally understand the need to hear children’s views in decision-making, the right to participate was not implemented to any great extent during the pandemic, and if so, only gradually.
The pandemic revealed a lack of structured mechanisms for involving children and young people in decision-making in times of crisis, including in essential decisions such as school closures.
Existing structures for child participation were not used, such as youth councils and student councils. Although these bodies could not be convened in person, they could have been consulted digitally.
In the decision-making structures established to manage the pandemic, there was no one to represent children’s views, and their views were not included. Children’s organisations were not systematically consulted, and their voices were largely absent from the processes guiding key decisions.
Digital channels for hearing children were used to a varying extent in the different countries. For instance, in Finland and Åland there were some good initiatives (see Recommendations). However, overall, digital tools to engage children could have been more actively and consistently used.
In their own schools, children had no real opportunity to influence how decisions about distance learning or other restrictions were implemented. They were neither consulted nor given the opportunity to express their views before decisions were made, even though the changes had a direct impact on their education and everyday life. This lack of involvement led to feelings of powerlessness and exclusion amongst many.
On a positive note, many children demonstrated a strong willingness to contribute. In Iceland, for instance, children played an active role in the fight against the Covid-19 pandemic, making a significant contribution to protecting vital societal interests. In Sweden and probably in other countries as well, children were eager to contribute to society and be involved in the measures implemented to stop the infection. Had adults to a greater extent been aware of this motivation and provided opportunities for children in this regard, it could have significantly strengthened children’s sense of empowerment and inclusion.
Children in vulnerable situations
The usual safety nets designed to protect children were either suspended or severely weakened during the pandemic. As a result, vulnerable children faced increased risks in unsafe environments, with limited access to safe spaces such as school or leisure activities. Due to restrictions, their contacts with adults outside the home were fewer, making it more difficult for others to detect signs of distress or abuse.
Teachers, educators, and others were unable to identify the needs of children when they were not in contact with them. If they did identify needs, some school professionals experienced that it was hard to get support from professionals in other sectors.
Although there was clear knowledge and advice emphasising the importance of keeping services for children and young people open, especially schools, it was not sufficiently communicated to decision-makers. If it did reach them, it could take long before it was acted upon.
Children belonging to gender and sexual minorities, those living in financially poor families, and those with health issues experienced a clearer decline in inclusion than other children. As for involving children themselves in finding solutions for children in vulnerable situations, it did not happen.
Information to children
Efforts were made to inform children in a child-friendly manner, and some good practices are mentioned below. However, improvement is sorely needed. Children often did not receive important information, or it arrived too late or was not tailored to their age, needs, or circumstances. There was particularly insufficient communication for young children and children in minority groups, who were often left without accessible or relevant information during critical phases of the pandemic.
Follow-up after the pandemic
At least in some countries, the long-term consequences of the pandemic on children are no longer taken into consideration when the authorities assess challenges, develop policies, and design measures for children and young people.
Throughout the pandemic, serious concerns were raised about lower outcome of education, lack of structure in daily life, reduced services for children with disabilities, increased risk of violence, abuse, and neglect, limited access to leisure activities, and a rise in more severe mental health problems. The pandemic caused an increased risk of exclusion among young people.
Despite this, current policies and measures relating to youth crime, child welfare, mental health, school dropout, and increased use of force against children and young people in various settings often fail to include the pandemic as a factor that may have contributed to the situation and therefore still needs to be addressed.