[5] Up to 100 mm of rain fell within 24 hours, causing the Gwayi River to overflow,[5][7] flooding nearby villages and destroying homesteads and public infrastructure.

[1] Private and public infrastructure were damaged or destroyed, including 5 bridges,[9] more than 140 dams,[9] 388 schools, and 2,579 houses, leaving many people marooned and homeless.

[6] A high broad plateau called the Highveld, part of the Zambezian region, crosses the spine of Zimbabwe at approximately 1,200 meters above sea level.

[11][22][23] Infrastructure such as dams, roads, bridges, or homesteads were prone to damage during heavy rains because they were old, outdated, or built with poor-quality construction materials, lacking the robustness to withstand such high volumes of water.

[11][26] The government was unprepared and poorly equipped to properly respond to such a large-scale disaster due to its lack of funding, workforce, and resources, and its inability to implement climate change adaptation strategies.

[11][14][27] Early warning systems and information dissemination were insufficient because they failed to reach the most vulnerable populations in remote rural areas, which often do not have access to newspapers, television, radio, or telephones.

[11] The Disaster Risk Management Act bill was introduced in 2011, designed to ensure financial stability and structural reforms to provide the needed access to resources.

[1][6][8] The low-lying regions of the country bore the brunt of the flooding impact, especially the Tsholotsho district in Matabeleland North, which was reported as one of the worst affected.

[6] Breaches of 140 communities and privately owned dams caused extensive downstream infrastructure damage, especially in Matabeleland (South and North) and Midlands provinces.

[6] Access to clean water, hygiene, and sanitation were severely impacted by the flood, particularly within overcrowded internally displaced persons (IDP) camps, heightening the risk of waterborne and vector-borne diseases, including cholera, typhoid, diarrhea, and malaria.

[5][6] Access to safe water and sanitation has a significant impact on women and girls, who experience difficulty with menstrual hygiene management, leading to the increased risk of disease and physical violence.

Restricted water access is a double burden for women in Zimbabwe, who are culturally responsible for walking longer distances to collect and carry it to their families from safe sources.

[40] Temporary shelter accommodations are crowded, poorly lit, and lack privacy, increasing the risk of gender-based violence and sexual assault of women and children.

[1][6] Approximately 10% of the rural population of Zimbabwe, or 1.1 million people, were rendered food insecure with poor nutrition in 2017, resulting from the destruction of crops, death of livestock, and damage to infrastructure caused by persistent rains.

[44] Victims interviewed three years after the disaster reported feeling anger, depression, anxiety, and helplessness resulting from personal and economic losses.

[43] Families experienced additional emotional turmoil as working-aged men out-migrated to Botswana and South Africa in search of new livelihoods, leaving women and children behind.

[6] The Government of Zimbabwe declared a state of national disaster on 3 March 2017, launching an appeal for humanitarian assistance, estimating that US$189 million was needed for emergency and recovery.

[6] The Government of Zimbabwe, UN agencies, NGOs, international experts, and academics studied the flooding event, disaster response, and recovery, prompting recommendations to enhance the preparedness and effectiveness of future actions.

[11] They recommend strengthening early warning systems that communicate clear emergency instructions promptly, including by SMS at no charge to receivers, that are tailored to each hazard zone and audience in an appropriate language.

[6][11][46] Disaster risk management authority is centralized within the national Department of Civil Production, which devotes limited resources to provincial and district levels.

[5][6][11][28] Studies found that women, children, and other vulnerable populations like the elderly and disabled were disproportionately burdened by the disaster, yet victims and responding agencies report that their needs were not adequately considered by emergency planners.

[51] Studies report that bureaucratic process results in insufficient and delayed funding that focuses on disaster response rather than preparation, risk management, and the long-term recovery and relocation needs of affected populations.

[1][11][14][46] Further, they suggest that the distribution of funds to local levels would further support community disaster response capacity building and engagement in preparation and post-disaster recovery.