Recovery, Renewal, Resilience

The UN-HABITAT City Resilience Global Programme (CRGP) define urban resilience as the “measurable ability of any urban system, with its inhabitants, to maintain continuity through all shocks and stresses, while positively adapting and transforming towards sustainability”. This gives rise to the following ‘Urban Resilience Principles’ to consider:

‘Dynamic nature of urban resilience’

• Recognise that resilience is a fluid condition and requires that systems “evolve, transform and adapt to current and future conditions”. Resilience building activities require “context-specific” and adaptable plans and activities which account for the complex and “dynamic nature of risk and resilience”

‘Systemic approach to cities’

• Acknowledge that urban areas consist of “interconnected systems through complex networks” and even small adaptions can impact the entire network of systems. A wide-ranging and comprehensive approach is required to account for the interdependencies that exist within urban systems and are exposed to disruption during crisis

‘Promoting participation in planning and governance’

• Co-production of resilience planning and governance can enhance the “prosperity” of stakeholders (e.g. city residents), increase a sense of local ownership and achieve more effective implementation of resilience building plans and activities

‘Multi-stakeholder engagement’

• “Continuity of governance, economic activity and other city functions” is critical to a resilient system. Facilitating collaborative communication and working between all interested stakeholders such as “public entities, the private sector, civil society, academic institutions and the city community”, is essential

‘Strive towards the Sustainable Development Goals’ (SDGs)

• Underpinning resilience building plans and initiatives with SDGs can ensure that human rights are “fulfilled, respected, and protected”

Recovery and renewal strategies require community co-production to be influenced by the knowledge, skills and experience of communities. Participation depends on a number of factors. VFL find that time and convenience are crucial when it comes to community participation in recovery, renewal and resilience plans and actions. Measures to facilitate community participation should address the needs of all community members, so as to ensure accessibility, and not reinforce inequalities. Consider whether:

• Local planning and government meetings, forums and workshops are conveniently located and accessible:
  • Select locations and venues that facilitate access for all members of the community. Consider access constraints affecting disadvantaged groups, which may be physical, geographic, economic, or faith related. E.g. provide online access, transport, refreshments, accessibility for people with disabilities
  • Select venues/online forums where different groups within the community already congregate (e.g. different religious groups, women)
• The timing of activities fits with the commitments of the community members who will be participating. For example, work schedules, household responsibilities, school timetables of children and parents (particularly women), farmers' seasonal calendars:
  • Carefully consider people's time, and seek feedback from the community on times that are suitable
  • Draw on appropriate local volunteers to offer childcare where physical meetings are held
• Socio-cultural issues which might prevent some people from participating have been considered:
  • Identify potential barriers related to language, literacy levels, ethnicity, gender discrimination, etc.
  • Provide expert facilitation and translation services, or organize separate meetings with women, people with disabilities, specific ethnic minorities and other groups to facilitate their participation
• Report back to participants on the outcome of their community participation and how thinking/planning has changed as a result of their contribution

We identify the core barriers to co-production during the pandemic: Pace, distance and complexity, and provide a broad framework which can be designed into a project's main policy framework to facilitate co-production in preparedness and response.

Follow the source link below to TMB Issue 33 to read this briefing in full (p.3-6).

Vaccination certification for COVID-19, sometimes referred to as immunity/vaccine passports, are being considered by some countries as a strategy to relax the strict measures that have been imposed on society over the last year. The document is designed to certify people as immune to COVID-19 based on vaccination. Consider the ethical issues associated with varying restrictions on individual liberties based on possession of a vaccine certificate. Consider:

• If a vaccination certification programme could cause unequal treatment of individuals by segregating members of society into different tiers of infection risk and contagiousness, for example:
  • Members of groups who live with systemic discrimination and marginalization may face more barriers to accessing particular areas of society or activities if they are not certified as vaccinated
  • Differences in exposure, access to health care and vaccination certification may lead to some groups having higher or lower proportions of vaccine-certified people
• If the application of vaccination certification should only be used with existing precautions and should not prevent non-vaccine certified people from accessing areas or activities, e.g. people who have not received a vaccination certificate should not be prevented from travelling but may be required to take a test/quarantine on arrival as per the existing precautionary measure
• Whether vaccinations certifications should:
  • Impact a person's ability to exercise fundamental rights such as voting, accessing and social care or education
  • Cause an increase in cost or burden for vaccine-certified individuals, e.g. frontline healthcare workers who are vaccination certified should not be expected to manage more work
• If the perceived benefits of vaccine certifications could increase the risk of people increasing their exposure to intentionally become infected and receive a certificate, which poses risks to an increase in community spread and could potentially cause harm to others
• The perceived value of vaccine certificates and counterfeit market activity/certificates
• How to mitigate implementation risks, e.g. certification being managed by certified bodies, results being processed and confirmed by licensed laboratories, and certificates being issued by health authorities
• To protect personal data and minimize breaches of confidentiality, legal and regulatory measures should be put in place to limit the access to data by governmental authorities

Vaccines must be a global public good, which contribute to the equitable protection and promotion of human well-being among all people. At national level, a clear aim for vaccine programmes is essential, e.g. reduce immediate risk to life, in order to inform the identification of priority groups. As sufficient vaccine supply for whole populations will not be immediately available, WHO have provided a Prioritization Roadmap and a Values Framework, to assist with the prioritization of target groups. The WHO guidelines and framework advise to:

• Identify groups that will achieve the vaccine programme aim where there is an immediate risk to life, e.g. Stage 1 Priority Group - Care home residents, staff and volunteers working in care homes; Stage 2 Priority - Frontline health workers and those of 80 years of age and over. Priority groups should be listed and detailed to cover the whole population that is to be vaccinated
• Clearly define groups within priority phases, e.g. workers who are at very high risk of becoming infected and transmitting COVID-19 because they work in, for example, frontline health care, COVID-19 treatment centres, COVID-19 testing laboratories, or have direct contact with COVID-19 infected patients
• Avoid classifying groups as 'essential workers' as a qualifier
• Make priority groups explicit, straightforward, concise and publicly available
• Assess the prioritisation of those who are in high population density settings, e.g. refugees/detention camps, prisons; or who are not recorded in existing systems, e.g. un-registered persons
• Recognise vaccination as a global issue to begin conversations that identify how we will achieve the aim of reducing immediate risk to life globally, through international collaboration

Renewal through Place requires consideration of transformation of where we live, available infrastructure, health and care systems, businesses, and neighbourhoods. We bring together some of the core issues related to Renewal through Place, concerning Relocation and Regeneration and the relationships this has with navigating, experiencing and utilising Place post COVID-19.

Follow the source link below to read this case study in full (p.18-20).

We bring together some of the core issues for the renewal of people, topics which can be considered in terms of Reconciliation, Reparation and/or Repair depending on the degree of harm caused.

Follow the source link below to TMB Issue 24 to read this case study in full (p.23-25).

Lockdown as to be replaced by something and must ensure there is a well-informed and committed populations that will adapt and adhere to changes to lockdown policy. WHO suggests:

• Disease transmission is under control
• Health systems are able to "detect, test, isolate and treat every case and trace every contact"
• Hot spot risks are minimized in vulnerable places, such as nursing homes
• Schools, workplaces and other essential places have established preventive measures
• The risk of importing new cases "can be managed"
• Communities are fully educated, engaged and empowered to live under a new normal