Recovery, Renewal, Resilience

COVID-19 differs from previous crises in terms of its scale, its complex and prolonged nature, and the fragilities that it has exposed. Yet, the disruptions and losses experienced are broadly similar to those brought about by other recent major emergencies. Consider the lessons learned from previous disaster recovery efforts that aim to “promote longer-term, integrated thinking and planning, to create pathways out of the pandemic that more effectively support recovery” and renewal:

• Analyse how the crisis has changed vulnerability (prolonged crises in particular). Use this knowledge to inform recovery strategies and renewal initiatives (e.g. Ecuador)
• Recognise the long-term needs of recovery and renewal. Acknowledge that the impacts of pandemic are not static and will not end on a particular date (e.g. India). A flexible and adaptable approach will support longer-term activities that can change where and when required
• Plan recovery and resilience programmes that integrate actions to deal with the risk of other hazards that can interact and exacerbate the impacts of the current crisis (e.g. Ethiopia & Mozambique)
• Implement an approach that targets the most vulnerable and marginalised sectors of the population, given the uneven impacts of the pandemic and response strategies (e.g. Montserrat)
• Depoliticise, as far as possible, the recovery agenda by establishing the needs of those more vulnerable above political interests (e.g. Chennai)
• Understand recovery and renewal as a holistic process that focuses on the impacts of COVID-19 on the economic, social, and mental wellbeing of communities (e.g. Dominica)
• Support community-building activities and engage the community in recovery and mitigation activities (e.g. Colombia)

A current research project, by the Overseas Development Institute, is examining social protection (SP) measures employed during the pandemic in LMICs. The project is producing a series of working papers. One paper examines the inclusion of refugees in government-led SP and the “alignment and integration of cash assistance to refugees and government social protection”. The paper evaluates the effectiveness of social protection responses across four countries in terms of: “Timeliness; coverage adequacy; and level adequacy (value of benefit)”. It also offers the emerging lessons from the study and initial policy recommendations. Consider:

Lessons on the drivers of effective government social protection response

• The maturity of SP systems and pre-existing local and state capacities directly impacted how effectively SP programmes met the needs of refugees during COVID
• Targeting criteria that evaluates eligibility based on risk of vulnerability could be more effective, timely and suitable during a crisis rather than traditional criteria such as length of residency or status
• Benefit levels of government systems are unlikely to be sufficient for refugees’ needs, as these are typically higher than those of nationals and require very careful consideration. The main challenge identified when setting benefit levels which include refugees during the pandemic is that governments are “faced with two competing objectives: (1) preventing social tension and unfairness between population groups” (by varying benefit levels between refugees and nationals); and (2) “ensuring that everyone can meet their basic needs”

Policy recommendations for protecting refugees during a crisis

• Conduct a national socio-economic survey, to include data on refugees’ needs, to develop an overview of the needs of the population across the country. This can enable more effective social protection programme design that effectively meets the needs of everyone
• A review of registration processes can highlight barriers to access for refugees (e.g. in terms of the documents required to register for programmes). Where this is not possible, governments can “draw on international/national/local humanitarian actors’ databases of refugee populations” to swiftly target them with support during crisis
• Hosting governments could consider “integrating refugees into social insurance” (e.g. those with work permits) which may reduce political or public opposition as those receiving benefits will be contributing to national insurance
• Careful consideration of benefit levels and trade-offs between “politically greater acceptability but possibly lower effectiveness” in terms of meeting refugees needs is essential

Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)

The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response recently issued a report calling on the international community to employ a package of reforms to transform the global pandemic preparedness and response system to prevent a future pandemic. The report finds that the current system is unfit to prevent another novel and highly infectious disease from developing into a pandemic. The report recommends a transformational reform of the existing pandemic prevention, preparedness and response system, including:

• Form a “Global Health Threats Council” to ensure political commitment to pandemic preparedness, prevention and response. In the Council:
  • Assign responsibility to key actors through “peer recognition and scrutiny”
  • Establish a ‘Pandemic Framework Convention’ in all countries within the next six months
• Introduce an international surveillance system to:
  • Enable the WHO to share information about outbreaks of concern, and
  • Rapidly deploy experts to investigate such outbreaks
• Immediate investment in national preparedness by:
  • Reviewing current preparedness plans
  • Allocating the required financing and resources to ensure readiness for another health event
• Make The Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A) a global platform to transform the current market model to one targeted at delivering global public goods (vaccines, diagnostics, supplies)
• Establish a funding model for the WHO to increase its agency and financing
• Develop an “International Pandemic Financing Facility” to:
  • Fund ongoing preparedness
  • Enable immediate finance support for response if a pandemic is declared
• Adopt a political declaration which commits to transformative reform of global pandemic preparedness and response

Involving citizens in the recovery planning and development process can lead to more effective policy outcomes and build trust and a two way dialogue between citizens and government. COVID-19 has had diverse impacts on the lives of individuals and communities, and their involvement in deciding the routes to long-term recovery following the pandemic is crucial. Consider the good practice principles for deliberative processes offered by the OECD, which will support the achievement of "high-quality processes that result in useful recommendations and meaningful opportunities for citizens to shape public decisions":

• Clearly define the issue as a question that is aligned with the concerns and challenges faced by different communities
• Invite people to make recommendations for addressing the issues that affect them, respond to recommendations in a timely manner, and monitor and feedback regularly to people on the progress of their implementation (e.g. Scotland's Citizens' Assembly)
• Ensure the process is inclusive and representative of all people in the community, e.g. stratified random sampling to select a participant group which fully represents a community's demographic profile
• Make information easily accessible through public communications. Include the purpose, design, methodology, recruitment details, experts, recommendations, the response, and implementation follow-up
• Establish a mechanism through which people can request additional information, ask questions and keep up to date on progress of activities
• Appoint a liaison person who can feed information in from and out to the community
• Take time to reflect on and evaluate deliberative processes, to ensure learning, help improve future practice and understand impact

There is not yet sufficient global supply of COVID-19 vaccines - echoing the challenges faced at the beginning of the pandemic when there was insufficient PPE. Variation across regions/countries in the availability of vaccine brings the risk of accentuating long-term health inequalities and could entrench wealth inequalities, as some regions/countries are yet to begin their vaccination programme. This could lead to challenging questions for officials and elected leaders on the prioritisation of who receives the vaccine. For example, "Is it right to vaccinate a low-risk person in Country A (that has vaccine) rather than a high risk, front line health worker in Country B (that does not have sufficient vaccine)?" Consider how vaccine distribution plans and priority groups may polarise public opinion on the value of life and risk, including:

• The UN note that a 'me first' approach could prolong the pandemic as well as cause further economic and human suffering
• Changes to vaccination supply plans or redirecting vaccine stock to other regions/countries to manage targets may heighten public discomfort and disturbance
• Creating tier systems for access to vaccines can lead to fracture lines emerging in society, prompting civil disturbances or protests which may also increase transmission and lead to local outbreaks
• Individuals not agreeing with their classification may reject authority and breach guidelines
• Negative publicity for officials in managing change and social order may impact coming elections

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).

This includes integrating qualitative and holistic decision-making strategies and techniques. Key areas to consider:

• Be vision-oriented. Construct an agreed picture of the new system after recovery and align response and recovery decisions to achieve this vision. Consider the consequences of short-term decisions on achieving the vision
• Identify the theme/criteria that can help to achieve the vision and create manageable work packages and sub-packages
• Engage communities in the decision-making process. Utilise communities are sources of information and knowledge
• Consider intuition as a source of information and innovation. Harness expert and local knowledge to generate diverse action scenarios
• Agree on relevant ethical values. Identify and include the ethical values in the decision evaluation process to ensure coherence and feasibility
• Mitigate bias. Engage a wide range of stakeholders in the decision-making process and encourage in-depth discussion

TMB Issue 10 brings together the reflections of our learning from the first 10 weeks of gathering lessons on recovery and renewal from COVID-19. Follow the source link below to read all of the reflections from our team (p.9-15).