Recovery, Renewal, Resilience

It was in May 2020 that we called this project Recovery, Renewal, Resilience (RRR) – never thinking that those three words would be repeated so often across the UK and overseas (TMB Issue 4) - establishing a new international narrative for the aftermath of crises. Those three words have transformed how many places think about the aftermath of Covid-19. In that order, those words have been used by the ESRC as the title of a major funding call and have led to numerous local governments (those we have worked with and ones we have not) using them to frame their own thinking about their aftermath of the pandemic and develop recovery and renewal strategies. To mention five:

1. Essex County Council established a Recovery Coordination Group and a Renewal Mobilisation Group which worked extensively together on their county’s recovery and renewal
2. Bath and North East Somerset (BNES) established a Strategic Recovery Group which developed their Recovery, Renewal and Resurgence Strategy
3. Our work with BNES informed the South Somerset District Council’s Recovery and Renewal Strategy
4. Devon County Council published their Recovery and Renewal Strategic Plan
5. Cardiff City published their City Recovery and Renewal Strategy

Also, the UK’s Local Government Association used Recovery and Renewal to title their pandemic support to local governments.

Through this project we have established a new international narrative that short-term recovery is insufficient for an experience such as a pandemic. The devastating impacts have called for a new ambition – to renew the foundations of our society because the pandemic has exposed their fragilities, for example, COVID-19 exploiting inequalities and vulnerabilities. This renewal needs to build a nation that is more resilient in every way.

Through working closely with many excellent staff in local government, we have come to appreciate what Recovery, Renewal, Resilience really means. Recovery is the short-term activities done by organisations to undo the negative impacts of the crisis and get the system back to being prepared for the next emergency. Renewal is the more ambitious work programme that seeks to coordinate multi-agency initiatives to resolve the broken foundations of society on which to create a new resilience. We also developed a process to support local government in planning Recovery and Renewal for Resilience.

We were asked to document that process in a fast-tracked International Standard ISO/TS 22393 Guidelines for planning Recovery and Renewal. This is now available worldwide through national standards making bodies. We have just returned from a visit to our long-term partner, Ramallah Municipal Government, as we are working with them to implement ISO/TS 22393 and design Recovery, Renewal, Resilience. Our team (Jenny Moreno) is continuing to work in Chile to support the Government of Talcahuano to develop their Recovery, Renewal, Resilience strategy. Overseas we have enjoyed working in Vancouver City and with the Resilient Cities Network and The International Emergency Management Society. We have greatly appreciated working with the numerous UK bodies that have supported the dissemination of Recovery, Renewal, Resilience – such as UK Cabinet Office, The Emergency Planning Society, and Voluntary and Community Sector Emergencies Partnership, which have provided constant support.

This lesson is part of a collection of team reflections from the Recovery, Renewal, Resilience team, shared in the final Manchester Briefing under their ESRC-funded project. The collection of 10 reflections can be found in Issue 51 of The Manchester Briefing, accessible via the link below:

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”

This week’s briefing launches our searchable database of international lessons on Recovery and Renewal, and we also take the opportunity to share some brief details our activities and progress so far in the Recovery, Renewal, Resilience (RRR) project.

To read this briefing in full, follow the source link below to TMB Issue 40.

As part of our ESRC funded project on Recovery, Renewal, Resilience we committed to writing the international standard on Recovery and Renewal. We took another step to accomplishing this goal last week when an international ballot voted to accept and publish our international standard ‘ISO/TS 22393 - Guidelines for planning Recovery and Renewal’. ISO/TS 22393 provides a framework for how to assess the impacts of COVID-19 on communities, and address these by planning transactional recovery activities and transformational renewal initiatives. This briefing describes the background to our international standard and gives an insight to the content of this guideline.

An ISO standard aims to “give world-class specifications for products, services and systems, to ensure quality, safety and efficiency”[1]. To so this, it collates the latest research findings, expert knowledge, recent experience from experts, and reaches consensus to provide a detailed, informative document that can be applied in different contexts because all the important aspects are considered. An ISO standard often describes best practice and how that can be achieved.

Follow the source link below to TMB Issue 39 to read this briefing in full (p.3-6).

[1] https://www.iso.org/about-us.html

The focus of this week's Manchester Briefing (Issue 38) is the role of the individual in relation to crises and the benefits of public involvement in emergency planning. We discuss how recovery reinstates preparedness, while renewal enhances resilience and consider how Local Resilience Capability can be understood, sustained and enhanced by local government.

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

The European Union recently set out Europe's priorities for recovery, which aim to create a "greener, more digital and more resilient Europe". The latest budget will focus on:

• "Research and innovation, via Horizon Europe;
• Fair climate and digital transitions, via the Just Transition Fund and the Digital Europe Programme;
• Preparedness, recovery and resilience, via the Recovery and Resilience Facility, rescEu, and a new health programme, EU4Health;
• Modernising traditional policies such as cohesion and the common agricultural policy, to maximise their contribution to the Union's priorities;
• Fight climate change, with 30% of the EU funds;
• Biodiversity protection and gender equality"

France recently set out the key measures within their recovery plan, complementing the priorities set out by the European Union. France is investing largely in:

• Accelerating the greening of the economy, with investments in "energy performance renovations for buildings, in "green infrastructure" and mobility, to reduce the carbon-intensity of manufacturing processes, and in the development of new green technologies" (hydrogen, biofuels, recycling)
• Economic resilience through "reductions in production taxes, the provision of support for equity capital funding for business, investment in industrial innovation and support for exports"
• A focus on financial support and digital transformation of voluntary sector enterprises and small-medium enterprises

Last month, Japan’s Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) marked ten years since the Great East Japan Earthquake (GEJE), and the subsequent tsunami that devastated the region and caused a nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant[1]. Post-accident analysis verified that radiation from the accident at the power plant has not had any direct impacts on human health. However, the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people living in surrounding areas resulted in premature deaths, due to issues such as lack of access to healthcare or medicines, and stress-related problems[2]. COVID-19 is like Fukushima, in that it presents both policy makers and the general public with a range of multi-dimensional challenges that need to be addressed through recovery and renewal processes. We explore three lessons from Fukushima recovery that can support and prompt thinking for recovery from COVID-19:

Preparedness and disaster management plans

Like COVID-19, the GEJE exposed fragilities in the planning for complex and extraordinary disasters, which were addressed by reformulating disaster management plans at national and local levels in Japan. Consider the following lessons and activities to recover and renew disaster management planning in the light of COVID-19:

• Review and revise disaster management plans at both national and local level to ensure plans are kept up to date:
  • Integrate lessons learned during the pandemic to inform new disaster management planning, legislation and policies - add a new section to disaster management plans that covers the management of pandemics
  • Focus on the following issues: coordination of administrative and operational functionalities; preventative measures, such as education, safety drills, and issuing and transmitting of information and warnings; evacuation and rescue activities, and primary goods supply and distribution in emergency situations; and overall coordination of reconstruction and restoring livelihoods during the recovery phase[3]

Engaging local stakeholders

‘Resilience is strengthened when it is shared’[4]. Establishing strong communication and collaboration - between communities and local medical staff, between central government and municipalities, and with experts - was found to build awareness amongst local residents about exposure risks to radiation, and how to reduce those risks in the future[5]. Stakeholder engagement is critical in the management of future outbreaks, recovery of preparedness for future crises, and recovery from the impacts of COVID-19. Consider:

• Authentic stakeholder engagement means meaningful, creative and impactful interactions with people and communities, and the co-production of recovery and renewal strategies[6]:
  • Recognise community voice, influence, and measurable local impact as part of recovery activities
  • Actively involve community members in recovery conversations and meetings, to bring together a range of knowledge, skills, abilities and perspectives
  • Build on collaborative relationships and integration initiatives that have been developed through the pandemic in local areas. Conduct a review to identify areas where these established relationships and initiatives offer opportunity for creative and impactful engagement in recovery[7]
• Effective participation requires leaders to utilise a range of models of engagement that[8]:
  • Encourage community participation (e.g. joint planning groups)
  • Develop interactive and partnership working, by providing the community with access to expertise, advice and training (e.g. disaster risk planning)
  • Facilitate community mobilisation and empowerment, by establishing partnerships with voluntary organisations and community groups, and initiating community development programmes[9]

Recognising the impacts on mental health

Fear of exposure to radiation, plus the evacuation itself, created significant psychological distress for those who experienced the events of Fukushima. These have some similarities to the psychological effects of COVID-19: risk to health due to exposure to the virus, isolation from family, friends and critical social support networks, and the uncertain economic conditions caused by the pandemic[10]. COVID-19 has shown how significantly social and economic determinants influence mental health. Our mental health is heavily reliant on a variety of factors such as the quality of our relationships, employment, education, and access to food, income and housing[11]. COVID-19 presents key challenges, but also an opportunity to rethink our approach to mental health and implement structural changes in mental health support so as to address the aftermath. Multifaceted-support and societal recovery progress has been found to help address the impacts of the Fukushima disaster on people’s mental health[12]. Mental Health Europe offer guidance to recovery and renewal of mental health support[13]:

• Establish comprehensive long-term strategies that aim to mitigate the consequences of the crisis, co-producing these strategies with service users and the organisations that represent them
• The promotion of ‘basic social rights’, together with targeted investment in economic protection, such as ‘universal basic income, income protection schemes, loan guarantees, rent protection’ and booster packages (e.g. recovery/renewal loans, business support and advice, targeted employment programmes)
• Invest in mental health literacy about the social determinants of mental health, and how ‘experiencing distress is a normal reaction’ in the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic. This will help tackle stigma and discrimination, and further strengthen the ‘sense of community and solidarity’ that has emerged throughout the pandemic
• ‘Promote cross-sectoral collaboration and more integrated social and health care, including investments in peer support’
• Facilitate and support community-based services that ‘respect the will and preferences of users, in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Involve people with lived experience in the design, implementation and monitoring of these services’

References:

[1] https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12888-021-03109-1

[2] https://www.mhe-sme.org/position-paper-mental-health-in-the-aftermath-of-covid-19/

[3] file:///C:/Users/r66633rj/Downloads/ijerph-15-02381.pdf

[4] https://www.mhe-sme.org/position-paper-mental-health-in-the-aftermath-of-covid-19/

[5] https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2021/03/11/learning-from-megadisasters-a-decade-of-lessons-from-the-great-east-japan-earthquake-drmhubtokyo

[6] Hayano, R. S. (2015) ‘Engaging with local stakeholders: some lessons from Fukushima for recovery’, Annals of the ICRP, 44(1_suppl), pp. 144–152. doi: 10.1177/0146645315572291.

[7] Boyle, D and Harris, M. (2009). The Challenge of Co-Production: How equal partnerships between professionals and the public are crucial to improving public services. https://neweconomics.org/uploads/files/312ac8ce93a00d5973_3im6i6t0e.pdf

[8] http://www.scdn.scot/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Models-of-Community-Engagement.pdf

[9] https://www.good-governance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/COVID-19-blog-07-04-20.pdf

[10] file:///C:/Users/r66633rj/Downloads/Empowerment-in-action-case-studies-of-local-authority-community-development.pdf

[11] https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/18864

[12] https://www.preventionweb.net/news/view/76401

[13] NEA, OECD (2021) Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident, ten years on. https://www.preventionweb.net/publications/view/76402?&a=email&utm_source=pw_email

Peer reviews can offer local governments an opportunity to reflect, assess and improve their preparedness for disaster (ISO 22392). This process can also enable collaborative dialogue on recovery and renewal plans, ensure transparent assessment and create value when building local and national resilience. Consider:

• Establish a peer review mechanism to enable external critique of review recovery and renewal plans
• Connect local governments to national associations that can facilitate a connecting structure between cities and regions to share lessons, knowledge and insights
• Conduct focus groups/workshops that enable local governments to 'pause and reflect' on lessons learned from their response to COVID-19 and collaboratively discuss recovery and renewal
• Appoint a panel of 'officer and member peers' to review local government plans for recovery and renewal in their communities

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).

Strong collaboration between local government and their partners, communities and local businesses is required to anticipate challenges in the aftermath of COVID-19. Further, co-operation in the design of recovery strategies is critical to ensure communities are engaged and empowered in their recovery. Recovery strategies will need to be tailored to address the diversity of impacts and needs of different communities. Consider how to:

• Conduct an impact assessment to identify where COVID-19 has created effects, impacts and opportunities (see TMB 8) - and identify which of these impacts will bring longer-term challenges in recovery
• Refresh impact assessments with updated information as other effects, impacts and opportunities become known
• Identify other challenges that lie ahead as we progress to living with COVID
• Review what planning is required and what partnerships will support recovery:
  • Define recovery goals in partnership with the community and local organisations, and account for the need to measure progress and outcomes in the future
  • Plan for the need to adapt/pivot and establish new local resources, services and programmes to address pre-existing, new and emerging needs of communities, e.g. infrastructure planning to address housing supply challenges/employment programmes for young people
  • Maintain and enhance partnerships that have been developed through the pandemic, by bringing these partners together to co-produce plans and actions to address the new and emerging challenges
• Identify logistical and operational challenges that may occur as continuous management of the virus is required
• Review lessons from previous phases of track and trace/vaccination programmes, recognise the challenges, such as people not responding to track and trace or vaccine hesitancy, and prepare strategies to address these (see TMB 31)
• Manage the expectations of communities, to ensure that they understand that potential future outbreaks may mean restrictions may be re-introduced
• Review communication strategies for previous localised restrictions, consult with local partners on their effectiveness

We present a high-level report of the 'light touch' Impact Assessment conducted by Essex Resilience Forum and Recovery Coordination Group following the first wave of COVID-19. Lessons include the need to revisit/update impact assessments to identify new impacts from subsequent waves.

To read this briefing in full, follow the source link below to TMB Issue 32 (p.2-5).

The Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy provides a comprehensive view of the UK’s national security and international policy[1]. This case study will detail the key messages from this review relative to local and national resilience.

Building resilience in the UK and internationally (IV. Strategic Framework - Section 4)

The review recognises that national resilience goes hand in hand with global resilience. The unprecedented challenges brought about by the global COVID-19 crises highlights how international cooperation is critical yet fragile under such immense stress, unaided by the historic preference for efficient governance and processes rather than robust resilience capabilities. The review sets out the UK’s priorities for strengthening both national and global resilience (p.87):

• Build national resilience to mitigate the impacts of ‘acute shocks and longer-term challenges’ on the lives and livelihoods of people in the UK, through robust risk planning, ‘effective and trusted governance, government capabilities, social cohesion, and individual and business resilience’
• Build health resilience at national and global levels to improve global pandemic preparedness through a ‘One Health’ approach informed by learning from COVID-19
• The development of a ‘comprehensive national resilience strategy’ (p.88):
  • A ‘whole-of-society’ integrated approach to resilience that focuses on: ‘improving public communications on preparedness; strengthening the role and responsibilities of local resilience forums (LRFs) and assessing the resilience of critical national infrastructure (CNI)’
  • Review risk assessment approaches, ‘increase local and national capabilities (people, skills and equipment) and strengthen analytical, policy and operational tools’ (p.89)
• Funding and resources through the Spending Review (SR 2020) commitments include; the establishment of a ‘Situation Centre’ which will generate and produce live data, analysis and insights to decision-makers on real time events in the UK and across the world to increase the UK’s ability to quickly identify, assess and respond to national security threats and crises (p.104)

Climate change agenda

The review recognises the urgent need to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss to drive forward a ‘zero-carbon global economy, support adaption and resilience, and protect the most vulnerable’, and to build resilience to climate change impacts at local levels, e.g. against floods (p.89):

• ‘Accelerate the global and national transition to net zero by 2050’ through a variety of initiatives (e.g. increasing support for net zero innovation and new industries)
• Drive ‘sustainable and legal use of natural resources by supporting agriculture that regenerates ecosystems’ and increases the availability of and accessibility to sustainable food resources (p.90)

Connecting resilience, health and migration

Outbreaks of infectious disease are likely to become more frequent in the future and efforts to manage and mitigate their effects is essential. The review supports the view that the resilience and health sectors are inextricably intertwined and require strategic prioritization at local, national and global levels through (p.93):

• Equitable access to healthcare (e.g. COVID-19 vaccines) for global, national and local recovery from the current pandemic through ambitious domestic vaccination strategies and by providing support for developing countries to increase access to vaccines globally (e.g. via the Covid-19 Vaccines Global Access Facility initiative[2])
• Reviews of biosecurity strategies to recognise the interconnecting relationships between population ‘health, animals and the environment’ and the development of a robust approach to the resilience of healthcare supply chains (p.94)
• Increase of crisis response capabilities at local levels by providing funding (£5.4bn) to support local authority response capabilities (p.104)
• Investment and cooperation in the reformation of the global health system that recognises the potential value of data and identifies the strengths required between health and economic institutions for resilience (p.94)
• Global coordination and collaboration to increase and improve research and development for vaccination, therapeutics and diagnostics, to strengthen preparedness for pandemics on global scales (p.94)

Migration poses a multitude of complex challenges, such as risk to the lives of the most vulnerable and pressures on host country institutions and systems (e.g. health). To build resilience in this capacity, the UK is committed to providing support that addresses the root drivers of migration, e.g. to improve ‘stability and socio-economic conditions in fragile regions’ (p.95).

Implementation of the Integrated Review

To ensure the successful implementation and delivery of the goals set out in this review, the UK is prioritising (p.97):

• Flexibility, agility, accountability for delivery and strong ministerial oversight when dealing with complex strategic issues, to increase coherence, structure, the ability to react quickly to and deal with cross-cutting challenges and effective implementation;
• Building support for strategy implementation through strategic communications and community engagement
• This review reinforces the view of The National Risk Register[3] on how community engagement and participation in risk planning is essential. The pandemic has provided local and national governments with a unique opportunity to harness and develop volunteers and community response and recovery capabilities to strengthen community resilience and increase its positive impacts on preparedness for future challenges caused by COVID-19 and future crises in a broader sense
• The attainment of a culture that supports integration, adaption and innovation through inclusion and participation. To do this, the review acknowledges the need to further develop and harness the opportunities provided by the pandemic, those that will achieve a culture that manifests the collaborative, agile and inclusive behaviours that enable integration, for example (p.98):
  • The mitigation of cognitive biases that impact decision-making through a systematic process of challenging procedures, decisions and strategies
  • Increase awareness of, connectedness to and representation of all people in the community
• The importance of having the right people with the right knowledge, skills and abilities (KSA) to form ‘flexible, diverse and multidisciplinary teams’. To accelerate progress towards professionalisation, training and skills, the UK will review the viability of a dedication College for National Security, in preparation for the next SR (p.99)
• The establishment of a ‘Performance and Planning Framework’ and an ‘Evaluation Taskforce’ to provide continuous review and assessment of integration performance and impact measurement (p.99)

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/global-britain-in-a-competitive-age-the-integrated-review-of-security-defence-development-and-foreign-policy

[2] https://www.who.int/initiatives/act-accelerator/covax

[3]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/952959/6.6920_CO_CCS_s_National_Risk_Register_2020_11-1-21-FINAL.pdf

Views from the Frontline (VFL) found that many communities feel that they would benefit significantly if they were to be included in the planning, preparing and monitoring of disaster risk interventions. Communities, and the people within them, are acutely aware of their vulnerabilities and will have diverse needs and priorities. By including the community in the development of plans and actions, local governments can recognise these diversities and directly respond through policies and interventions. Further, inclusion and co-operation can increase a community's awareness of the valuable resources that are available to them before, during and after disasters. Consider:

• Facilitate regular interaction of local government with communities and grassroots organisations in decision-making processes and disaster risk reduction programmes:
  • Establish community consultations/workshops
• Engage and involve local stakeholders in the preparation of local policies, plans and actions aimed at disaster risk management:
  • Ensure the adoption of an inclusive approach when doing so, e.g. including volunteers, marginalised people (women, children, people with disabilities, migrants, older people, LGBTQI+)
• Collate knowledge and ideas, and generate collective action between local government and communities on what is required to address different types of disaster risk:
  • Collaborative knowledge sharing and action can mitigate threats, address vulnerabilities and improve the community's sense of security and safety
• Involve local knowledge of communities to improve risk mapping, generate local ownership and empowerment, and increase awareness and preparedness:
  • In Tanzania, local residents carry out remote detection to identify sanitation issues in rural areas by sending SMS messages to local engineers and media outlets
  • This raises the awareness of local people quickly to potential risks and enables local authorities to monitor water supplies remotely and at a lower cost

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

Graham Bell of AJC Bell Consulting outlines some over-arching principles of organisational resilience which can help organisations to reflect on the pandemic and learn from it to recovery and renew. This briefing offers guidance on beginning the journey to post-pandemic recovery and renewal.

Read this briefing in full by following the source link below to TMB Issue 29 (p.2-7).

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

Developing a succinct plan that details the organisation's overall strategy for recovery and renewal can help ensure the organisation is working towards the same goal and with the same vision. The plan can be developed with partners and disseminated to relevant parties through local networks. An example of this is the Core Cities UK 10 Point Plan to Leave Lockdown - 10 policy initiatives developed for government to work with cities in exiting lockdown. In brief, the plan considers:

• Clear and transparent criteria for entering and exiting lockdown
• Rapid, localised Test and Trace and vaccination
• Adequate business support packages
• Extended furlough and self-employment support
• Sustainable financing of local government
• Winter support packages for vulnerable people
• Safe and secure places to live e.g. ban on landlord evictions and return of the 'Everyone In' campaign to end rough sleeping
• Commitment to dialogue with key stakeholders across locally agreed geographies
• Focused support for education and learning institutions e.g. rapid Test and Trace for all students and staff, reviewing exam timetables
• Increased local enforcement powers to tackle non-compliance

In Palestine, officials invited young people to share ideas that they felt could help address the impacts of COVID-19. This has been supported by successful initiatives such as the establishment of a Youth Committee on the Palestinian Water Authority as a means of helping to develop the sector. Members of the Youth Committee were also involved in the 2020 Palestinian National Development Agenda. The Palestinian government and Youth Committee have built on their learning and expertise in these sectors to provide innovative ways of addressing COVID-19. Consider:

• Placing Youth Committees at the heart of public awareness campaigns about areas they have been involved in e.g. in Palestine, water consumption and management during COVID-19
• Utilise young people in the creation of innovative smart apps, and online information e.g. in Palestine, the "PalWater App", which provides a platform for customers and service providers to communicate. The application also acted as an alarm reporting system where young people could upload live images and their locations to help citizens notify local authorities of real-time issues
• How involving young people in COVID-19 recovery and resilience can help to build integrated and sustainable long-term solutions e.g. in Palestine, the water sector initiative is being replicated with the Palestinian Ministry of Social Development to establish more youth committees at the local level

We describe the background, perspective, research design and approach, our work and deliverables and our team. To read this briefing in full, follow the source link below to TMB Issue 27 (p.2-5).

Building on TMB 24 (People) and 25 (Place), this briefing focuses on Renewal through Processes, concerning changes to ways of working, rules, procedures and access to services. To explore this we discuss some of the overarching conditions that influence why renewal through Process may be needed, we consider how Reshaping and Reorganising can assist in assessing performance of Processes for renewal and we present our thinking on a structure way to operationalise Reshaping and Reorganising Processes in the context of COVID-19.

Follow the source link below to read this briefing in full (p.2-5).

In October 2020, we were awarded funding from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) to continue our work on The Manchester Briefing through a new project titled “Recovery, Renewal, Resilience: Informing, supporting and developing guidance for local resilience”. The project starts on 1st January 2021 so we will only briefly introduce it here – and the next issue of TMB (on 8th January 2021) will describe the project in more detail.

Research Objective: This project works closely with resilience partners to develop a generalizable, theoretically underpinned framework for how short-term recovery and long-term renewal to COVID-19 can enhance resilience. The framework will:

• Take a whole system approach to recovery and renewal (from community to national)
• Explore how to manage the changes in people, places and processes that is needed
• Address short-term, transactional recovery as well as longer-term, transformational renewal
• Complement existing guidance and resilience standards and lead to an international standard on recovery and renewal

Approach: The framework will be informed by (and inform) the committees that coordinate recovery in a local area by working closely with the resilience partners and engaging with local and national organisations on how they plan recovery and renewal on a system-wide basis. Our local government partners have different structures and geographies so we can create a framework that is widely applicable to local variations. At present we are pleased to have the collaboration with four local resilience partnerships and intend complementing this by partnering with three overseas cities.

Activities

• Collect and analyse national/international lessons on recovery and renewal
• Interview experts across the world on emergency planning, risk, and resilience
• Contribute to three local committees that coordinate their city’s recovery and renewal projects
• Facilitate webinars and training on recovery and renewal for resilience
• Develop and test a framework for recovery and renewal, refine it in different contexts (national and international), learn about its application, and use feedback to improve it
• Develop and test a methodology to assess the impact of the framework

Main deliverables

• Expert briefings on how to implement recovery and renewal for local resilience
• A searchable database of lessons for recovery and renewal for local resilience
• A theoretically underpinned, practice-tested framework to support thinking about recovery and renewal for local resilience
• A self-evaluation methodology to reflect on recovery practices
• The Manchester Briefing, case studies, and training products
• International and national standards having a global impact

We know that, across the world, organisations are at different stages of thinking about recovery so we aim to provide results that are helpful to those that may not yet have formally begun (nor have the structures to begin) their recovery process, as well as involve those that are more advanced in their thinking and activity.

We are grateful to the following organisations for their interest in the project: Essex LRF, Thames Valley LRF, Merseyside FRS, Global Resilient Cities Network, Civil Contingencies Secretariat (Recovery and Human Aspects Team), Emergency Planning Society, Local Government Association, SOLACE, International Standards Organization, British Standards Institute.

The project is co-funded by Economic and Social Research Council (under grant reference number: ES/V015346/1), and The University of Manchester, UK.

COVID-19 has fundamentally changed the way organisations operate, and has COVID-19 has become more integrated into organisations, new forms of 'business as usual' have emerged:

1. Business as usual pre-COVID-19: processes in place before the pandemic that were considered the usual way of operating during minor disturbances e.g. annual infrastructure maintenance
2. Business as usual during response to COVID-19: processes that had to adapt swiftly under extreme uncertainty and completely changed normal pre-COVID operations e.g. building of additional hospitals to increase health service's capacity
3. Business as usual during recovery from COVID-19: processes that have ramped down but consider COVID-19 requirements e.g. standing down of Strategic Co-ordination Groups, and a return to organisations relying more on internal capacity/information, rather than multi-organisational approaches

An organisation's approach to 'business as usual' can impact response and recovery. Interconnectivity and connected governance is required to ensure that people's health and wellbeing are considered; that organisations have capacity; and that response and recovery are integrated. Consider:

• Pre-COVID operations (such as maintenance) may need to continue, but should not be undertaken without consultation with other partners who may be affected by such actions e.g. building/service closures due to maintenance. Undertaking pre-COVID operation's should therefore consider knock-on effects on the functionality of operations/organisations
• Risk assessing actions and disseminating this information to relevant stakeholders
• Key partners and related sectors should be included in decisions about 'business as usual' operations, to ensure they are appropriate, scalable and maintain interconnectivity

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).

TMB 24 outlined our thinking on what the renewal of People might entail and this briefing argues that Places play an integral role in Renewal. Renewal may focus on healthier communities and equitable access to critical goods, services and amenities. This requires place-based economic planning to revitalise commercial development and employment opportunities.

Read this briefing in full by following the source link below to TMB 25 (p.2-8).

COVID-19 has shed new light on the way in which countries respond to, and recover from emergencies. This includes COVID-19 specific advice and broader lessons about emergency preparedness and management. For example, previous guidance on volunteer management has traditionally assumed a point of convergence at a disaster site, while this still holds true for many emergencies e.g. floods, lessons from COVID-19 demonstrate that volunteer management may also be dispersed, large-scale and without face-to-face contact. Consider how lessons from COVID-19 may help to revise emergency plans:

• Conduct a 'stock take' of current emergency guidance, and consider what may be missing or no longer fit for purpose
• Implement debriefs, peer reviews and impact assessments, drawing on expertise from local government and emergency practitioners, to evaluate how well current guidance worked and where it needs revising
• Consider that emergency planning must remain relevant to specific types of emergencies, but that broader lessons from COVID-19 can help strengthen guidance e.g. issues of inclusion such as gender, ethnicity, sexuality; health and socio-economic disparities and vulnerabilities; volunteering capacity; supply chain stability; green agenda; and partnerships arrangements
• Draw on resources beyond government guidance from global networks e.g. Resilient Cities Network's revised toolkit which builds recovery from COVID-19 into a wider resilience agenda for a safe and equitable world, and resources from International Organization for Standardization (ISO) which is developing new recovery standards in light of COVID-19 lessons (ISO 22393)

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).

We argue that Reparation is only one step in the process of helping people recover and move forward from COVID-19. An approach which considers Reparation and Reconciliation is required to build trust, and encourage healing in, and between individuals, communities, organisations and levels of government.

Follow the source link below to TMB Issue 24 to read this briefing in full (p.2-12).

Compound disaster pose a serious risk during the pandemic, which requires a dual focus on the constant threat of COVID-19 to people’s health and to economies, and on natural disasters. The compound nature of natural disasters and COVID-19 intensifies the scale and broadens the scope of human, social, economic and environmental impacts[1]. Disasters have continued to rise year on year. In 2019, EM-DAT recorded 396 natural disasters globally, that led to 11,755 deaths, affected 95 million people, and resulted in 103 billion US$ in economic losses across the world. Floods were the deadliest type of disaster accounting for 43.5% of deaths, followed by extreme temperatures at 25% (mainly due to heat waves in Europe) and storms at 21.5%. Storms affected the highest number of people, accounting for 35% of the total people affected[2].

This trend has continued, 2020 is on course to be the hottest year on record[3] - impacts of this have been witnessed in parts of Africa and the Middle East where crops have been devastated by locust swarms that begun breeding several months earlier than normal due to weather conditions[4]. Of the 132 unique extreme weather events that have occurred in 2020 (as of late September), 92 have overlapped with the COVID-19 pandemic[5].

Learning from two cases: Vanuatu and Bangladesh

A recent example of a large scale disaster during COVID-19 is the category 5 Tropical Cyclone (TC) Harold that struck Vanuatu on 5 April 2020, affecting over 130,000 people (approx. 43% of the population) and resulting in three deaths. TC Harold caused significant damage to schools, medical facilities, homes, agricultural crops, telecommunications and the local boat fleet[6]. More vulnerable groups such as women were reportedly dealing with multiple concurrent crises, namely drought, scarcity of portable water, volcanic ash, acid rain and sulphur gas as there are also several active volcanoes[7].

While Australia did provide humanitarian aid, strict protocols were implemented when delivering supplies to minimise any chance of transmission to Vanuatu[8], and to date there are no, nor have been any cases of COVID-19 in Vanuatu[9]. However, much of the humanitarian support was offered remotely which demonstrates a shift in how aid is provides e.g. aerial surveillance to assess the scale of impact, logistics support to release relief items that were locally pre-positioned.

The cyclone that hit Bangladesh in May 2020 presents the opposite scenario. The impacts of cyclone Amphan were lessened by decades of disaster risk reduction strategies and a weakening of the storm as it made landfall, which meant the death toll was in the dozens rather than thousands[10]. However, the large number of COVID-19 cases in Bangladesh had serious ramifications for ‘normal’ disaster response. Coastal communities in the path of the cyclone had to make choices between braving the cyclone’s impacts as it hit land, and risking COVID-19 infection as 2.2 million people in Bangladesh were evacuated to shelters[11].

The combination of these cases – heavy impact on people and resources from a natural disaster, combined with high COVID-19 infection rates – demonstrate the worst case for which emergency planners and the humanitarian community need to plan. Going forward, disaster affected countries will be impacted by limitations faced globally, as countries contend with COVID-19 and the impacts this has on their own health systems and economies, and the impacts of this on offers of humanitarian aid. Additionally, logistical support, made more complex by travel restrictions and pressures on global supply chains for resources also needs to be considered, for example:[12]

• Impacts of restricting travel on providing and receiving support, including legislation to override COVID-19 restrictions for assistance
• Implications for efficient response if 14 day isolation periods are required e.g. if dispatching urgent search and rescue teams; how do you choose between saving people from a collapsed building or (re)infecting a community with COVID-19?
• Availability of reliable partnerships for international support including financing, mutual aid and personnel when many countries’ own health systems and economies are under huge strain
• Availability of appropriate protective equipment for all personnel deployed to support a humanitarian effort, including those working in-country
• Pressures on internal mobilization of resources, including the health system which is required for first response to both COVID and disasters
• Risk of infection during evacuations while travelling to and from evacuation centres and residing there

Despite these challenges there are measures which can help countries better prepare for compound COVID-19 disasters. Consider how to:

• Reconceptualise all disaster response as simultaneous COVID-19 response and mitigation of virus transmission
• Develop strategies that incorporate both climate change adaptation and reducing global health threats, by building COVID-19 into disaster risk reduction strategies. Use pre-existing resources such as the Disaster Resilience Scorecard for Cities, and it’s related Public Health Addendum[13], or the UN’s Build Back Better approach[14]
• Partner with disaster risk reduction and emergency planning organisations to integrate health management and disaster management
• Integrate data on COVID-19 and disasters to inform early warning systems, and invest resources into upgrading and expanding systems to manage complex situations
• Deliver preparedness messaging about disasters and other diseases, alongside COVID-19 advice, to keep issues at the forefront of people’s minds and to ensure communities have up-to-date information about mitigating risks posed to them, and the support services available[15]
• Build an understanding based on expertise and skills guided by science, while also building capacity in communities to better understand the hazards of a double disaster and plan collective action[16]
• Keep messaging simple. COVID-19 messaging is already fraught with confusion and misinformation, detailing the risks from other hazards may doubly confuse people if not done in a simple way

The influences of climate change has resulted in disasters which have become seasonal, reoccurring and protracted. This, combined with COVID-19 results in compound disasters that are continually unravelling, which blurs the lines between response, recovery, preparedness, and prevention[17]. It is therefore important to consider humanitarian assistance for a world that is facing two chronic challenges; COVID-19 and climate change.

References:

[1] https://www.sheltercluster.org/sites/default/files/docs/tc_harold_and_covid-19_vanuatu_recovery_strategy_v3_130820.pdf

[2] https://www.cred.be/publications

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/27/meteorologists-say-2020-on-course-to-be-hottest-year-since-records-began

[4] http://www.fao.org/ag/locusts/en/info/info/index.html

[5] https://media.ifrc.org/ifrc/press-release/least-51-6-million-people-doubly-hit-climate-related-disasters-covid-19-new-analysis-ifrc-reveals/

[6] https://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/vanuatu/development-assistance/Pages/supporting-cyclone-recovery-reconstruction-vanuatu

[7] https://actionaid.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/STPC-AdvocacyReport2020-FINAL-pages.pdf

[8] https://www.dfat.gov.au/crisis-hub/Pages/tropical-cyclone-harold

[9] https://covid19.gov.vu/

[10] https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/05/south-asia-confronts-double-disaster-cyclone-and-covid-19?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WRI_News_and_Views+%28WRI+Insights+Blog%2C+News%2C+and+Publications+%7C+World+Resources+Institute%29

[11] https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/05/south-asia-confronts-double-disaster-cyclone-and-covid-19?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WRI_News_and_Views+%28WRI+Insights+Blog%2C+News%2C+and+Publications+%7C+World+Resources+Institute%29

[12] http://nautil.us/blog/a-warning-from-history-about-simultaneous-disasters

[13]https://www.unisdr.org/campaign/resilientcities/assets/toolkit/documents/Disaster%20Resilience%20Scorecard_Public%20Health%20Addendum%20Ver1%20Final_July%202018.pdf

[14] https://www.unisdr.org/files/53213_bbb.pdf

[15] https://www.bnhcrc.com.au/hazardnotes/79

[16] https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/05/south-asia-confronts-double-disaster-cyclone-and-covid-19?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WRI_News_and_Views+%28WRI+Insights+Blog%2C+News%2C+and+Publications+%7C+World+Resources+Institute%29

[17]https://www.sheltercluster.org/sites/default/files/docs/tc_harold_and_covid19_vanuatu_recovery_strategy_v3_130820.pdf

During COVID-19 decision makers have grappled with containing outbreaks and how to reopen or reclose business and services based on infection numbers and other measures. Research in Canada has shown that accounting for geography, epidemiology, and travel patterns, localized county approaches to lockdown result in fewer days of service and business closure, and impacts fewer people compared to entire province closures. The research suggests, when implementing a local lockdown, to consider:

• The trigger conditions that require a local lockdown to be enforced and ensure they are agreed with central government but can be enacted upon by local government
• Coordinating with neighbouring counties or metropolitan areas, including the criteria for when and how local lockdowns should be implemented and when a neighbouring region should also lockdown
• Gathering local lockdown lessons that can provide useful insights into compliance of measures, and implementing learning to help avoid ineffective strategies
• Decentralizing control over when a local lockdown should be enforced to ensure local decision makers can enact closures promptly

We describe perspectives on recovery strategy as it has been broadly configured in relation to a variety of crisis events and the effects that recovery has had. We then elaborate on the idea of Repair as an aspect of Renewal that needs to be considered if we are to attend to the shortcomings of recovery. This briefing takes steps towards putting Repair into practice by offering recommendations for its integration into policy.

To read this briefing in full, follow the source link below to TMB Issue 21 (p.2-7).

In the USA, the impacts of natural disasters are being felt more frequently and earlier than expected. As a result, emergency planning for potential evacuation is of increasing importance. Consider: Locale specific, local guidance on evacuating safely during the pandemic:

• Reviewing agreements and plans with neighbouring regions to provide mutual aid resources
• Adequate stocks of personal protective equipment for staff, and to distribute to evacuees and residents at risk of evacuation
• Adequate stocks of COVID-19 testing kits to evacuation centres to avoid spread of the virus during evacuation
• Capacity to perform temperature checks on all arrivals at shelters
• Ensure residents are prepared to make plans for alternative arrangements during an evacuation such as staying with friends/family, or in hotels, rather than relying on communal shelters (which should be the last option)
• Ensure residents have adequately prepared for an evacuation and understand they should bring their own personal bedding and care items to mitigate transmission

FEMA (USA) has made freely available some training materials on a range of topics. The trainings below are not specific to COVID-19 but are helpful to the broader issues of planning for emergencies. These links are to just the slides, but they provide a helpful background and sources for further study. Consider reviewing the materials in the following FEMA courses:

• Animals in Disasters: Awareness and Preparedness
• Animals in Disasters: Community Planning
• An Introduction to Exercises
• Leadership and Influence
• Decision Making and Problem Solving
• Effective Communication
• Developing and Managing Volunteers

Each of these courses have online materials available on the URLs given above - often over 100 slides are freely available.

We propose key considerations for local governments when managing wide-ranging change, such as that induced by a complex, rapid and uncertain events like COVID-19. Identifying and understanding the types of change and the extent to which change can be proactive rather than reactive, can help to support the development of resilience in local authorities and their communities.

To read this briefing in full, follow the source link below to TMB Issue 19 (p.2-6).

Part 3: Building on TMB 16 and 17, we present a detailed view of how to assess the performance of the system of resilience before/during/after COVID-19. This briefing presents a comprehensive Annex of aspects against which performance can be considered.

To read this briefing in full, follow the source link below to TMB Issue 18 (p.2-7).

National Voices, a coalition of English health and social care charities, published its report on 'Five principles for the next phase of the COVID-19 response'. Their five principles seek to ensure that policy changes resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic meet the needs of people and engage with citizens affected most by the virus and lockdown, especially those with underlying health concerns. They advocate that the future should be more compassionate and equal, with people's rights at its centre. The principles have been developed based on dialogues with hundreds of charities and people living with underlying health conditions. Consider how your policy changes:

• Actively engage with, consult, co-produce, and act on the concerns of those most impacted by policy changes that may profoundly affect their lives
• Make everyone matter, leave no-one behind as all lives, all people, in all circumstances, matter so needs to be weighed up the same in any Government policy
• Confront inequality head-on as, "we're all in the same storm, but we're not all in the same boat" e.g. difference in finances, work/living conditions, personal characteristics
• Recognise people, not categories, by strengthening personalised care and rethinking the category of 'vulnerable' to be more holistic, beyond health-related vulnerabilities
• Value health, care, connection, friendship, and support equally as people need more than medicine, and charities and communities need to be enabled to help

Part 2: We build on TMB 16 and consider how to apply the VSM's 5 systems to understand and debrief on experiences of COVID-19 in a structured, systems manner.

To read this briefing in full, follow the source link below (p.2-6).

Part 1: We begin by exploring how the experience of COVID-19 prompts consideration of what national and local (ambitious) renewal of systems to develop resilience to crises and major emergencies could look like. We present a model of 5 systems: operational delivery; coordination; management; intelligence; and policy. This briefing elevates thinking from the performance of individual organisations into considering the performance of the system as a whole.

To read this briefing in full, follow the source link below to TMB Issue 16 (p.2-7).

Introduction

As local resilience partnerships establish Recovery Coordinating Groups (RCG), this week we talk about impact assessments using details from: HMG Guidance[1], previous briefings (Week 8), and our video[2].

Establish the RCG for COVID-19

When setting up an RCG there are a number of considerations, including:

• the administrative level – the level of the RCG and how it relates to other district/county RCGs
• collaboration – how will strategic partners: align ambitions for partnership-wide recovery/renewal; establish protocols to share information; and agree which activities for each administrative level RCG
• membership – led by local authorities and include organisations with a people, place or economic focus as well as Cat 1 responders
• agree strategic objectives – to support the recovery and renewal of people, place, and processes

Commission an impact assessment

Impact assessments will feed into RCG, either by direct commission or through a strategic coordination group. The assessment will explore the strategic effects of COVID-19, their impacts, specific or emerging system-wide needs or inequalities, and opportunities to improve. National Recovery Guidance1 describes the process of conducting an Impact Assessment as in the graphic:

Collect the consequences

We suggest that the complexity of COVID-19 means the impact assessment should be as strategic and straightforward as possible. RCGs should have strategic-level agreement on the direction, scope and parameters for the impact assessment. Then, strategic information from many sources is needed to fully understand impacts e.g. from partner databases, existing measures, knowledgeable people, surveys, interviews/workshops, or other sources that unlock the impacts on people, place, and processes.

Talking to knowledgeable people should aim to ensure that the assessment does not gather thousands of comments which cloud more than they clarify. A straightforward approach, targeting knowledgeable groups who can support the process, will put more focus on the quality of their insight than on the number of people consulted or number of comments made. For example, consider whether the impact assessment would be better informed if it is more than:

• a single question e.g.: “What significant consequences has COVID-19 had on your area of work?”
• asked to all partners or cell leaders who will consult knowledgeable people as required
• to provide their top 8 consequences on their service delivery to people, place, processes and identify:
  • Is it an effect, impact, or opportunity?
  • What is its impact rating (e.g. ‘positive, limited, moderate, severe’)?
  • Should it be addressed in the short-term or longer-term?

Using this approach, if 15 cells are running then 120-150 significant consequences would be gathered – so to understand these and design corrective actions is a substantial activity. Magnify that ten-fold (in the number of questions, consultees or consequences) and the task becomes unwieldy either collecting overlapping consequences or ones of lower significant.

Analyse the consequences

To make sense of the comments, group the comments into the 6 core topics to:

• validate their diversity and broad-based nature;
• identify recurring and complementary topics of significance;
• provide a basis to identify follow-on actions

Within each core topic, grouping comments by the 38 sub-topics (in the graphic) may bring added clarity of what really are the key issues to address.

Understand the rationale

To understand the rationale for addressing core topics, consider the:

• Baseline – to identify the pre-COVID-19 state of the situation that you are considering changing
• Effect – the immediate consequence of COVID-19 on the baseline
• Impact – the wider/secondary impact of COVID-19 on the baseline/effect

Develop recovery actions

RCG should now be ready to develop recovery actions for significant consequences. Actions may be:

• Transactional – a single, straightforward, short-term action by an organisation
• Transformational – a longer-term portfolio of action by a strategic partnership of organisations to deliver a complex web of interconnected, democratically significant, renewal activity

Actions can be at three levels of comprehensiveness depending on scale and timing:

• Immediate Recovery Action – an organisation delivering a transactional action to address an effect
• Wider Recovery Action – a partnership delivering a series of transactional actions to address an effect
• Strategic Renewal Action – a partnership delivering transformational actions to address a strategic impact or opportunity

Understanding the baseline, can identify effects and impacts. These can be addressed with immediate, wider or strategic actions depending on the desired scale, motivation, and funding available, as in the graphic.

Deliver recovery actions

RCG must decide the priority for each action by evaluating its likelihood, effort, motivation, capability, capacity, duration, and resources needed, and its impact on reputation from (not) pursuing it.

For more details contact: duncan.shaw-2@manchester.ac.uk & david.powell@manchester.ac.uk

References:

[1] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-recovery-guidance

[2] Video on ‘Planning Recovery and Renewal’ www.ambs.ac.uk/covidrecovery

We have produced a video on how local authorities can begin processes for recovery and renewal: https://bit.ly/2BORO2e. It outlines how resilience partnerships can develop recovery strategies and ambitious plans for renewal of their areas. It covers how to:

• establish the basics of Recovery
• set up a Recovery Coordinating Group
• assess impacts from COVID-19
• implement recovery strategies

View all issues of The Manchester Briefing: https://www.alliancembs.manchester.ac.uk/research/recovery-renewal-resilience-from-covid-19/briefings/

Lessons should be learned to assess the response and identify improvements. Some debriefs only collect 'obvious' comments as they give limited time to participants to co-create more sophisticated learning and critically appraise each other's comments. Some processes drown out informed people, and anonymity can encourage the sharing of extreme views that people would not normally offer or defend. On analysis, participants are not a homogenous group, but analysis may treat them as if they were, and results are generalised to 'how participants felt' which is inappropriate. To partly overcome some of these limitations, the process of debriefing may include five activities:

1. Surveys designed and interpreted with the above potential limitations in mind
2. Individual discussions with knowledgeable people to collect informed views, reasoning, and explore wider contexts
3. Analyse survey and individual views by respondent-type to identify themes for further analysis
4. Facilitated group discussions with knowledgeable people who build on each other's view to generate new understanding, and agree a final 'lessons learned' that accommodates competing perspectives
5. Facilitated action planning with knowledgeable people to agree an action plan to address the lessons

We consider here Recovery and Renewal and explore how recovery actions relate to the concept of Renewal, which we have discussed in previous weeks of The Manchester Briefing. We also consider the extent to which recovery actions will extend into renewal, and whether they may fizzle out as fatigue as other priorities, such as Brexit, close in.

To read this briefing in full, follow the source link below to TMB Issue 11 (p.2-7).

Our partners, the Global Resilient Cities Network, discuss the challenges ahead for cities and local governments in addressing recovery; the strategic planning tools required in response; the importance of resilience and the phases of work involved in recovering from a crises like COVID-19. GRCN demonstrate the need to invest time and effort in learning from the successes and challenges to inform better preparedness for future challenges and to prevent the poorest and most vulnerable from being worst impacted again.

To read this briefing in full, follow the source link below (p.5-8).

I have noted how meetings have struggled to identify shared and comfortable language to describe recovery. The TMB team have defined two terms - Recovery and Renewal:

Recovery can be dealt with through Local Authority led Recovery Coordination Groups, and be:

• A relatively short-term process that involves reinstating normal operations, learning from response, and preparing resilience for the next emergency
• Focused on positive transactional activities to address exposed fragilities and identify wider opportunities
• Relatively fast-paced but this will depend on ongoing demands, outbreaks, backlogs, fatigue, supply difficulties
• Involving a review of operations so organisations will decide what they want to reinstate and what they don't see value in reinstating

Renewal is an ambitious focus on what the future should be like and how to achieve that, and be:

• A relatively medium/long-term process that involves appreciating what has happened, and develop renewal plans to implement
• Considering issues beyond Recovery which are transformational so include a complex web of strategic actions across social, political/democratic, and developmental issues
• Ambitious and address future opportunities for the local government such those in the UN's Sustainable Development Goals
• Developed by wide multiple relationships and broader partnerships - initially through a Renewal Summit to agree joint focus

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).

Local government will address five tracks of major activities running simultaneously and demanding resources:

• Track 1: Response - provide crisis response functions to first, and subsequent, waves of COVID-19 and to other emergencies. Also, the effect of COVID-19 on response e.g. social distancing on evacuation/sheltering and event management
• Track 2: Recovery - develop plans to reinstate operations, learn from response, and prepare for the next emergency
• Track 3: Renewal - hold a Renewal Summit to align strategic leaders on transformational opportunities of COVID-19 and link to positive initiatives (not the negativity of COVID-19)
• Track 4: Brexit - review plans for no-deal exit (Operation Yellowhammer), and for an orderly exit - considering implications for local authorities
• Track 5: Recession - monitor implications of recession on operations/finances of local government, organisations in local area, employment, household finances, etc

The five tracks will individually and in combination put pressure on local government

TMB Issue 10 brings together the reflections of our learning ffrom 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).

This briefing builds on The Manchester Briefing (TMB) 8 to discuss more about the effects and impacts of, and opportunities arising from, COVID-19; what these mean for developing recovery strategies and for Local Resilience Forums (LRFs) which plan the response to crisis.

Follow the source link below to TMB Issue 9 to read this briefing in full (p.2-10).

This briefing outlines the key issues that should be considered by all partners in the initial stages of planning recovery and renewal, those which should be addressed prior to commissioning Impact Assessments. The briefing concludes by highlighting the need for RCGs to align with other local strategic partnerships to enable recovery and renewal, taking into consideration the breadth of effects, impacts and opportunities from COVID-19.

Follow the source link below to read this briefing in full (p.2-7)

In the UK, five tests must be met:

• Protect the healthcare system and its ability to cope so it can continue to provide critical care and specialist treatment
• The daily death rates from coronavirus must come down
• Reliable data must show the rate of infection is decreasing to manageable levels
• Have confident that testing capacity and PPE are being managed, with supply able to meet not just today's demand, but future demand
• Have confidence that any changes made not risk a second peak of infections

Five alert levels are developed to guide the level of lockdown restrictions.

In the UK, five tests must be met:

Five alert levels are developed to guide the level of lockdown restrictions:

This briefing shares our early thinking on recovery and renewal, and the opportunities COVID-19 has offered. We identify the opportunity to recover and renew how power and partnerships support working across five groups: national, local partnerships, organisations, local communities, and people. We call for the need to think about people, place, and, processes which have to recover and renew.

To read this briefing in full, follow the source link below to TMB Issue 4 p.2-6