Recovery, Renewal, Resilience

When we volunteered to collect international experiences of responding to COVID-19 in March 2020, we aimed to support local authorities in the UK during their response to the pandemic. We never expected that COVID-19 would evolve into an international crisis of this scale and duration. A few months after the start of the UK response, our systems and societies were stretched and various vulnerabilities were uncovered. The RRR team (and our engagement) grew in response and we identified new theoretical and practical insights on response, recovery, and renewal which were formed into The Manchester Briefing. Concurrently, our engagement with local authorities and international organisations flourished and the RRR project in its complex form was born.

Despite the overwhelming engagement with the response to the pandemic, the need for transformational change to rebuild more resilient systems remained in focus. Two lessons stood out as crucial for resilience and renewal. The first is the need for a holistic approach when building resilience. The pandemic showed the interinfluence and interdependency of all components of societies i.e. individuals, communities, businesses, organisations, and others. For example, we shared case studies from Asia which showed that small but ignored vulnerable areas in the society could cascade into a larger problem for the COVID-19 response, government, and society. The lesson learned was that sustainable and feasible renewal programmes should be inclusive, fair, and holistic. The second lesson was the need to think beyond the existing systemic limitations when designing and managing our resilient systems. From the traditional management and economical perspective, building resilient societies may be ambitious or unrealistic. However, alternative paradigms exist which can facilitate creating a shared and feasible vision of our resilient society, provide innovative solutions to manage the complex endeavour, and make it happen.

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:

Over the last 15 years or so, the resilience narrative has evolved in three ways:

1) ‘We’re here to save you’ – a heavy public reliance on assistance and support from official response agencies;

2) ‘We’re prepared are you?’ - the sharing/shifting/transfer of responsibility onto the public that created an expectation of them to enhance their own preparedness and build their own resilience;

3) ‘We’re here to support you’ - the recognition that individuals, groups, organisations and networks in our communities are resilient capabilities and those who can and want to, are capable of both helping themselves and helping others in need with support from official agencies (where requested/appropriate).

As we begin to think about how WoSR might be best designed and implemented, learning from COVID-19 demonstrated that strategic collaborations across societal systems will be central to developing a shared responsibility for WoSR strategy. Strategic collaborations are active and autonomous partnerships where targeted relationships are used to identify demand for support (e.g. vulnerable people, at-risk locations) and understand supply (e.g. with volunteers providing capacity, delivery partners, business partners). Central to these strategic collaborations are clarity and consensus on partner expectations, operational roles and responsibilities, inclusivity, and effective management and coordination e.g. communications.

For shared responsibility to develop within strategic collaborations of WoSR strategy, it is essential to have clear roles for government, emergency response agencies, the voluntary sector, volunteers, businesses and organisations, communities, community groups, and individuals. Shared responsibility should focus on building resilience capabilities through partnerships and networks. It should focus on enablement [i.e. increasing the agency and ability of societal actors to participate and activate] rather than a form of empowerment that might risk a transfer of power/responsibility without knowledge sharing, guidance or 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:

Across research that considers the socio-political circumstances that underpin global events, disasters are often described as revelatory. Their occurrence exposes structures that organise collective social life but have become so normalised as to be taken for granted. Over the last two and half years, there’s been different ways that COVID-19 has played this revelatory role. The initial spread and disastrous impact of the virus, particularly in those countries worst affected such as USA, Brazil and UK, reinforced how detrimental cutbacks in public spending and the cultivation of mistrust in expertise for political gain has been for disaster preparedness. No doubt owing in part to these factors that shaped it’s unfolding, the pandemic also showed the need for emergencies to be governed in a way that is sensitive to local needs and developed in dialogue with communities whilst also being supported by a strong central government response.

By default, this need concurrently means abandoning ‘models’, ‘disaster management cycles’ and ‘holistic systems’ for practice that promise general applicability but are abstracted from reality. This emphasises the importance of how disasters are labelled, how such labelling effects public conscience of disasters and what effects these levels of consciousness might have for the future of the disaster in question. Despite the decision to end restrictions in the UK and reduce such restrictions in other parts of the world, the pandemic still rages on causing death and illness to thousands every day. This tells us that disasters do not have clear ‘start’ and ‘end’ dates and so we need to plan to mitigate their ongoing effects and develop better anticipatory measures for their future occurrence.

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:

Working with the National Preparedness Commission and partners of NCSR+, we collected case study data on how fifteen community initiatives delivered value to their local communities during COVID-19. Each initiative was unique in design and uncovered rich insights as to how societal resilience was supported by the agility and innovation of local community groups. A distinct finding across the case studies is that intrapreneurial leadership (the leadership of entrepreneurial activity inside of an organisation), emerged as a key enabler of their COVID-19 work.

A particular benefit was that intrapreneurial leadership from within local government enhanced trust in partnership working across different societal systems. The need to build trust with partners to co-produce activities was prioritised – both giving trust to the partner, and receiving trust from the partner. Some examples of how intrapreneurial leadership was characterised in practice and the resulting benefits include:

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:

One of the key learning points emerging from the pandemic concerns how it has forced a reappraisal of what recovery encompasses, who it is for, and how it can be effectively planned for and implemented. For example, considering recovery and business continuity planning it was clear from many of the early interviews with recovery experts that however well-prepared organizations felt they were, the scale, scope, uneven impacts, and prolonged duration of COVID-19 were not adequately anticipated. Enhancing preparedness and wider societal resiliency for the complex and "unruly" challenges ahead requires improved capabilities to assess the landscape of systemic risks, develop foresight, and scenario planning with communities.

Our work has further emphasized the multi-dimensional and long-term nature of recovery. Specifically, we recognize the importance of recovery frameworks and how they are the foundation for the kind of local inclusive development and transformative renewal initiatives that the pandemic has underlined the imperative for. Such frameworks act to inform impact assessments, prioritize actions, and guide the monitoring and evaluation of recovery activities. However, the past two years has shown the inadequate focus in the past on incorporating public health concerns, and more especially pandemics, within recovery thinking. For example, the social determinants of health - e.g., where people are live, learn, work etc. - have been so central to COVID-19 risk factors and health outcomes that tackling these inequities through renewal initiatives are critical to enhancing community wellbeing and reducing vulnerabilities to future disasters.

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:

For two-years we have been examining the way that Recovery and Renewal was managed by the resilience community – through a combination of experiences, including: participating and contributing strategic advice in local government recovery coordination groups (RCG); researching global lessons on COVID-19 which we shared through 51 issues of TMB; interviewing global resilience and risk professionals to uncover their changing impression of Recovery and Renewal (summer 2020, spring 2021, winter 2021; gaining feedback from >80 workshops and presentations we delivered on Recovery, Renewal, Resilience). Unique insights are currently being collected from interviews with RCG Chairs – the strategic leads who chaired RCGs and were typically local government Chief Executives.

These RCG chair interviews are providing rich insight which, when combined with our participant observations over the two years of RCGs, has taught us a great deal, including:

• challenges of coordinating Recovery and Renewal at the national, sub-national and local levels – such as different impacts, prioritisations, and potential solutions
• the local ambitions for recovery, including the transactional activities that were implemented to address the impacts and disruptions of COVID-19
• the local appetite for renewal, including the transformational initiatives to exploit the enthusiasm for changing societies in the aftermath of COVID-19
• learning about the politics of COVID-19 (e.g. governance, scrutiny, accountability), the maturity of resilience arrangements and partnership working at all levels, the value of analysing the impacts of the pandemic

We have learned of the impact of specific constraints from the prolonged crisis, including;

• the challenges of repetitive waves of infections, reintroduction of control measures, parallel response coordination, information and data supply, emerging and acute impacts and needs, work/crisis/empathy fatigue
• preparedness of resilience arrangements (e.g. guidance, knowledge, reality checks) to deal with pandemics beyond the initial responses
• the limitations of current partnerships for integrated emergency management, such as what is the role of local resilience partnerships in a health-led crisis
• what the R in LRF actually means – questioning whether it reflects ‘Resilience’ as a strategic priority in its widest sense, or better characterises ‘Response’ to an event
• the need for new forms of active learning, support and research – including the role of government, centres of excellence and academics in supporting resilience partnerships

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:

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:

One shining light in the darkness of COVID-19 was the community spirit that was volunteered by many who supported vulnerable people as they shielded in their homes. This continued into volunteering to support the NHS, staffing vaccine centres, donating essential items, self-organising communities to support those in need, among countless other activities. This has stimulated a new realization that, across the country, society will get involved to help others for prolonged periods. A recent exhibition of this has been the outpouring of welcoming via the Homes for Ukraine scheme.

The UK Government communicated its national ambition for harnessing this goodwill for resilience in various publications (see Community Resilience Development Framework (July 2019); National Resilience Standards (August 2020), but it was the Integrated Review of Security and Defence (March 2021) which established a new aspiration, whole-of-society resilience.

Through this ESRC-funded project, we have brought together local resilience partnerships and their sector partners by establishing (with Thames Valley LRF) the National Consortium for Societal Resilience [UK+] (NCSR+). NCSR+ aims to establish national consistency 'to enhance the UK[+] whole-of-society approach to resilience, so that individuals, community groups, businesses, and organisations can all play a meaningful part in building the resilience of our society' (see www.ambs.ac.uk/ncsr). 63 organisations (including 50 of the 53 resilience partnerships in UK and its Crown Dependencies) are now collaborating through NCSR+ on developing practical approaches for how to enhance societal resilience.

The learning we have realized from the project is that there is a significant will in NCSR+ partners to tackle this intractable challenge together to co-produce a local strategy for societal resilience. We will conduct research through NCSR+ to identify those foundations, develop the strategy, and produce these into a toolkit for how to create nationally-consistent, locally-translatable foundations on which to build good practices. This toolkit will be made freely available to support those who want to pursue improvement in societal resilience in a strategic manner. There will be further opportunities for NCSR+ to support the implementation of whole-of-society resilience by working closely with partnerships and learning how the strategy can make a difference to societal resilience in UK+.

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:

COVID-19, like other emergencies, challenged the surge capabilities of official response systems. Community response to COVID-19 demonstrated a collective will and ability of societal actors to play an active role in preparedness, response and recovery. For this to be galvanised, coordinated, and managed strategically through a ‘whole-of-society’ approach, clarity and consensus is needed on: who we mean by ‘whole-of’; what resilience means in this respect; and, who holds responsibility for its development. The term ‘whole-of-society resilience’ (WoSR) conveys a philosophy, is ambitious, and an aspiration of policy. But, as a concept of operations, questions remain on how it can be understood, communicated, developed, and operationalised locally.

Reflecting this, we conducted a literature review, a number of workshops with resilience professionals, and gathered feedback from partners in NCSR+ to develop a working definition of WoSR. This definition aims to guide the pursuit of WoSR and draws on our ongoing work with NCSR+ and wider partners. We define WoSR (TMB Issue 47) as:

capability created by local systems that help people and

places to adapt and advance in a changing environment

There is important detail within the words (italicised) used in this definition and we define these as:

This definition, by design, aims to capture the widest landscape that is of relevance for local resilience partnerships and sector partners in the NCSR+. But, a single definition will not satisfy all societal actors because different parties will want to accentuate the aspects that they prioritise and attenuate those that sit elsewhere. Also, the user/audience for the definition will change, meaning we need to change the language in the definition and the concepts to align to the context. For example, local community groups may not warm to the NCSR+ working definition because it does not speak in their language to their priorities. Recognising this, The University of Manchester created an intuitive, community-focused definition of WoSR which can be used when communicating with community groups and amplifies those aspects that community groups may have an interest in:

capabilities created before, during, and after a disruption that

involves everyone who wishes to support those who are in need

Two key aspects underpin this definition:

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:

As part of our ESRC funded project on Recovery, Renewal, Resilience (RRR) we committed to designing a self-evaluation methodology that enables reflection on recovery and renewal practices. This methodology is informed by lessons we gathered from working across the world – spending thousands of hours working on recovery/renewal and with multi-agency groups that coordinate recovery in the aftermath of COVID-19 (in the UK these are called Recovery Coordination Groups - RCGs). This selfevaluation methodology supports local government and other organisations (e.g. voluntary sector) to self-assess their recovery plans and renewal strategies. This self-assessment complements the international standard we wrote ISO/TS 22393 ‘Guidelines for planning Recovery and Renewal’ and its operational version ‘Operationalising ISO/TS 22393: Seven steps to plan recovery and renewal’.

This briefing outlines the self-reflection methodology and can be used in conjunction with ISO/TS 22393. The self-reflection is portioned into seven areas each with a set of questions to pose. Annex 1 provides a template for how those questions might be assessed using a Likert scale – and it is important to record the justification for assessments. The questions focus more on the principles of developing Recovery and Renewal activities – not the intricacies of the activities themselves.

Follow the source link below to read this briefing in full:

This month’s TMB details ‘Operationalising ISO 22393: Seven steps to plan recovery and renewal’, a new iteration of our project’s international standard - ‘ISO 22393 – Guidelines for planning Recovery and Renewal’ (see TMB Issue 39). This briefing simplifies ISO 22393 into an easy-to-use process to support the implementation of recovery activities and renewal initiatives.

To read the briefing in full, follow the source link below.

This month's TMB discusses 'whole-of-society resilience’ and presents a definition of it from the National Consortium for Societal Resilience [UK+]. We write how there may not be one single definition of whole-of-society resilience because different definitions will be needed to amplify the priorities of different audiences within society. The definition we provide is from the perspective of local resilience partnerships and sector partners. We link to Issue 44 where we wrote about ‘Understanding ‘whole-of-society’ resilience’.

Follow the source link below to read this briefing in full:

Research has found that additional statistical modelling based on cultural and demographic factors can help to predict how disease outbreaks such as COVID-19 can accelerate and progress. The aim of this ongoing research is to project the spread of future pandemics by utilising the predictive power of cultural and demographic data. Effectiveness of response interventions should consider cultural values among people in communities. Consider:

• A data driven approach to modelling disease outbreak prevalence based on cultural and demographic factors such as:
  • Population size
  • Population density
  • Public transport
  • Health (e.g. obesity)
  • Culture (e.g. voting patterns – research has shown that societies/communities with low trust in institutions tended to have higher COVID-19 death rates)

This paper offers a predictive model of COVID-19 prevalence – finding that the above 5 risk factors can predict between 47% and 60% of variation in COVID-19 prevalence in US counties. A second paper explores how cultural values can support the prediction of how outbreaks could progress and also what population groups may be most vulnerable.

COVID-19 has had a disproportionate effect on the most vulnerable in our society as evidenced by impact and needs assessments. As a result, some local government recovery plans have sought to build fairness and equality into recovery and renewal. This case study explores some of the unequal impacts shared through the Health Foundation’s COVID-19 impact inquiry report ‘Unequal pandemic, fairer recovery: The COVID-19 impact inquiry report’ (July 2021)[1], and considers how equality can be placed at the centre of recovery and renewal efforts.

The report examines the impacts of the pandemic on our health and the implications of this for recovery. A comprehensive review of the unequal distribution of impacts on different population groups and places across the UK is offered. In addition, the report shows how strategies to respond to the pandemic have exacerbated and created new impacts, with immediate and long-term consequences for health and wellbeing. This case study presents the key findings from the report, and suggests key issues for consideration, based on the webinar: ‘A healthy recovery – Acting on findings from the COVID-19 impact inquiry’.

In just one month of the pandemic the UK saw “128,000 deaths, a 10% drop in GDP and 2 million children were facing food insecurity”. The report demonstrates how “health and wealth are inextricably connected…the poorest families are relying on savings and debt…the wealthiest are saving”. It goes on to highlight the opportunity to drive a sustainable recovery, one that creates a healthier, more inclusive, fairer and prosperous society; one that reduces the stark inequalities exposed by the pandemic. The findings of this inquiry and key issues for consideration include:

• The pandemic has exposed distinct differences in the health of the working age population – for example, people under 65 in the most deprived areas in England were “3.7 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than those in the wealthiest areas”. Recovery and renewal requires:
  • A comprehensive understanding of the wider determinants of health, taking systemic inequalities (poverty, education, employment) into account. Identifying differential outcomes of the pandemic is key to building resilience to future shocks
  • Recognition of the inherent link between socioeconomic factors and underlying health conditions, e.g. people living in deprived areas have fewer opportunities for good health, as they predominantly work in sectors (e.g. industrial jobs) that place them at risk during crises such as COVID-19, and have poorer access to welfare protections such as sick pay
  • Targeted strategies that create opportunities for good health and wellbeing in historically underserved areas
• The groups that have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic and the consequences of containment measures (mental health, education gaps, lost employment and financial insecurity) include: young people, persons with disabilities, ethnic minority communities, care home residents, prisoners, homeless people and those experiencing sexual exploitation. Recovery and renewal requires policies and initiatives that:
  • Address issues exacerbating the impacts of health emergencies such as COVID-19. For example, “education, employment and income are the longer-term risks to health” and strategies need to mitigate the greater loss among disadvantaged groups
  • Prioritise access to and the quality of jobs, as certain areas across the UK are still suffering striking unemployment rates. Equal distribution of work and opportunity is key to prevent leaving people and places behind
• Type and quality of work, housing conditions, and access to financial support have all affected exposure to the virus. Recovery should:
  • Identify and address the root causes of poor health and invest in communities – employment opportunities, housing, education, and community resilience

These issues of fairness and equality in recovery and renewal are not well served by the ‘Build Back Better’ vision which has been much criticised for often reproducing past inequalities and challenges. Instead, given the diversity and deep-rooted impacts of the pandemic, a more appropriate vision for recovery and renewal would be to ‘Build Forward Fairer’. This puts the much-needed priority of equality at the heart of renewal and transformation in the aftermath of crises.

[1] Suleman M, Sonthalia S, Webb C, Tinson A, Kane M, Bunbury S, Finch D, Bibby J. Unequal pandemic, fairer recovery: The COVID-19 impact inquiry report. The Health Foundation; 2021 (https://doi.org/10.37829/HF-2021-HL12)

The role of all levels of government in determining the success or failure of the COVID-19 response in different countries was recognized early in the pandemic. So, it is no surprise that multi-level governance and an integrated approach are generally accepted as key elements in achieving the best results to fight against the pandemic. The UN recognizes that governance systems are complex due to their interaction with the social, legal, political context of each country and region. Therefore, there is no “off-the-shelf” solution that can be universally applied. Considering this, the UN recommends:

• “Incorporating governance approaches into national, subnational, and local pandemic responses, that take into consideration local situations and needs
• Promote an integrated and cooperative approach between different levels of governance, to avoid competition/division, political confusion, and institutional friction
• Maintain and strengthen health care, social welfare, and other protections, by increasing funding to these areas and developing revenue sources such as progressive tax models
• Ensure that emergency preparedness is effectively integrated into health governance at all levels. The current pandemic is a learning opportunity for national, regional, and local governments and its lessons should contribute to build appropriate governance mechanisms
• Incorporate digital technologies into policy making and improved governance, by investing in the appropriate infrastructure, increasing the number of government services available online, and promoting digital inclusion
• Ensure crisis management strategies incorporate long-term recovery strategies that align with aspirational goals around social inclusion and sustainability. The current crisis offers a unique opportunity to rebuild and renew. Governments, at all levels, should consider new paths forward in order to not only improve resilience against future pandemics, but also to address pre-COVID problems such as inequality, climate change, migration, and the erosion of human rights”

This briefing details our Recovery and Renewal Framework, we explore updates to the framework, its development since April 2020, and how the framework might be applied in practice. The Recovery and Renewal Framework underpins ISO/TS 22393, The Manchester Briefing, and our new database of international lessons. 

To read the briefing in full, follow the source link below (p.3-6).

In 2018, The Queensland Reconstruction Authority[1] began a transformational initiative to develop “locally led, co-designed regional resilience strategies to support the coordination and prioritisation of future resilience building and mitigation projects across Queensland”[2]. The initiative was recognised by the UN’s Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) Sendai Framework Voluntary Commitments platform[3]. The aim is to ensure that by 2022, “every region across Queensland will be involved in a locally-led and regionally-coordinated blueprint to strengthen disaster resilience”. While the strategy was implemented prior to COVID-19, it has lots to offer those currently planning regional and local Recovery Strategies and Renewal Initiatives post-COVID-19.

The regional resilience strategies incorporate an integrated planning approach[4] involving multiple professional and stakeholder groups. The key elements contained in each strategy include:

• “physical and mental health;
• structural mitigation;
• land-use planning;
• building practices;
• economic continuity;
• disaster response;
• landscape management;
• essential infrastructure;
• community awareness and resilience”.

Each strategy will be supported by local resilience action plans to guide implementation of resilience pathways[5]. The aim for local resilience action plans are to:

• “Address local needs within the context of the regional strategic imperatives;
• Draw regional connections and commonalities;
• Increase local government capacity and capability;
• Support local government with day-to-day activities;
• Identify risk-informed projects;
• Identify integration pathways”.

Although developed at regional level, the strategies aim to be “flexible and scalable, so that they can be adapted to changing contexts and tailored to specific community needs”. The initiative supports capacity building to develop local and regional capabilities as well as to coordinate support from other regions and the state. The initiative has prioritised the development of resilience strategies that closely align to available resources and funding. We provide details on two regional strategies and related case studies below:

Central West Queensland Regional Resilience Strategy[6]

The Central West Queensland Resilience Strategy is centred on “new possibilities” through aligning the objectives of economic development, resilience and climate adaption to mitigate the region’s exposure to the impacts of climate variability and uncertainty.

The strategy offers local case studies in disaster recovery, health and economic resilience. For example:

• The 2019 Monsoon Trough devastated the Winton Shire area. Local government and the community implemented the ‘Winton shire community-led recovery’ plan. The plan put the ‘Neighbourhood Centre’ staff as the central point of contact for community-led recovery, allowing “locals to speak with a local” – so residents got recovery support from other local people who were familiar with the area and the communities values
• The ‘Head Yakka’ programme focused on partnership working between local governments, communities and not-for-profit organisations, for the mental health and wellbeing of outback communities. ‘Head Yakka’ is a “place-based” and “engagement-based” program that capitalizes on existing community networks
• ‘The Lake Dunn Sculpture Trail’, an organically created local tourism project showcasing the innovation and creative spirit of local communities. This project transitioned a local venture into an international tourist attraction

Mary Regional Resilience Strategy[7]

The Mary Regional Resilience Strategy takes a “multi-hazard approach to the varied aspects of disaster resilience, noting that many resilience-building measures and activities are often multi-dimensional”.

The strategy offers case study examples of recovery and resilience building initiatives. For example:

• ‘Get Ready Generation Z’, a workshop run in partnership between local school leaders and regional and local councils, focused on educating young people on the foundations of local resilience. The workshop also gave local young people the opportunity to share their personal stories on being a resilient member of a resilient community. The workshop inspired young people to outline their criteria for community resilience
• Regional community-focused readiness workshops, facilitated by local authorities, enabling community groups to share information and insights on community assets and capabilities available in the event of an emergency
• ‘Remembering our history’, an initiative that documents the history of local natural hazard events. Markers, plaques and public art installations support remembrance and commemoration of past events, their impact on community recovery, and record historical events

[1] https://www.preventionweb.net/organization/queensland-reconstruction-authority

[2] https://sendaicommitments.undrr.org/commitments/20210223_001

[3] https://sendaicommitments.undrr.org/

[4] A multi-hazard approach that involves the integration of “all aspects of the disaster management cycle including preparedness, response, recovery and prevention”. https://www.preventionweb.net/files/14348_14348SheshKafleICBRR2010.pdf

[5] E.g. A climate-resilient pathway can include “strategies, choices and actions” that mitigate climate change and its effects, the design and implementation of effective disaster and risk management practices. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/5_warner.pdf

[6]https://www.qra.qld.gov.au/regional-resilience-strategies/central-west-regional-resilience-strategy

[7]https://www.qra.qld.gov.au/maryregion

Local and national governments are investing significant resources in recovery of public health, economic and employment regeneration, humanitarian assistance, among other areas. Consideration of budget constraints is crucial – for example, the OECD uses Spain as an example to highlight the dual-task: support vulnerable people and reduce public spending. Consider strategies to prevent fiscal debt following recovery from COVID-19:

• Implement the use of subsidies for vulnerable populations during recovery
• Promote efficient use of resources, e.g. focus on sectors most severely impacted and have strong productivity potential, such as small-medium businesses
• Re-regulate future retirement arrangements for workers (e.g. measures such as “disincentivise early retirement”) to reduce the gap between the average labour market exit age and the statutory retirement age
• Identify local jobs which can be targeted toward the unemployed/marginalized (e.g. infrastructure/green economy jobs created through recovery and renewal strategies) and skills development opportunities (e.g. through apprenticeships) to increase employability
• Make public spending transparent using ICT platforms. Specify how much is spent, in which programmes, and the number of beneficiaries

The Himalayan Risk Research Institute (HRI) is developing a platform for disaster risk reduction students, researchers and young professionals to conduct research and share findings to inform policy and practice. The platform aims to build resilience through a scientific approach to DRR initiatives in Nepal. Consider establishing a DRR coordination platform in partnership with local and national government and non-government organisations, national and international research institutes to:

• Facilitate and promote the work and research of young scientists, researchers and professionals to build a scientific base for local DRR initiatives
• Establish a “skill transfer mechanism” whereby training, field research and workshops can build the knowledge and skills of young scientists and professionals and in turn benefit local DRR activities
• Share research and findings, and establish local databases to inform local governments on disaster preparedness and response activities that aim to build resilience
• Involve young people in the co-production of local development planning

Data management and risk communications have been in a constant process of adaptation throughout the pandemic. The United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) has released a summary of the main challenges and learnings for public administrators who manage data and communicate risk across Central America. ECLAC has identified digital government as an essential feature for public administration and disaster management. Consider their recommendations to strengthen the processes run by local government offices during the recovery phase.

Lessons for digital government

• Increase the role and use of Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) in governmental procedures and processes
• Coordinate, through those ICTs, databases across different offices and Ministries, and levels of government
• Invest in the digitalization of society, from schools to public offices, to investment in infrastructure and subsidies for equipment
• Integrate society into a feedback loop of communication through digital tools, as a measure of accountability and as a constant process of evaluation of services

Examples from Central America

• Establish “home office” schemes for government employees during the response and recovery of COVID-19
• Use ICTs to centralize information about the spread of COVID-19 and the amount of resources available across hospitals and clinics. Apps could also be useful to communicate risk to the public and provide medical appointments through video calls
• Use communication apps (e.g. WhatsApp), to continue online classes during the recovery phase, or as part of hybrid, combined online and face-to-face schemes
• Make public procedures accessible through online platforms, so that people do not need to visit public offices during the recovery phase

Challenges to address digital governance

• Integrate digitalization of public services into the wider public agenda
• Identify available infrastructure/resources that are available. Identify new resources needed
• Involve communities in the process of digitalization and government evaluation (see TMB Issue 38 on co-production)
• Generate strategies to support inter-organizational cooperation
• See also TMB Issue 37 Briefing A on risk communications as part of the local resilience capability.

This briefing presents examples of how FinTech and Digital Government have been used in countries as a policy delivery tool to help individuals and companies cope with the disruption created by the pandemic. We present some examples of how governments can include FinTech and Digital Government in their recovery and renewal strategies. Read this briefing in full by following the source link below to The Manchester Briefing Issue 41 (p.3-5)

This case study, written by Eduardo Robles Chavez and the Manchester Briefing team, presents examples of effective vulnerability mapping during COVID-19 in New Zealand and Wales, contrasting these with Mexico and Chile where mapping focused only on infection rates. Read this case study by following the source link below (p.13-16)

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)

The proliferation of concurrent disasters (including natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and technological threats), alongside COVID-19, highlights the need for recovery and renewal strategies that tackle the multiple hazards facing society. Croatia’s National Recovery Plan considers both the lessons learned by the COVID-19 crisis and the earthquake experienced in 2020. Consider some of Croatia’s recovery and resilience strategies:

Economy, education, the environment & research

• Introduce new labour market policies that focus on building green and digital skills, and specifically target vulnerable groups
• Recognise the economic value of the culture and tourism industries through targeted investment
• Review the social welfare system, establish new social services, and implement measures that increase “coverage, adequacy, and targeting of social benefits”
• Reform the education system by updating school curricula, “increase access to early childhood education and care, and implement single-shift, full-day teaching”
• Establish partnerships between universities, research centres, and the private sector, to inform the development of context specific risk management strategies through collaborative research and action

Digitalization of government

• Decentralise governance practices, to simplify and increase the efficiency of local government systems
• Increase the use of ICT in statutory agencies (e.g. health care and judiciary systems)
• Implement community outreach services, to promote and integrate resilience building activities at the local level

Infrastructure

• Targeted investment in repair and reconstruction of infrastructure impacted by the earthquake and COVID-19, both public and private, including local heritage sites
• Regulate, create, or change local building regulations, codes of practice and requirements for infrastructure, to consider the needs of a multi-hazard management approach
• Improve the water and waste management system through strategies that focus on the environment and transitioning to a circular economy

Finland’s ‘Sustainable Growth Program: Recovery Plan’ sets out the reforms and public investment projects that aim to boost “competitiveness, investment, skills development and research, and innovation”. The overall objectives of the programme are:

• “Decrease greenhouse gas emissions;
• Productivity growth;
• Raising the employment rate;
• Faster accessibility to care;
• Progress in equality”

This recovery plan has recently been submitted to the EU Commission for review. The plan is not yet approved, however, this lesson offers an insight into Finland’s Recovery and Resilience priorities. The programme is built around four key pillars:

• “A green transition to support structural adjustment of the economy and underpin a carbon-neutral welfare society;
• Digitalisation and a digital economy to strengthen productivity and increase access to services;
• Raising the employment rate and skill levels to accelerate sustainable growth;
• Access to health and social services will be improved and their cost-effectiveness enhanced”

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

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)

We discussed co-production in TMB Issue 33 and detailed three barriers to co-production during COVID: Pace, Distance and Complexity. The Centre for Loneliness Studies recently developed a toolkit for co-production organised around a cycle of: "Co-commissioning; Co-design; Co-delivery and Co-evaluation/co-governance". This toolkit supports those who want to begin a journey of co-production. It is based on research on co-production with older people who experienced isolation and loneliness. The principles are transferable and useful to anyone thinking about how to do co-production. Consider:

• That co-production can apply to a broad range of contexts (e.g. co-producing service delivery for a city/region/on a national level or co-producing care delivery for an individual). Depending on the context, those involved should agree on what co-production means based on their context. This can be done by:
  • Define what co-production means e.g. to your organisation/to the group of people delivering a service/to those using a service
  • Agree a statement about what co-production means, to manage expectations and provide clarity on the direction of co-production activities
• Understand individual and group co-production values. This can help to direct work and activities and influence decision-making
• Empower each person involved by working "with people rather than for them"
• Promote equality, e.g. use the term 'stakeholders' to describe all of those involved in co-production to position all participants on an equal footing
• Seek to understand and make use of the skills, knowledge and experience of all stakeholders
• Ensure a diverse group of stakeholders are involved in co-production by considering:
  • Which stakeholders should be involved? (including those who represent current and potential future users of services)
  • What skills, experience, knowledge and resources are required to support co-production? (e.g. conduct an asset mapping exercise to understand needs)
  • How best to ensure a wide variety of stakeholders are included?
  • What resources might stakeholders require to keep them engaged?
• How to fairly share power and influence for co-production, e.g. hold regular deliberation meetings so that all stakeholders are heard, use voting systems, and feedback questionnaires
• Following each phase of the cycle:
  • Reflect on the experiences of each stakeholder and achievements of the group
  • Explore what worked well, the challenges that presented and how learning can be applied in future cycles of co-production
  • Identify any skills, knowledge, experience or strengths the group and co-production process could gain from and how to bring those into the process in the future

This case study extracts some key points from the UK's National Audit Office report 'Initial learning from the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic'. Read this case study in full (p.13-14) in TMB Issue 38 by following the source link below.

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).

Local people and organisations are vital to delivering change, however, many face barriers and lack the resources to undertake resilience building activities. In the USA, Community Development Financial Institutions work to promote economic revitalization and community development in low-income communities through ‘values driven, locally informed and locally targeted investments’. Consider:

• That investment in community resilience can mitigate the impacts of shocks and stresses caused by crises and accelerate recovery from crisis
• When investing in community resilience, it is important to consider the life span of projects to ensure all communities have the opportunity to achieve their resilience goals
• That all people and communities should have equal access to the ability to build resilience and some may require additional or targeted support
• Engagement of all stakeholders is critical, to ensure that investment will benefit all people in the community

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

Risk communications as part of the Local Resilience Capability is our focus in this briefing. We explore the communication of risk before and during emergencies, and identify how two-way communications are central to local resilience capabilities. Follow the source link below to TMB Issue 37 (p.3-6).

The complexity of COVID-19 has meant that the risks have often been difficult to predict and understand, thus creating uncertainty and a challenge for those responsible for public risk communications. "When scientific uncertainty appears in public settings, it could reduce the perceived authority of science" (Zehr, p.11). Effective communication of uncertainty is essential, to ensure that individuals and communities are well-informed, are better able to make decisions about their well-being and respond to/mitigate the impacts of risk. Consider:

• Create a visualization of risk, to generate a deeper and more relevant understanding of the facts and insights often concealed in abstract data, e.g.; 'The risk characterisation theatre', a visualisation approach using a seating chart (like those used when booking seats in a theatre) which "visually displays risk by obscuring a share of seats that correspond to the risk" (see example below)
• This approach generates a visual of the likelihood of the risk, and enables a visual communication of rare risks that are often challenging to represent and communicate effectively
• This approach also enables an individual to relate a risk with a level and within a context that they can naturally associate to. By not stating exact figures, this approach tackles the "big issue" of uncertainty in risk
• Other examples of visualizations of risk include; displaying the impact of "long COVID" as places in a bus, e.g. "a figure such as 22% of patients discharged from hospital after COVID-19 reporting hair loss could be depicted as 11 individuals on a bus full of 50 people who have left hospital after receiving care for the virus". This is a scenario that anyone familiar with a bus can easily imagine. The data becomes immediately less abstract.

You can view a visualization of this concept in the last page of this article here..

Reference: Rifkin, E. and Bouwer, E. (2007) The Illusion of Certainty: Health Benefits and Risks. Boston, MA: Springer US.

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

TMB Issue 30 discussed the potential ethical issues associated with varying restrictions on individual liberties based on possession of a vaccine certificate. Digital vaccination passports have generated a complex debate across the world, as understanding of the COVID-19 virus and the effectiveness of current vaccines is still developing and digital vaccine passports are an “evolving science”. Introducing infrastructure that has the potential to create “segregation and risk scoring at an individual level, enables third-party access to health information, brings profound risks to individual rights and concepts of equity in society” [1].

The Ada Lovelace Institute[2] recently released ‘Checkpoints for vaccine passports’ which strives to support governments and developers to work through the important steps to examine the evidence available, understand the design choices and the societal impacts, and assess whether a roll-out of vaccine passports could navigate risks to play a socially beneficial role. Below we replicate content from that report which explains their six vaccine passport system requirements[3]:

Scientific confidence in the impact on public health

As scientific knowledge on the effectiveness of current COVID-19 tests, vaccines and antibodies is still developing, governments and public health experts should:

• “Establish scientific pre-conditions’, to include the level of reduced transmission from vaccination that would be deemed acceptable to permit their use;
• Create a model and test the behavioural impacts of different digital vaccination passport programmes (e.g. in combination with or in place of social distancing);
• Conduct a comparative analysis of different vaccine passport schemes to other public health measures in terms of necessity, benefits, risks and costs;
• Develop and test public communications with regards to what certification should be understood to mean in terms of uncertainty and risk;
• Set out the permitted pathways for calculating what constitutes lower risk individuals, including vaccine type, test types, antibody protection and duration of reduced risk following vaccination, testing and infection;
• Outline public health infrastructure requirements for successful use of a passport scheme, which may include access to vaccine, vaccine rate, access to tests, testing accuracy, or testing turnaround

Clear, specific and delimited purpose

To mitigate the potential risks of vaccine passports (e.g. barriers to employment, stigma and discrimination), the following measures should be considered:

• “Specify the purpose of a vaccine passport and clearly communicate the specific problems it aims to address;
• Conduct a comparison of alternative options and existing infrastructure, policy or practice to evaluate if any new system and its overheads are proportionate for specific use cases (e.g. care home visitations);
• Clearly define where certification will be permitted and set out the scientific evidence on the impact of these systems;
• Clearly define where the use of certification will not be acceptable, and whether any population groups should be exempted (e.g. children, pregnant women or those with health conditions);
• Consult with representatives of workers and employers, and issue clear guidance on the use of vaccine passports in the workplace;
• Establish clear aims, measures to assess success and a model for evaluation”

Ethical consideration and clear legal guidance

Ethics and law relating to the permitted and restricted uses of vaccine passports, and mechanisms to support rights and redress and table illegal use should be considered:

• “Publish and require the publication of, impact assessments – on issues including data protections, equality and human rights;
• Offer clarity on the current legality of any uses, specifically laws regarding employment, equalities, data protection, policing, migration and asylum, and health regulations;
• Create clear and specific laws, and develop guidelines for all potential user groups about the legality of use, mechanisms for enforcement and methods of legal redress for any vaccine passport scheme;
• Support cooperation between relevant regulators that need to work cooperatively and pre-emptively;
• Make any changes via primary legislation, to ensure due process, proper scrutiny and public confidence;
• Develop suitable policy architecture around ay vaccine passport scheme, to mitigate harms identified in impact assessments – which may require employment protection and financial support for those facing barriers to work on the basis of health status”

Sociotechnical system design, including operational infrastructure

Consider how the vaccine passport system design will function in practice and link with other systems:

• “Outline the vision for any role vaccine passports should play in COVID-19 strategies, e.g. whether developing own systems or permitting others to develop and use passports;
• Outline a set of best-practice design principles any technical design should embody – including data minimisation, openness, ethics by design and privacy by design – and conduct small-scale pilots before further deployment;
• Protect against digital discrimination, by creating a non-digital (paper) alternative;
• Be clear about how vaccine passports link or expand existing data systems (in particular health records and identity);
• Clarify broader societal issues relating to the system, including the duration of any planned system, practical expectations of other actors in the system and technological requirements, aims, costs, and the possible impacts of other parts of the public health system or economy informed by public deliberation;
• Incorporate policy measures to mitigate ethical and social risks or harms identified"

Public legitimacy

Public confidence in vaccine passports will be crucial and consideration should be given to local contexts:

• “Undertake rapid and ongoing public deliberations as a complement to, and not a replacement for, existing guidance, legislation and proper consideration of issues;
• Undertake public deliberation with groups who may have particular interest or concerns from such a systems, e.g. those who are unable to have the vaccine, those unable to open businesses due to risk, groups who have experienced discrimination or stigma;
• Engage key actors in the successful delivery of these systems (business owners, border control, public health experts)”

Protection against future risks and mitigation strategies for global harms

Consider the longer-term effects of vaccine passport systems and how they might shape future decisions or be used by future governments:

• “Be up front as to whether any systems are intended to be used long term, and design and consult accordingly;
• Establish clear, published criteria for the success of a system and for ongoing evaluation;
• Ensure legislation includes a time-limited period with sunset clauses or conditions under which use is restricted and any dataset deleted – and structures or guidance to support deletion where data has been integrated into work systems for example;
• Ensure legislation includes purpose limitation, with clear guidance on application and enforcement, and include safeguards outlining uses which would be illegal;
• Work through international bodies like WHO, GAVI and COVAX to seek international agreement on vaccine passports and mechanisms to counteract inequalities and promote vaccine sharing”

References:

[1] https://www.adalovelaceinstitute.org/report/checkpoints-vaccine-passports/

[2] https://www.adalovelaceinstitute.org/

[3] Ibid.

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

Stephen Brookes, University of Manchester and Umer Khan, Greater Manchester Police, explore public leadership to create public value recovery and renewal - including the role of local community policing, partnerships, and 'consequentialist leadership'.

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

Effective risk communication is central to public health risk management, so that people can make informed decisions and take the correct actions to "prevent, mitigate and recover from emergencies". It enables real-time access to, and exchange of, reliable information. However, the sheer scale and pace of COVID-19 led to an uncoordinated overload of sometimes inconsistent information, so people were unsure about the severity of risk, and therefore behaved according to their individual perception. There has also been a surge of misinformation throughout the pandemic, which has undermined national and local health responses globally.

Consider:

• A review of risk communication strategies employed during the pandemic, to identify what worked and what could be improved for future emergencies
• Build risk communication capacity by appointing dedicated risk communicators at national and local levels, to maintain consistency in communications and develop a sense of familiarity among the public, which can build trust
• Identify the stakeholders in disseminating risk information (e.g. media) and assess the strength of the relationships with stakeholders. Identify how collaboration and coordination can be enhanced so that the information disseminated is ‘timely, accurate and transparent’
• Tailor risk communications to the specific risk and needs of diverse communities
• Engage with the community to co-develop risk communication support structures and establish accountability of community members for required behavioural change
• Use social media to track (through data analytics) and counter misinformation, and develop a narrative of solidarity through crisis (UN Sri Lanka)
• Establish a central risk management coordination platform that consolidates risk information and forecasts other potential risks (e.g. concurrent emergencies such as severe flooding). This can enhance capacities and capabilities to provide strategic interventions, and minimize further social and economic impacts (Dominican Republic)
• Acknowledge and communicate uncertainty in clear and unambiguous language to avoid misinterpretation, e.g. use scientific evidence to estimate the likelihood of COVID-19 case resurgence as precisely as possible, and avoid language such as ‘probably/possibly’
• Regularly gauge and monitor the public perception of risk, through surveys and consultations with public bodies such as police, to inform timely action to prevent lax or panicked behaviour
• Evaluate and update risk communications regularly to account for developments (e.g. vaccination)

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

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

COVID-19 has presented Ireland with an opportunity to balance regional and rural development. The government has responded with an ambitious five year policy which addresses both the challenges facing rural areas following the pandemic and the transformational opportunities that the pandemic presents for rural economies and communities. This lesson offers an overview of the key priorities set out in the policy, examples of the measures that will be taken to achieve these priorities and the sustainable development goals (SDGs) linked to the measures:

Optimising digital connectivity:

• Investment in the delivery of the 'National Broadband Plan' to accelerate the delivery of connectivity in rural areas (SDG 8; 9; 10)
• Implement a 'National Remote Work Strategy' through the creation of 400 remote working hubs (e.g. providing financial support to local authorities to convert vacant buildings/utilize rural pubs as work spaces during the day) to support the retention of skilled people in rural areas (SDG 3; 8; 13)

Supporting employment and careers in rural areas:

• Design and implement nine new 'Regional Enterprise Plans' to support and promote the development of enterprise and job growth (SDG 8)
• Providing support and assistance for the diversification of rural economics into new markets and sectors by capitalising on high speed broadband and new technologies (SDG 8; 9)

Revitalising rural towns and villages:

• Prioritise short-term recovery rural development programmes and strategies to support rural towns to recover from the impacts of the pandemic (SDG 9; 11)
• Implement a collaborative 'Town Centre First' renewal initiative to put town centres at the core of decision making (e.g. provide and resource dedicated local authority staff to support town centre renewal) (SDG 11)
• Engage with 'Approved Housing Bodies' who are responsible for housing for older people to develop and deliver accommodation in town centres that is more suitable for those with reduced mobility (SDG 11)

Enhancing participation, leadership and resilience in rural communities:

• Design and deliver a range of recovery and renewal programmes to support communities, voluntary organisations, social enterprises and charities to build resilience and increase their positive impact in the aftermath of COVID-19 (SDG 3; 10; 11)
• Implementation of a 'National Volunteering Strategy' to support community-based volunteers and voluntary organisations (e.g. by streamlining grant applications for volunteer groups) and establish a permanent 'Volunteer Reserve' in local communities who can be called upon and deployed by the community, voluntary organisations and local authorities during emergencies (SDG 11; 17)

Enhancing public services in rural areas:

• Review and update Rural Housing Guidelines for planning authorities, to tackle rural housing in a broader rural development and settlement context (SDG 11)
• Introduce a new 'Policing and Community Safety Bill' to redefine the functions of policing bodies to include community safety (SDG 16)

Supporting the sustainability of Agriculture, the Marine and Forestry:

• Provide support and assistance to local authorities to expand the number of farmer's markets, farm shops and support the formation of 'community-owned markets' in all towns, promoting local farmers, growers and food producers

In Scotland, the government's Social Renewal Advisory Board has proposed ways that transformational renewal can deliver lasting change post-COVID. The board published a report in January 2021 titled 'If not now, when?' which recognises the inequalities that have been exposed by the pandemic, and the civic response which emerged. The report presents 'Calls to Action' to tackle these inequalities and further galvanise the social action that is instrumental. Consider the principles offered by the report with regard to three key aspects of renewal:

• Money and Work: the need to support low income communities and tackle the structural inequalities in 'homes and across society' (e.g. unpaid care predominantly offered by women), including those disproportionately impacted by the health, economic and social impacts of the pandemic. The report calls for:
  • A "Minimum Income Guarantee". All incomes should "meet a minimum income standard through a combination of paid work and/or social security". This provides payments based on a person's circumstances, accounting for differing "needs and costs associated with disability, childcare and housing"
  • A "person-centred approach to money, financial education and help". Addressing individual debt through temporary payment moratoriums, improved financial education and support, particularly for those in ethnic minority groups who may not seek financial advice
  • A "new social contract on Fair Work". Partnerships between government, public sector and employers to deliver greater levels of financial security for workers through focusing on inclusive and targeted employment programmes
• People, Rights and Advancing Equality: the need for all people to have adequate housing, food and access to services and information, including migrants and refugees. The report advises:
  • "Make the prevention and ending of homelessness a national priority for the next parliamentary term". Tackle the gaps in financial housing support and make adequate housing a human right for all people in Scotland
  • "Increase access to nutritious, culturally appropriate and affordable food". Invest in local food partnerships to build greater local food resilience
  • Tackle the digital divide. End digital exclusion by placing a duty of responsibility on public bodies to enable digital access
• Communities and Collective Endeavour: focused on empowering people, communities and frontline teams to drive new ways of working which started to emerge during the pandemic, and develop new arrangements for local governance:
  • Co-producing policies and programmes with the public through citizen participation in design and delivery, and supporting the inclusion of a wider portion of society
  • "Values-based leadership" to empower frontline teams to deliver flexible services based on community needs and priorities
  • "People, communities and places, building on strengths and assets" to share responsibility and ownership with communities to build local resilience capabilities

Throughout the pandemic, the media has played a critical role in communicating aspects of crisis management, containment and response. A further opportunity may lie in harnessing the current levels of public engagement that have been developed through COVID-19 response to drive a new narrative. Consider the potential for media communications to:

• Support and drive a national recovery and renewal narrative that focuses on the next steps, generates awareness and interest from the public and builds a collective national effort to recover and renew from COVID-19 (as was highly effective for response and the recruitment of volunteers)
• Clearly communicate who is responsible for recovery and renewal priorities, what these priorities are and why, and how citizens should be encouraged to participate in recovery and renewal efforts
• Generate public interest in specific topics/recovery areas to encourage donations/funding for organisations that are working to create societal changes that reduce inequalities
• Local government and voluntary organisations can utilize the media to engage the government and public in societal changes that are crucial, through agenda setting, i.e. influencing public interest and the importance placed on certain topics through the deliberate coverage of certain topics/issues. Agenda setting has been found to influence public agendas, spending/funding generation and policies, with the media prompting policymakers to take action and satisfy the public's interest
• Generate funding by mobilising a local and national community of supporters

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).

Previous issues of TMB have detailed Impact and Needs Assessments (Issue 8,15 and 32) to collect information about effects, impacts and opportunities from the crisis alongside pre-crisis needs. These can be used to create an overall understanding from which recovery and renewal strategies can be developed and actioned. TMB Issue 9discussed the recovery actions that can follow an Impact and Needs Assessment, such as recovering operations and preparedness. In light of the most recent lockdown and the updates that may be made to Impact and Needs Assessments, we revisit the discussion on what the next steps could be. Consider:

• Identify the effects, impacts and opportunities to inform the development of transactional recovery strategies and transformational renewal initiatives. For example, for the opportunity of 'enhancing community resilience; the local resilience capabilities that have been to active and effective during COVID-19';
  • Transactional recovery: Identify community initiatives that will deliver the strategic priorities of the recovery partnership, increase collaboration, assess the need to fund those using existing resources, and measure their impact on the partnership's performance
  • Transformational renewal: Repurpose community liaison officers to work with selected communities and foster connections, secure seed funding for their self-generated activities, and focus on rebalancing inequalities and other partnership aims
• Review each theme identified through the Impact and Needs Assessment in collaboration with relevant partners to assess the feasibility of achieving the desired effects
• Forecast the capacity and capabilities required to delivery on actions - draw on existing/recruit additional resources
• Identify the duration and effort required to establish and deliver actions
• Assess the impacts that may occur from pursuing recovery actions, compared with not pursuing them
• Specify data for monitoring and evaluating, for example:
  • Renewal objective: Increase capacity
  • Outcome indicator: Build community awareness and understanding of potential risks and impacts of emergencies
  • Measure: Proportion of people who understand warnings (tested through risk preparedness exercises with the community)

COVID-19 has dominated news, media, and local and national government communications for the best part of a year since the pandemic began. One study found that excessive media use was associated with negative psychological outcomes, such as anxiety and stress. Positivity can aid stress management and reduce levels of anxiety/depression. Consider:

• Demonstrate that there is a world outside of COVID-19 by communicating positive stories unrelated to COVID-19
• Encourage more positive COVID-19 stories to come through, for example:
  • Create a local news special that celebrates the effort of local volunteers or local government during the pandemic
• Use communication channels (e.g. social media/newsletters) to communicate positive stories:
  • Invite local community members to share positive news and stories that can be shared and promoted through these channels
  • Invite school children to draw and write positive messages and hang them on the trees/fences of local parks/buildings
  • Encourage people to take regular breaks from consumption of COVID-19 news (signpost to community groups that may be running weekly bingo/quizzes online)
• Create a call-to-action for local volunteers and begin inviting the community to take part in and create new positive local initiatives that are focused on recovery and renewal from COVID-19