Recovery, Renewal, Resilience

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

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

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”

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

Lessons on the drivers of effective government social protection response

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

Policy recommendations for protecting refugees during a crisis

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

Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Due to lockdown measures and temporary breaks to in-person public service provision, communicating specific information to migrants and refugees on their rights and obligations has been challenging. This includes communications on re-settlement programmes to support their integration into communities (see TMB Issue 29 for guidance on national resettlement programmes). Some countries have introduced temporary policy changes and targeted communication of such changes is crucial so that migrants are aware of the essential services that are available to them during the pandemic, e.g. Spain suspended the obligation to have valid documents in order to access essential public services such as healthcare and vaccination. National information strategies can be complemented locally by reaching out directly to migrants living in communities. Consider:

• Identify and establish contact with the leaders of refugee and migrant groups to communicate important messages
• Collaborate with migration support services, NGOs and local volunteers to develop a targeted online communications platform for migrants and refugees, e.g. “Migration Information Hub”, Leeds City Council, UK
  • Use the platform to inform migrants about COVID-19 related issues and guidelines; access to health care, food, housing, work rights, visa status, signpost immigration services and detail any changes to policy measures
  • Ensure alternative communication strategies are explored, such as information leaflets through migrations support services reach those who do not have access to the internet
  • Provide information on how victims of discrimination can get help and support
• Collect further data and information on reaching specific groups through consultation with the relevant communities, to improve future preparedness for crisis communication with migrants and their families
• Ensure easy access to information by translating key material into the languages of migrant communities:
  • Recruit translation volunteers to support the translation of information and development of multilingual media for the platform, e.g. YouTube videos
• Organise free workshops for migrants and refugees via Zoom, e.g. ‘How to access health services’, to inform on free services, including mental health facilities
• Develop and deliver targeted communication strategies to influence communities’ perceptions of migrants, working with local community leaders and groups, and organisations that support and advocate for migrants:
  • Tackle and counter misinformation online to prevent prejudice against migrants and mitigate the negative impact of the health crisis on immigrant integration
  • Set up a social media campaign that directly addresses the prevention of discrimination and spread of misinformation, e.g. “Somos Panas", Columbia
• Invite the public to help counter the spread of misinformation by sharing fact-based information with their own communities

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

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

The success of the vaccine programme will, in part, depend on how many people accept the vaccine. The prevailing narrative in a country may influence those who are anxious about the vaccine or uncertain about whether they should have it. Often there are vocal groups in support of, and in opposition to, vaccines and those groups are already very active around COVID-19. Governments will be a main facilitator of vaccine programmes so (in collaboration with partners) should consider addressing voices that oppose vaccine programmes. WHO provides guidelines for responding to vaccine deniers, including broad principles for health authority spokespersons on how to behave when confronted. The principles are based on psychological research on persuasion, public health, communication studies, and on WHO risk communication guidelines. The WHO guidelines cover:

• Tactics by vocal vaccine deniers e.g. skew science, shift hypothesis, censor, and attack opposition
• Who is the target for advocating vaccines i.e. the public are your audience, not the vaccine deniers
• The speaker should represent the well-grounded scientific consensus
• Verbal and nonverbal skills, and listening skills
• Do's and don'ts of verbal and nonverbal communication
• Constructing the argument to support vaccination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guest briefing by Dr. Su Anson and Dr. Katrina Petersen, Trilateral Research and Inspector Sue Swift, Lancashire Constabulary, prompts thinking on risk communication approaches in the context of COVID-19 and how the public can be active agents in their own response. The authors focus on: Identifying goals and outcomes; developing the message; channels for two-way engagement; and evaluating communications effectiveness.

Follow the source link below to TMB Issue 22 to read this briefing in full (p.2-7)

In many countries, myths around the origin, transmission and even existence of COVID-19 are rife. In Argentina, public health experts have successfully worked with the Catholic Church to go door-to-door at the community level to dispel inaccuracies about the virus. This included working to reduce people's fears over providing information for contact tracing. The Church has also provided their buildings to house vulnerable people unable to isolate due to crowded living conditions in slums. Consider:

• The strength of message that local voices can add to public communications about behavioural changes to tackle COVID-19
• Coordination between government officials and faith-based/civil society organisations to ensure the most vulnerable are able to register for COVID-19 support and information
• Using local religious buildings to assist gathering or disseminating COVID-19 information in the community as these are well-known
• The role of faith-based/civil society organisations in disseminating information in multiple languages, or to those without access to the internet or regular news updates
• How working with faith-based/civil society organisations increases localised access to populations affected by directly and indirectly by COVID-19 - socially those who may not be integrated into the system e.g. the homeless

Reference: Public Health expert, Argentina

Data protection does not stop an organisation asking employees whether they are experiencing any COVID-19 symptoms or introducing appropriate testing. Consider the following to ensure data protection compliance:

• Only collect and use information that is necessary to ensure the workplace is safe. Decide if the same result can be achieved without collecting personal information
• Only keep information temporarily or justify if a permanent record of information is needed
• Be clear, open and honest with staff about their personal information, how and why you need it, who you will share their information with, and for how long
• Treat people fairly and think carefully about any detriment or discrimination staff might suffer if the information is retained and shared
• Keep people's information secure and consider when personal information needs to be anonymised
• Enable staff to exercise their information rights, and discuss any concerns

Conduct a data protection impact assessment.

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

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

The WHO developed a risk communication and community engagement readiness checklist. It outlines six areas for consideration:

1. Risk communication systems e.g. Strengthen the surge capacity of communicators and community engagement expert
2. Internal partner coordination e.g. Assess the communication capacity of partners: identify typical audiences and communication channels
3. Public communication e.g. Review the roster of spokespeople at all levels; list their areas of expertise in COVID-19
4. Community engagement e.g. Establish methods for understanding the concerns, attitudes and beliefs of the community
5. Addressing uncertainty, perceptions and managing misinformation e.g. Establish dialogue in activities to systematically collect and provide answers to questions from the public
6. Capacity building e.g. Consider what training will be needed

The evacuation and shelter of people during a major emergency is a challenging task under normal conditions but, in the context of COVID-19, social restrictions, and potential to transmit the virus, it becomes even more complex. When planning for evacuation and shelter during COVID-19, consider:

• Provide more transport to comply with social distancing measures
• Rapidly expand shelter capacity, through building or identifying a greater number of current buildings for use as shelters, so as provide greater areas for social distancing
• Consider adapting industries to help prepare for a safer evacuation of populations away from high risk areas. For example, repurposing the garment industry to manufacture personal protective equipment (PPE) for volunteers use in Bangladesh
• Separate suspected COVID-19 patients in specific separate shelters
• Reducing chances of person to person contact by introducing public announcements/mass communication tools such as community radio and electronic media
• Create operational systems which allow for autonomy so responders can work efficiently without constant contact with HQ's if they happen to be under different lockdown restrictions
• Combine early warning messages with Covid-19 warning messages

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

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

Standards-making organisations have made freely available a range of standards which may be useful to tackling COVID-19. These cover topics such as:

• Humanitarian (ISO22395 vulnerable people, ISO22319 spontaneous volunteers)
• Economic (ISO22316 organizational resilience, ISO 22301 business continuity management systems)
• Infrastructure (ISO/TS 22318 supply chain continuity, CSA Z8002 infection control systems)
• Environment (BS 67000 city resilience)
• Communication (C63.27 evaluation of wireless co-existence)
• Governance and Legislation (ISO 22320 emergency management, ISO31000 risk management)
• Medical (ISO 10651 lung ventilators, EN14683 face masks)

Such bodies have also been taking various sources of government guidance and synthesising their messages into a single guide to support their members to understand how to follow those guidance (e.g. safe working, working in the new normal).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have identified that some of the global responses to these challenges provide potential for renewed communication strategies. To realise renewed crisis communication strategies that engage the public, local authorities should consider:

Techniques to counter disinformation

• Recognising bot generated information on social media and fact-checking claims

Working with communities on communication campaigns

• Encouraging institutions in the local community to transmit key messages
• Increase community engagement and public enrolment in crisis governance

Reflecting community diversity in communications

• Ensuring the needs of all members of the public are addressed in communication strategies
• Producing messages in different languages, addressing different age groups and attuning communications to different abilities

Using multiple media

• Using various media platforms from advertising surfaces to mass text messaging and public artwork

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example:

• Consider sustainable recovery schemes that end fossil fuel subsidies in developed countries
• Consider whether specific growth targets which have been harmful to the environment are the most appropriate goal at this time
• Encourage a shift in hierarchy from GDP to the UN's 17 Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement, CITES or the Convention on Biodiversity

Those already strained by COVID-19:

• This could include using GIS mapping to consider allocation of resources and areas most likely to be worst affected. For example, the sorts of mitigations needed to minimise transmission of the virus during evacuation and sheltering
• Analyse existing strategies to develop disaster-plus-COVID-19 scenarios. Thinking of Hurricane Katrina as an example, 20,000 people took refuge in the Superdrome stadium. Disasters like this force people to gather in close proximity in higher numbers than recommended by health authorities for countering the COVID-19 outbreak
• Consider also that vulnerable people are particularly affected by disasters and infectious diseases and may already be disadvantaged through COVID-19

This may help communities feel they have ownership over information rather than simply being told.

For particular groups consider:

• Providing parents with skills to handle their own anxieties and help manage those in their children
• Provide information in accessible formats for those with disabilities
• Offer multiple forms of communication e.g. text captioning, signed video, online material suitable for use with assistive technology
• Support the translation of information into the preferred languages for different groups, ensuring that refuges and migrant groups are included
• Adjust information for community perceptions, beliefs and practices

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

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

They may consider adopting the Global Risk Assessment Framework (GRAF) as a framework to track, respond to- and reduce the impact of expected cyber-attacks.

Local government should assess whether the 'Disaster Resilience Scorecard for Public Health' can inform its thinking about aspects of recovery. This scorecard is described in Topic 1 of this briefing in terms of how is provides attributes for rapid assessment to support holistic approaches to thinking about recovery.

This briefing explores the UNDRR’s Disaster Resilience Scorecard (DRS) and its Public Health Addendum (PHA) guidance to assess response and recovery. Both frameworks can also be used to assess potential secondary emergencies during e.g. COVID-19 (e.g. a flood) and their impacts on the healthcare system.

To read this briefing in full, follow the source link below to TMB Issue 1 (p.1-6).

Local government should develop recovery plans that include potential for cascading, simultaneous disasters which may require emergency responses activities e.g. evacuation of homes during a flood, amid the epidemic.