Recovery, Renewal, Resilience

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

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 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.

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

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)

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

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

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

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

Climate change agenda

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

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

Connecting resilience, health and migration

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

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

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

Implementation of the Integrated Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Activities

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

Main deliverables

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Pakistan, a National Immunization Support Project (NISP) supported by the World Bank has developed wider strategic collaborations to transform immunization by increasing vaccination coverage and strengthening existing systems and mechanisms. At the heart of NISP is a pooled procurement mechanism and governance structures which successfully sourced vaccines for Provinces and provided an uninterrupted supply for the past 4 years in an efficient and collaborative manner. When COVID-19 hit, NISP: (1) had a series of trusted partners, so repurposed its trusted procurement mechanism e.g. to procure PPE for health care workers; and, (2) was a trusted partner itself, so provided its own expertise to other partners beyond its usual remit e.g. to provide financial management governance to oversee funds. Inspired by (1), consider how your organisation can repurpose trusted partnerships and identify:

• Major issues that are troublesome due to limited effective partnerships available to support
• Where trusted strategic partnerships are already established and proven to be working well
• How strategic partners can expand their collaboration to address the troublesome issues
• The blockers, how to overcome them, and to expand the partnership to support response

Inspired by (2), consider how your organisation is the trusted partner that can help others and identify:

• What general expertise your organisation has and is able to provide in support to partners
• How your organisation can repurpose key skills and capabilities to go beyond its usual remit to offer support as a trusted partner
• How your organisation can provide its normal services whilst providing support to response
• The blockers, and how to overcome them, to provide your capabilities to others' response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this briefing, we present an initial framework to assess the impact of COVID-19, building upon the UK Government’s National Recovery Guidance and Emergency Response and Recovery Guidance. This framework provides the structure to document national/international early recovery lessons for COVID-19 in The Manchester Briefing.

The framework asks you to consider types of impact, and how you can address each to enable recovery to take place. To view this framework, follow the source link below to TMB Issue 1 (p.7).

Local government should support community recovery by disseminating free international standards to enhance community recovery. The British Standards Institution (BSI) has made the following standards available for free to planners:

• BS ISO 22319:2017 Community resilience - Guidelines for planning the involvement of spontaneous volunteers
• BS ISO 22330:2018 Guidelines for people aspects of business continuity
• BS ISO 22395:2018 Community resilience. Guidelines for supporting vulnerable persons in an emergency
• BS ISO 22320:2018 Emergency management. Guidelines for incident management

Local government should support business recovery by disseminating free international standards to the business community. BSI has made the following standards available for free to businesses:

• PD CEN/TS 17091:2018 Crisis management: Building a strategic capability
• BS EN ISO 22301:2019 Business continuity management systems - Requirements
• BS EN ISO 22313:2020 Business continuity management systems. Guidance on the use of ISO 22301
• ISO/TS 22318:2015 Guidelines for supply chain continuity
• ISO 22316:2017 Organizational resilience. Principles and attributes
• Risk Management
• BS ISO 31000:2018 Risk management - Guidelines
• BS 31100:2011 Risk management - Code of practice and guidance for the implementation of BS ISO 31000