Recovery, Renewal, Resilience

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate change agenda

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

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

Connecting resilience, health and migration

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

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

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

Implementation of the Integrated Review

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

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

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

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

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

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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Activities

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

Main deliverables

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

Establish the RCG for COVID-19

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

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

Commission an impact assessment

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

Collect the consequences

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

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

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

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

Analyse the consequences

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

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

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

Understand the rationale

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

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

Develop recovery actions

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

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

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

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

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

Deliver recovery actions

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the UK, five tests must be met:

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

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

In the UK, five tests must be met:

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

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

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

Such as ISO22301 'Business continuity management systems' from The British Standards Institution (BSI).

Guidance such as this addresses 'financial, legal, regulatory, environmental, reputational and emotional consequences arising from a risk or actual incident, and the consequences of activities associated with organizational recovery'. It also acknowledges the importance of flexible and scalable recovery in times of uncertainty.

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 analyse the impact of Covid-19 on all aspects of their cities. These should be formed as impact assessments that analyse:

• Local Community Impacts (from national guidance)
• Humanitarian Impact Assessment (from ERF Humanitarian Assistance Plan)
• Equality Impact Assessments
• Multi-agency impact analysis

Local government should assign appropriate senior officers and other knowledgeable parties to the Recovery Coordination Group. These staff will plan recovery by designing and implementing aspects of recovery and decide how this can be done more effectively for the recovery of all of society. Key roles in the Recovery Coordination Group includes:

• Strategic Lead
• Tactical Lead
• Secretariat/Programme Management Officer
• Functional representatives: Appropriate staff from relevant sectors

Reference: Essex County Council-Emergency Planning & Resilience, UK

Local government should ask the Recovery Co-ordination Group to develop a wide-ranging recovery strategy and action plan, focussing on short, medium and long term activities. This group should include governance arrangements and sub-groups to address particular aspects of recovery and should plan for the transition between response and recovery phases of Covid-19.

Reference: Essex County Council-Emergency Planning & Resilience, UK

Local government should collect stakeholder and community feedback on actions and their delivery. This will monitor and evaluate strategies to ensure stakeholders' needs are being met and that actions are having the desired impacts.

Reference: Essex County Council-Emergency Planning & Resilience

Local government should strengthen and support public health systems by ensuring representation of all sectors on the Recovery Coordination Group. The Recovery Coordination Group should take multiple actions simultaneously to ensure swift progress on recovery is made.

Local government should ensure empathy is prominent in the Recovery Coordination Group including in all strategic decision making and activities and the application of 'Principles of Resilience' to provide an all-of-society approach that considers need and their circumstance.

Reference: Essex County Council-Emergency Planning & Resilience, UK

Local government should create a Recovery and Humanitarian Advisory Group to specifically address the multifaceted needs of vulnerable people during the recovery. This group should provide strategic overview, co-ordination, and direction of work being done across the response and within local governments which is relevant to 'humanitarian assistance' and 'recovery'. This group would aim to minimise duplication of efforts and gaps and reduces the risk that people assume that widespread help is being delivered when actually more targeted is being done - leaving gaps.

The Recovery and Humanitarian Advisory Group should:

• appoint a Chair and identify members
• provide advice during the response phase
• encourage empathy in strategic decision making as well as a people-focused approach
• appoint a co-ordinator to help administer the group

The RHAG will provide specific humanitarian assistance information into the Recovery Coordination Group (and may eventually be subsumed into that group).

Reference: Essex County Council-Emergency Planning & Resilience

Local government should create a Recovery Co-ordination Group to co-ordinate a wide ranging, county-wide approach to recovery. This group should provide strategic leadership and coordination to all partners across the city as it seeks to recover from Covid-19. This group has a broad remit, and thereby differs to the narrow remit of the Recovery and Humanitarian Advisory Group which will provide reports into the Recovery Co-ordination Group.

Reference: Essex County Council-Emergency Planning & Resilience, UK

Local government should initiate a Recovery Coordination Group to begin planning the recovery of the effects of Covid-19. At a strategic level, the Corporate Leadership Team should appoint a lead strategic officer to provide strategic oversight and decision making for the recovery.

Reference: Essex County Council-Emergency Planning & Resilience, UK