Where do we stand

For the first time in 20 years, the number of people living in poverty globally is expected to rise due to the socio-economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Around 100 million people will have been pushed into extreme income poverty by end of 2021. Following the pandemic, up to 10 years of progress in reducing multidimensional poverty are threatened to be reversed.

By 2030, up to two-thirds of the world's extreme poor is expected to live in countries characterized by fragility, conflict, and violence. According to the new Special Report on Human Security, nearly 1.2 billion people live in conflict-affected areas, with 560 million of them in countries not typically classified as fragile. Nearly half the global poor live in conflict-affected countries.

Globally, 53.1 percent of the global population, roughly 4.1 billion people, do not have access to even one social protection benefit.  Recent analysis shows how distant many countries were far from sufficiently facing poverty and inequality caused by the pandemic, due to fiscal and other limitations. Only a small group of countries, mostly high income, seem to have been up to the challenge.

Session guiding questions

• What were the factors explaining why some governments respond faster and more comprehensively than others? What was the role of maturation of social protection systems, fiscal space and political will?
• What has been learnt from the social protection response to the pandemic? Has this been a testing ground for new technologies, including digital?
• How can the learnings and best practices be used for scaling up, and extending social protection systems?
• How can the learnings and best practices be used to make social protection systems more instrumental to support a just transition towards a net zero economy?
• How can the financial sustainability and resilience of social protection systems be ensured? What are the options to mobilize better national resources, through contributory and non-contributory approaches, and global financial resources?

Where do we stand

Many urban areas are becoming hotspots of disasters due to population growth, increasing and unplanned urbanization, environmental challenges including climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution, and other anthropogenic pressures. Since asset concentration and resource utilization are higher in cities, the disruption of critical infrastructure and essential services after a disaster can cripple the functioning of society and derail prospects for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the key global climate change-related risks are concentrated in urban areas. Climate change is expected to exacerbate urban risks due to exposure to hazards, socio-economic vulnerabilities, and poor governance, among others. However, cities have the unique ability to respond to disasters, climate changes and environmental stresses at a local, more tangible level with dynamism, scale, stronger linkages and partnerships, and a greater sense of urgency among citizens and local authorities. From this perspective, the co-benefits of climate mitigation and adaptation actions are largest in cities, including increasing preparedness for recovery.

Emergency response and the international humanitarian community are not prepared to deal with urban emergencies. Urban areas need a holistic approach to resilient recovery and reconstruction. Sectoral responses are not enough in a system of systems setting as are cities.  

The critical role of population size, density and urban form has been highlighted in the COVID-19 recovery. Recognizing the city as a system of systems, cities are also now rethinking how to better address interdependencies, cascading, compounding and systemic risks, urban-rural connectivity, and transdisciplinary and multi-scale governance, among others, in an integrated manner. The biggest opportunity for urban areas from the pandemic is to build back better with the planned fiscal stimulus as the seeds of transformation toward resilient, green, more inclusive, equitable, and sustainable recovery. 

Session guiding questions

• To what extent are cities building back better in recovery from disasters? What are the main setbacks and opportunities?
• How has systems thinking been effectively applied to recovery in urban settings? 
• How many of the recovery decisions are data and evidence driven? What's the role of quality information in recovery decision making?
• How can cities adapt to the changing risk environment and recover better from COVID-19 and future disasters?
• What are some recent and emerging innovations at the local level that can be scaled up in other contexts?
• How are cities leveraging urban planning and policy to build back better, more sustainable and resilient communities?

Where do we stand

Pre-disaster recovery planning offers solutions that can mitigate challenges toward better, faster, and more equitable recovery outcomes. PDRP can help affected communities to build back stronger. Integration of disaster risk reduction measures and resilient designs into recovery is facilitated by, among other things careful planning, standards-setting, public-private partnerships and pre-arranged agreements. It depends on pre-event baseline data and protocols for timely and accurate post-event data collection to inform decision making. In the absence of preparedness, build back better measures can be cut short and quality may be compromised for the urgency of recovery.  

Pre-disaster recovery planning can help affected communities to build back faster. Pre-disaster recovery plans identify recovery stakeholders, their roles and responsibilities, and set up mechanisms for interagency multi-sectoral coordination. They can identify necessary recovery capacities and training needs. They can establish recovery governance measures, institutions and relationships, policies, and triggers that can snap into action when an event occurs. Pre-disaster recovery plans can also identify funding sources and arrange for available funds when needs arise. These types of measures expedite recovery and reduce losses from delays. 

Preparedness measures can help to build back more inclusively and equitably. The PDRP process gives an opportunity to ensure inclusive planning. It gives time to engage and understand communities, vulnerabilities and needs, and a vision for how communities should recover in ways that are consistent with their values. It allows communities to prepare for disruption and for recovery, and for their governments to establish mechanisms to meet their needs in recovery. 

Session guiding questions

• What progress has been made in recovery preparedness and planning?
• What are the major obstacles and enabling conditions for implementing and scaling up PDRP? How could community leaders and practitioners be supported with pre-disaster recovery planning?
• What ex ante recovery measures have been shown to be effective in achieving better recovery outcomes?
• What innovative approaches are emerging to improve recovery readiness?
• How can communities and other stakeholders be meaningfully engaged to ensure inclusive planning?

Where do we stand

Evidence shows that existing infrastructure systems are increasingly being affected by natural and man-made hazards, and from the impacts of climate change. According to reports, infrastructure disruptions impose costs between $391 billion and $647 billion a year in low and middle-income countries. Investing in disaster risk reduction is thus a precondition for developing sustainably in a changing climate. 

However, today’s reality is that disaster recovery too often is unplanned, and underfinanced. Preparedness to build back better remains limited and is usually addressed only as a post-disaster consideration. Given the growing frequency and intensity of disasters driven by climate change, more needs to be done to allocate necessary resources and develop capacity for recovery actions that build resilience and reduces risk across sectors. 

Improved data collection on loss and damage to infrastructure and related services through the Sendai Framework Target D and the Damage, Loss and Needs Assessment mechanisms could support planning, decision-making and investments. That said, a recent analysis by UNDRR and UNDP of 57 PDNA processes under the DaLA methodology, conducted worldwide over the last decade, has shown that service disruptions are estimated on a lower ratio when compared to physical damages, thus missing the opportunity to gain comprehensive understanding of mid- and long-term impacts of disasters on infrastructure systems and the communities that depend on them.

Session guiding questions

• How can recovery strategies be used to strengthen resilience of key infrastructure sectors?
• How can we ensure that recovery of infrastructure is planned in such a way so as to ensure resilience against future disasters?
• How can data collection and reporting on infrastructure losses and damages, and service disruptions, at the local, national and regional levels be improved?
• What are some options for financing resilience in infrastructure recovery? How do we integrate resilience in the current COVID-19 recovery and stimulus packages?

Where do we stand

Disasters and negative climate change impacts are quite often predictable. Using data and tools for risk assessments and forecasts is now possible, rendering early action not only possible but morally imperative (Weingärtner & Wilkinson, 2019; British Red Cross, 2022). 

Governments worldwide are now spending vast sums of money on economic recovery to counter the impact of COVID-19, which will significantly influence our ability to deliver a green, resilient recovery. COVID-19 and complex disasters have highlighted the need for more investment in ex-ante resilience and the economic stimulus packages are an opportunity to address multiple risks, including climate change impacts. 

Forecast-based financing (FbF), and anticipatory actions and financing are early-action approaches which are gaining more and more attention and traction with the humanitarian agencies, donors, and disaster risk respondents as mechanisms for providing critical support to endangered communities and for ensuring faster and more sustainable recovery. Anticipatory financing is a mechanism that allows the release of pre-planned funds in the event of imminent disaster or a shock event, which significantly speeds up response and recovery efforts, running ahead of traditional financial aid provision and economic recovery, which require a lot more time and coordination (Weingärtner & Wilkinson, 2019).

Session guiding questions

• How do anticipatory financing and FbF support recovery efforts?
• How can we encourage adopting anticipatory financing policies and practices for recovery at the national level?
• What incentives can governments provide to the private sector and other stakeholders to invest in anticipatory financing?
• What are the main obstacles and opportunities in adopting such approaches and how can those be overcome?
• What are some good examples of applied anticipatory financing?