This learning guide draws out the key messages and learning from across a series of online learning events which explored and showcased learning and impact from the Covid-19 Responses for Equity (CORE) programme.
Whilst the three events focused on different themes, there were some clear, overarching messages that emerged. Cutting across these were issues relating to governance, gender, inclusivity, and social justice:
- Building resilience. The pandemic exacerbated pre-existing inequalities. Prioritising progress to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly amongst vulnerable and marginalised groups, will help to build resilience to future shocks.
- Social protection. Governments should invest strongly in social protection mechanisms. This is crucial to build the economic resilience of vulnerable groups such as women, youth, and the elderly, to prevent them from falling below the poverty line and build their resilience to long-term shocks.
- Gender. Ensuring future responses are not only gender-sensitive, but specifically targeted at women, is crucial. Women were shown to be disproportionately negatively affected in employment, social safety nets and economic policies, care burdens, gender-based violence, and sexual and reproductive health access.
- Fostering collaboration and localised responses. Many of the most effective responses involved collaboration at multiple levels (such as local and national governments, civil society, the private sector) and across sectors. Grass roots organisations often provided the localised context to responses and extended government services beyond their existing reach.
Key messages
- Existing vulnerabilities exacerbated impacts. Pre-existing vulnerabilities of informal workers and marginalised groups meant the impacts of responses to the Covid-19 pandemic were particularly severe. There is a need to address these structural inequalities more broadly, not only during crisis response.
- Disproportionate impacts on women. Women informal workers were disproportionately impacted due to care burdens, increases in gender-based violence, and lack of access to sexual and reproductive health.
- Social protection did not reach marginalised groups. Vulnerable informal sector workers, especially migrants, were likely to remain excluded from schemes that emerged in response to the pandemic, which typically adopted models that were more likely to cater to salaried and formal workers. Schemes need to be extended to those who are commonly excluded by both poverty- and employment-based protections.
- Data issues. One of the biggest challenges in the management of the Covid-19 pandemic in many countries was the lack of robust, disaggregated data on marginalised groups and informal workers, particularly on internal migration. For effective future responses to disasters and crises, there is a need for robust and gender-disaggregated data on marginalised groups, to ensure that relief reaches those most in need. There are major challenges around working in data-poor environments and limitations around collecting data on sensitive issues such as domestic violence.
- Collaboration is key. Grass roots and civil society organisations were key to extending government services to hard-to-reach communities, including informal settlements. Collaboration is essential to the efforts of informal community groups, civil society organisations, and local and national governments. This can be achieved by identifying, supporting and legitimising the role of grass roots organisations in public crisis response. There is a question around how to collaborate with governments that either can’t or won’t – Is there a state alternative?
- Shrinking of civic spaces. During the pandemic there was an opening of civic spaces for dialogue. Now the crisis is over, civic spaces are closing again. How can momentum be maintained?
Cite this publication
Meeker, J. (2023) Meeting the Challenges of Multiple Crises: Lessons From the Covid-19 Pandemic, Covid-19 Responses for Equity (CORE) Research for Policy and Practice Report, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, DOI: 10.19088/CORE.2023.014