Developing new forms of research cooperation during the pandemic



During the Corona pandemic most of my usual forms of work like field missions, conferences and working meetings didn't work and so I looked for new forms of networking and cooperation. Interested in governance as I am I was glad that I could join two online discussion groups on the SDG 16 Hub (sdg16hub.org) of the UNDP Oslo Governance Centre (UNDP OGC):

• Civic engagement and civic space: Moderated by Cristina Ordóñez (Grupo FARO) and Emanuele Sapienza and Julia Kercher (UNDP), with contributions from Emmanuel Justima (MODRICENIR), Gazbiah Sans (USAID), Ana Patricia Muñoz (Gropo FARO), Thomas Davies (City University of London), Mandeep Tiwana (CIVICUS), Elizabeth Lockwood (CBM), Sondre Nave (Norwegian Forum for Development and Environment), Sone Osakwe (CSEA), Gabriell Duarte (ASIES), John Romano (TAP Network), Ulrich Graute (International Affairs Consultant), Pytrik Dieuwke Oosterhof (O-Land Consulting), Saranbaatar Bayarmagnai (OHCHR), Dian Kuswadini (UNESCO) and Joan Mudindi Vwamu, Alice Wadstöm, Sarah Rattray, Cat Botto and Priya Sood (UNDP).
  

• Transparent, inclusive and responsive public service delivery: Moderated by Adedeji Adeniran (CESA) and Zoe Pelter and Aseem Andrews (UNDP), with contributions from Joseph Ishaku (Kwakol), Sone Osakwe (CESA), Oluwole Ojewale (ISSAfrica), Ulrich Graute (International Affairs Consultant) and Charlene Lui, Gichung Lee and Joan Mudindi Vwamu (UNDP).

I wasn't aware of it but according to the acknowledgement in the study our discussions were valued and feed into a joint report by the United Nations Development Programme’s Oslo Governance Centre and Southern Voice which was published in late May under the title: "COVID-19 and the Crisis of Governance: The impact of the Pandemic on Peace, Justice and Inclusion (SDG 16)".

The production method of this report was driven by the limitations of the pandemic but offers also interesting insight on hybrid forms of research cooperation. Certainly, we didn't cover all related aspects in our online discussion groups. That was delivered by many more experts in form of regional roundtable discussion groups. However, I am amazed that the key conclusions of the report feature main aspects of our group discussion. I don't know if it was done by purpose or not but it seems that the online discussion groups functioned like a reference group which contributed through their own discussion on the SDG 16 Hub to the findings of  groups. The policy briefs for the final report were then compiled by Adedeji Adeniran (Centre for the Study of the Economies of Africa); Natasha Palansuriya, Thamindri Aluvihare and Minuri Perera (Center for Poverty Analysis); Carolina Tchintian, Manuel Bertazzo and Gerardo Scherlis (Centre for the Implementation of Public Policies for Equity and Growth); and Ulrika Jonsson (UNDP OGC), Hassan Krayem (UNDP Amman Regional Hub) and Irakli Kotetishvili (UNDP Istanbul Regional Hub).



Executive Summary of the Report with key findings and recommendations

The COVID-19 pandemic has had significant health and economic consequences worldwide and is presenting unprecedented challenges to governance systems. In many contexts, the social contract between the state and its population is being strained, with diminishing levels of trust in governance systems; democratic political processes are being disrupted as the pandemic is used as a means of centralizing and consolidating power; and accountability and the rule of law are being undermined. Alongside the health and socio-economic effects of the pandemic, its impact on governance has been corrosive and is likely to require a longer time frame for recovery.

In this context, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, with its ambition to achieve more peaceful, just and inclusive societies (SDG 16), has become even more relevant. With less than a decade left to achieve the 2030 Agenda, there is a real urgency in working towards achieving the goals and targets – many of which have faced setbacks because of the COVID-19 pandemic, but which can be the basis upon which to “build forward better”. This is especially relevant in terms of SDG 16 and the need to embed the principles of SDG 16 in COVID-19 recovery processes, whether this means inclusive and quality delivery of services, reducing violence or ensuring better access to justice for all.

COVID-19 HAS REVEALED THAT THE APPROPRIATE DISTRIBUTION, USE AND OVERSIGHT OF POWER IS THE CORNERSTONE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. Power dynamics are at the heart of the emerging trends on SDG 16, including the relationships between citizens and state, between different arms of government, between state and non-state actors and between states at the global level. In many contexts, the social contract between the state and its population is under strain, with diminishing levels of trust in governance systems, and democratic political processes are being disrupted as the pandemic is used to centralize and consolidate power. To recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and to “build forward better” and more equitably, we must put people at the centre and reinforce the aspirations for peace, justice and inclusion articulated in the 2030 Agenda.

THE ROLE OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR IN MANAGING THE PANDEMIC AND FACILITATING ACCESS TO SERVICES IS FUNDAMENTAL TO AN EFFECTIVE RESPONSE. The need for investment in effective and responsive governance in order to facilitate more equitable access to health, education, social protection and other public services has been highlighted by the pandemic. The role of local government and investment in the systems that provide accessible and quality services is crucial to building resilience to future pandemics. The pandemic has demonstrated that a failure to address bottlenecks such as corruption and mismanagement of the public sector can result in devastating loss of lives.

THE PANDEMIC CANNOT BE AN EXCUSE TO ABUSE STATE POWER AND RESTRICT CIVIC SPACE. COVID-19 policies have accelerated some authoritarian trends that existed prior to the pandemic and have been used to undermine dissent, target human rights defenders and the media, and erode oversight institutions, including the judiciary and legislative and national human rights institutions. While states have responsibility for exercising their powers to manage the pandemic, there is concern across all regions that in some cases states have abused the use of emergency laws to actively close civic space. At the same time, the pandemic has also brought about new forms of collaboration among civil society actors, inspiring social movements and promoting solidarity to resist the abuse of state authority. Government willingness to collaborate with civil society has been key to a successful strategy to respond to the pandemic.

SOCIAL EXCLUSION HAS BEEN INSTRUMENTALIZED AS A POLITICAL STRATEGY. Inequalities and social exclusion have increased over the last two years due to uneven responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. This is in part due to policy decisions that have disenfranchised some communities and disproportionately affected them. This includes inequalities in access to so­cial protection programmes and other social services, enabling corruption at all levels and promoting political fragmentation. Exclusion and marginalization have been active strategies to perpetrate everyday violence on poor and marginalized populations. For example, overzealous enforcement of pandemic measures disproportionately affects those who live in the margins of poverty, including migrant workers, day labourers and indigenous peoples. Particular attention needs to be paid to the brand of politics that has silenced opposition voices and attacked minority rights.

THE FALLOUT FROM THE PANDEMIC IS HITTING WOMEN ESPECIALLY HARD. Gender-based violence has increased worldwide during the pandemic – justice systems have struggled to provide the necessary access to legal services, and access to comprehensive social services has also been limited due to pandemic restrictions. It is also important to look at how the repercussions of the pandemic on women, in particular their increased burden of labour, have affected their participation in the economy and in public life. At the same time, women have been at the forefront of many of the protest movements calling for accountability and social justice. The impact of the crisis on women and their role in leading responses and recovery at local and national level needs to be further recognized and supported.

THE CURRENT RISE IN INEQUALITY AND POVERTY CAN BE ROOT CAUSES OF FUTURE CONFLICTS. There have been reversals across the board on targets related to peace, justice and inclusion, especially in crisis settings. While in some cases there are signs of both resilience within communities and a reduction in violence, there are high levels of mistrust of governments, which can lead to social unrest. These remain potential drivers of future conflict, as some communities may be disproportionately affected by the pandemic, and the government is not able to respond to those communities’ priorities.

THE RAPID MOVE TO ONLINE SPACES DURING THE PANDEMIC HAS HIGHLIGHTED THE ENORMOUS POTENTIAL OF DIGITALIZATION, BUT ALSO THE ASSOCIATED RISKS. Digital spaces have become an alternative, yet potent, tool for political participation. Young people, in particular, have been able to effectively use the digital sphere and social media to politically mobilize and to take part in the political discourse. Although the digital space can be used to improve transparency and access to information and services and to promote debate, it can at the same time be used to promote misinformation or disinformation, to attack and target opposition, activists and civil society, particularly women, and to disempower and silence them. The digital divide remains a challenge, as it reinforces inequalities, pushing those who are furthest behind even further back, as difficulty in accessing technology acts as an additional stumbling block to accessing services and political participation.