Box 2.13: Cities see a spike in domestic violence during lockdowns

Universal and non-conditional social protection schemes are not only more inclusive and less likely to discriminate against people in need than targeted schemes, but they are also less likely to stigmatize beneficiaries and are easier to implement administratively

time disproportionately impacted by the health prevention measures.

The outbreak of COVID-19 has also created stigma and discrimination towards those who are either infected or come in contact with COVID-infected patients. Healthcare workers, patients, survivors, migrants returning to their communities, pilots and airline crew operating the repatriation flights have all faced social ostracization in varying forms. Already vulnerable groups are especially exposed to this risk: in India, for example, there were widespread reports of elderly persons being stigmatized by their own families and the disproportionate burden the pandemic was having on their mental health, access to livelihoods and ability to perform everyday tasks such as grocery shopping.92 Across the world, there was also evidence of a surge in domestic and genderbased violence during lockdowns (Box 2.13).

More than ever, cities must focus on identifying and targeting their most vulnerable populations, where possible using existing frameworks to reach marginalized groups and households located in inadequate or insecure housing. Different partners, supported by the Global Land Tool Network (GLTN) hosted by the Land, Housing and Shelter Section (LHSS) of UN-Habitat, have previously used the Social Tenure Domain Model (STDM) tool to identify potential hotspots and prioritize resources for the most vulnerable in informal settlements. Resources such as these could also play an important role in identifying specific vulnerabilities around COVID-19.

The pandemic has brought into sharp relief the acute vulnerabilities that millions of urban poor have faced for decades, with little or no safety net in the event of job loss, illness or eviction. Moving forward, instead of replicating these flaws, the crisis offers an opportunity to construct “a more robust, just, ethical and equitable social-ecological economy”.93 In many ways, this could be achieved by implementing what is already known about the need and value of effective social assistance systems: for instance, the ILO Social Protection Floors Recommendation, 2012 (No. 202) highlights the key role of nationally defined social protection floors guaranteeing at least a basic level of income security and effective access to essential health care for ensuring life in dignity. These measures should be informed by a “universalism sensitive to difference”,94 with targeted measures that complement — rather than replace — universal programmes, such as a universal basic income. Such a framework should include, for instance, social insurance schemes adapted to the needs and circumstances of informal workers. It is, however, important to note that targeted or special measures can be costly compared with universal measures. Universal and non-conditional social protection schemes are not only more inclusive and less likely to discriminate against people in need than targeted schemes, but they are also less likely to stigmatize beneficiaries and are easier to implement administratively. Local, subnational and national governments work across levels and scales to find cost-effective ways to implement these universal social protection schemes using mechanisms that reduce risk of corruption, preferentialism, and discrimination to reduce the entrenchment of inequalities.

Box 2.13: Cities see a spike in domestic violence during lockdowns

Lockdowns and “stay at home” orders have also seen a spike in the cases of domestic violence in many countries. The disruption of social and protective networks, and decreased access to services that these measures brought with them, has exacerbated the pre-existing risks of violence for women, children, LGBTQ+ and other groups in vulnerable situations within the home. In Latin America, where levels of genderbased violence were already high, restrictions on movement and other constraints enabled a “pandemic of violence” against women that saw a spike in the number of femicides.95 In many countries, the need to escape an abusive household emerged as a significant cause of homelessness, with cities having to swiftly establish refuges and shelters to accommodate women and children displaced by domestic violence. In Brussels, for instance, city authorities requisitioned a hotel to provide shelter for victims of domestic abuse during lockdown.96