Box 4.3: Communicating to the most marginalized populations

Box 4.3: Communicating to the most marginalized populations

One central requirement of effective governance in any city is the ability to effectively communicate to every section of the urban population — a responsibility that takes on added weight in the context of a pandemic, when potentially at-risk communities may need clear public health information, social support and safe access to essential services. Yet there may be considerable barriers in place to achieving this: language, segregation, mistrust of authorities and the isolating effects of discrimination.

In response, various cities tailored local approaches to reach vulnerable communities. Montréal, for example, launched an awareness raising campaign to disseminate essential information on public health, housing, food aid and other forms of assistance to minorities and immigrant communities.53 Similarly, Buenos Aires launched a public campaign aimed at disseminating legal information relating to COVID-19 for vulnerable groups such as slum dwellers, persons with disabilities, children and women.54 The Greek city of Ioannina has also made significant efforts to improve knowledge about COVID-19 among migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, engaging NGOs, police and local radio to deliver a targeted information drive in their native languages.55 In Italy, the city of Reggio Emilia partnered with the Centro Interculturale Mondinsieme to translate key COVID-19-related information into a variety of languages widely used by its immigrant populations, including Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu.56

through training sessions on planting, watering and composting.50 Meanwhile, in the Indian city of Pune, local authorities announced plans to decongest its crowded central slums:51 these had emerged as hotspots for the spread of COVID-19 in the early stages of the pandemic.52

Women have also faced increased levels of gender-based domestic violence: the confinement and other restrictions of lockdowns and stay-at-home directives have resulted in a surge in domestic and gender-based violence. Many cities and national governments have taken actions to address this through helplines, public awareness campaigns and cash programs specifically dedicated to women. Madrid City Council has opened 15 places in shared housing for victims of gender violence, expanding the city council’s capacity as a temporary measure in response to the increase in gender-based violence during the first phase of the pandemic.57 Malmö responded by setting up counselling centres and raising awareness online at potentially vulnerable groups through platforms such as Facebook and Snapchat.58 However, the services and protections put in place have not been even, with clear gaps in many countries and cities. A survey of initial government responses to COVID-19 in Bangladesh, Kenya, Pakistan, Sierra Leone and Uganda reported that there was “little evidence of national programmes to prevent and protect individuals at risk of physical, sexual or psychological violence” and highlighted the need, in contexts where the prevalence of violence against women and girls had rapidly increased, to engage independent women’s groups in developing solutions.59

Broader social protection programmes for poor and marginalized groups have also been rolled out. Various forms of assistance have been deployed to provide economic support in the form of cash transfers, food security programmes, psychological counselling and temporary accommodation for homeless people. Some cities have mobilized community groups and solidarity networks to help drive these efforts: Lisbon arranged for the collection and distribution of donations to its most vulnerable residents through volunteers60 while Birmingham City Council’s Emergency Community Response Hub worked in coordination with charities and communities to deliver food aid.61 The Mexico City capital government and 13 of its 16 municipalities collaborated to implement a new initiative to support families and microenterprises during the COVID-19 pandemic: families enrolled in an existing government dairy supply program received special coupons to The COVID-19 crisis is hitting vulnerable populations the hardest, exacerbating inequalities and human rights violations while creating significant gaps in social protection, community engagement and access to basic services

redeem for staples at small businesses such as supermarkets, bakeries and local markets.62 Cities also took advantage of online platforms to support these programmes. Lima, for example, established an online psychological counselling service, Lima te Escucha, with the aim of helping residents cope with the impact of compulsory social isolation on mental health.63 Similarly, Toulouse launched an online system connecting residents in need of assistance with volunteers able to help them.64 However, access to these kinds of provisions has sometimes been a challenge and social protection schemes are not always achieving the desired effects everywhere, in part because the very vulnerabilities the programmes are intended to address prevent individuals from being able to readily access support. For example, in some countries women have difficulties in accessing digital technologies and telephones compared to men, meaning support lines for victims of genderbased violence may be difficult or impossible to access.

Cities adopt measures in conflict with other tiers of government: The management of the health emergency has highlighted critical aspects of the relationship between the central and local governments in many legal systems. This was especially evident in federal states, where strongly decentralized structures confer substantial powers to subnational levels of government. In the US, the increasing politicization of the pandemic response between the Republican-led administration’s call to “open up” the country and the Democratic opposition’s emphasis on mask wearing, social distancing and other measures to protect public health resulted in frequent clashes between different tiers of government, often but not exclusively

Government workers give out relief goods in front of homes to avoid human contact during the COVID-19 outbreak, Antipolo City, Philippines © Shutterstock

drawn along political lines. In Georgia, for instance, the Republican governor took legal action against the city of Atlanta after it enacted mandatory mask wearing in public spaces, a move he regarded as “unconstitutional”. Similarly, some local sheriffs in states where governors had put prohibitions in place on mass gatherings reportedly refused to take action against infractions.65

The failure of some national governments to adopt decisions that reflected local realities led some provinces and municipalities to explicitly act against central government policy. In Mexico, for instance, despite the national government’s insistence that the country was not in a state of emergency, authorities in Jalisco state developed a local lockdown strategy and other measures, including an “emergency button” that was activated when the number of local cases of COVID-19 became too high.66 These conflicts have been even more acute in the Federative Republic of Brazil, where state governors and local authorities have acted not only without the national government’s support but also clashed over roles and responsibilities that had to be resolved by the country’s Supreme Court. Many governors and mayors have expressed opposition to the President’s policies towards COVID-19 and what they perceived as his low prioritization of public health concerns. Strikingly, however, the large majority of state governors — 24 out of a total of 27 — decided independently to implement strict lockdowns in their jurisdictions. Consequently, in line with WHO protocols, a range of social distancing measures were enforced by local authorities, including in the major cities of São Paolo, Rio de Janeiro and Fortaleza.67

In other contexts, cities and municipalities have defied more cautious central government guidance in favour of easing lockdowns. In the Federal Republic of Germany, several Länder decided to relax restrictions in May 2020, encouraged by the low death rate, against the decision of Chancellor Angela Merkel for a slower, coordinated relaxation of restrictions.68 In Ukraine, too — unlike Germany, a unitary state — a number of cities resisted the national government’s imposition of restrictions, arguing that they were not appropriate for their specific situations. Both Ternopil and Lutsk, for instance, after being classified as “red” zones with strict travel restrictions in place, challenged the closure of rail transport that this designation required.69

Divergence between national and local governments has also emerged in other countries that, while not federal, are still characterized by accentuated forms of decentralization and a strong degree of competition among the different levels of government. In the UK, for instance, the cities of Manchester, London, Birmingham and Liverpool spoke in a united voice to the national government, successfully advocating for measures such as mandatory mask wearing on public transport.70 In Spain, by contrast, Madrid’s highest regional court opposed the lockdown mandated by the central government, arguing that the national government did not have the authority to impose such restrictions in the region.71 The regional government of Madrid introduced, instead, a limited lockdown on the most affected areas. Having called unsuccessfully on the local government to impose stronger restrictions in and around Madrid, where infection rates were more than double the average for the country as whole,72 in October 2020 the Spanish government enforced the state of emergency and a partial lockdown in the capital and eight surrounding towns, effectively superseding the order made by the regional government.73 Similarly, in Italy the pandemic has reinvigorated longstanding tensions between the central state and the regions. During the first wave of the pandemic, both Calabria and Veneto questioned the legitimacy of the government’s national lockdown in their regional jurisdictions and in May 2020 lifted some restrictions in their regions ahead of the central government’s timeline.74 These debates have laid bare deeprooted geographic divides and underlying disagreements around the role of regional autonomy in Italian politics.75 As national governments themselves end up in a fiscally restrained position due to the crisis, transfers to subnational governments are in some cases decreased and payments delayed