Michal Ben Gal
חוקרים:
פרופ' ערן פייטלסון ודר יונת ריין ספיר מהאוניברסיטה העברית בירושלים; פרופ' פנינה פלאוט וסמדר אמיר מהטכניון; פרופ' עלי זלצברגר, פרופ' דבורה שמואלי, דר' אלכס אלטשולר, דר' דניאל זייצ'יק ודר' מיכל בן גל מאונ' חיפה
תקציר:
ההתמודדות עם משבר מגפת הקורונה, שמקורה ככל הנראה בסין בסוף דצמבר 2019 ואשר התפשטה במהירות לשאר העולם, הבליטה את ההבדלים בהתמודדות של מדינות שונות. המחקר מנסה ללמוד ממדינות אשר חוו משברים בריאותיים בעבר. העבודה מדגישה את ניסיונן של מדינות מזרח אסיה (טאיוואן, סינגפור, הונג קונג, דרום קוריאה, וייטנאם ויפן), שעד מועד כתיבת המחקר (יוני 2020) נראה שהן מתמודדות עם המשבר הנוכחי באופן יעיל יותר ממדינות אחרות. אתגר ההתמודדות הגדול ביותר עם המשבר היה מציאת האיזון בין הרצון לשמור על רמת תחלואה נמוכה, שעמה מסוגלת מערכת הבריאות להתמודד ביעילות, לבין הרצון לשמר תפקוד שגרתי ככל האפשר של המשק והכלכלה. עמידה באתגר מחייבת התייחסות למגוון גדול של נושאים, היבטים ותחומים. בפרק התובנות בעבודה זו מוצעים כלים להתמודדות עם המשבר הנוכחי ועם משברים אחרים דומים, מנקודת מבט מולטי-דיסציפלינרית. בין ההבטים שהעבודה עוסקת בהם נכללים היבטים כלכליים, נושאים מבניים-ארגוניים, היבטי ממשל, מדיניות, בירוקרטיה וקבלת החלטות, היבטים מרחביים, עירוניים ותכנוניים ברשויות המקומיות והמחוזיות, היבטים של חיזוק בריאות הציבור, היבטי חברה ורווחה, והיבטים משפטיים. התובנה העיקרית העולה מהמחקר היא שהיערכות ומוּכנוּת הן המפתח למזעור הפגיעה – הבריאותית, הכלכלית, החברתית ופגיעה בזכויות אדם ובשלטון החוק. "מעגל המוכנות" מורכב מרשת של קשרים בין היבטים ותחומים שונים המשפיעים זה על זה וניזונים אחד מהאחר. כדי לבנות מוכנות וחוסן לאומי, כמו גם כדי לנהל את היציאה מהמשבר, יש צורך בשילוב ושיתופי פעולה יעילים בין הגורמים האחראים על כל תחום ועל כל נושא. מהמחקר עולה רשימה ארוכה של תובנות בתחומים שונים, כמו גם תובנות רוחב שחוצות תחומים אותן ניתן ללמוד מנסיונן של מדינות אחרות. חשוב לציין שאת כל התובנות האלה יש לראות דרך הייחוד התרבותי של כל מדינה ושלא ניתן להעתיק אותו למדינות אחרות.
החלק הראשון של המחקר נערך בשיתוף עם (IIASA (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis במסגרת ההסכם בין ממשלת ישראל ל-IIASA ובו אובחנו ההשפעות האפשריות בסיוע ניתוח מערכות.
קישור לדו"ח IIASA
לחצו כאן לדו"ח מסכם
לחצו כאן לאיור של "מעגל המוכנות""
פרסום:
Feitelson, E., Plaut, P., Salzberger, E., Shmueli, D., Altshuler, A., Amir, S. Ben Gal, M., 2022. "Learning from Others’ Disasters? A Comparative Study of SARS/MERS and COVID-19 Responses in Five Polities", International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 74, 102913, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102913
ראו כאן לשלב ב: מחקר השוואתי על הנסיון האירופי בהליכי יציאה ממשבר הקורונה
On-going research
This research has three stages:
Stage A (completed June, 2020): What Can We Learn from East Asian and Other Countries
Prof. Deborah Shmueli, Prof. Eran Vigoda-Gadot, Prof. Eli Salzberger, Prof. Shlomo Mizrahi, Prof. Michal Shamai, Dr. Maya Negev Dr. Alex Altshuler and Dr. Michal Ben Gal from the University of Haifa; Prof. Hagai Levin and Prof. Eran Feitelson from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem; and Prof. Pnina Plaut from the Technion
Abstract
Successful management of emergencies is a function of preparedness which includes having legal and institutional infrastructure in place and regularly maintained. Thus the most meaningful lessons for emergency preparedness do not pertain to specific policies, but to institutional and decision-making procedures. We term this governance learning. AS COVID-19 was preceded by SARS and MERS pandemics, we ask to what extent have lessons from those episodes been learned and implemented during the first wave of COVID-19, and to what extent does the source affect governance learning: from a polity's failures in previous episodes of the same disaster type; from the experience of other polities with regard to the same type of disaster; or by cross-hazard learning - transferring lessons learned from experience with other types of disasters. To assess which types of governance learning occurred we analyze the experience of four East-Asian polities that were previously directly affected by SARS/MERS: South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong-Kong. Their experience is compared with that of Israel. Having faced other emergencies but not SARS/MERS, Israel could potentially learn from its experience with other emergencies, or from the experience of others with regard to pandemics before the onset of COVID-19.
Abstract (Hebrew): https://muchanut.haifa.ac.il/images/Day-After-Corona-100620.pdf
Report (Hebrew): https://muchanut.haifa.ac.il/images/Day_After_Corona-Stage_A_report-_3-6-2020-min.pdf
See publication:
Feitelson, E., Plaut, P., Salzberger, E., Shmueli, D., Altshuler, A., Amir, S. Ben Gal, M., 2022. "Learning from Others’ Disasters? A Comparative Study of SARS/MERS and COVID-19 Responses in Five Polities", International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 74, 102913, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102913
Stage B: (ongoing) Can Well-being Effects of COVID-19 be Mitigated Amidst an Economic Crisis?
Prof. Eran Feitelson, the Hebrew University in Jerusalem; Prof. Pnina Plaut and Smadar Amir, the Technion; Prof. Deborah Shmueli, Prof. Eli Salzberger, Dr. Alex Altshuler and Dr. Michal Ben Gal, University of Haifa
Abstract
Analyses of the effects of COVID-19 tend to focus on the health and economic implications of the pandemic. Yet, it is clear that there are wider effects, such as effects on social relations, stress, livelihood and effects on the environment. As is increasingly recognized, the GDP per capita is an insufficient measure to assess the state of countries and citizens within them (Stiglitz et al., 2009). Hence well-being is increasingly promoted as measures to assess the state of countries and citizens, and as a basis for policy decision-making. In particular the OECD (2017) advanced a set of 39 indicators for well-being. Similarly, since 2016, the Israeli CBS (Central Bureau of Statistics) has published a yearly report of “Quality of life, sustainability and resilience”, based on 114 criteria in 11 fields (employment, personal safety, health, housing and infrastructure, education and skills, civic engagement and governance, environment, personal and social welfare, material standard of living, leisure, culture and community and information technologies).
This research aims to identify the well-being criteria that are influenced by and influence the Coronavirus crisis, analyze these effects in the Israeli arena, identify policy measures that may have a positive influence on well-being, and suggest “policy packages” that may reduce negative influence and enable better life with the virus.
The first part of the study was conducted in collaboration with IIASA (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis) as part of the agreement between the Government of Israel and IIASA, in which the possible effects of aiding systems analysis were identified.
See publication:
Feitelson, E., Plaut, P., Salzberger, E., Shmueli, D., Altshuler, A., Ben Gal, M., Israel, F., Rein-Sapir, Y., Zaychek, D., 2022. "The Effects of COVID-19 on Wellbeing: evidence from Israel", Sustainability, Special Issue "Economic and Social Consequences of the COVID-19 Pandemic", Vol. 14, 3750. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073750
Stage C: (completed November 2020) Exit Strategies from Severe Restrictions to Daily Routine and Living with the Coronavirus - The European Experience
Prof. Deborah Shmueli, University of Haifa; Prof. Eran Feitelson, the Hebrew University in Jerusalem; and Prof. Pnina Plaut, the Technion
Abstract
About three months after leaving the first quarantine imposed in Israel following the Corona epidemic, the State was forced to enter a second quarantine following a second wave of virus infections. The intensity of the second wave was tens of times higher than that of the first.
In order to curb the spread of the virus, many countries around the world including Israel, had been forced to enter a lockdown at the beginning of the epidemic, and some have managed to avoid another closure over a relatively long period of time. The assumption underlying this study is that success in delaying or preventing a second quarantine depends on the process of exiting the quarantine that preceded it and the ability to maintain a low level of morbidity over time.
This report focuses on the lockdown exit strategies from the first quarantine and the subsequent management of life in Austria, Switzerland, Italy and Greece - four countries in Europe that have similarities to Israel in size (Austria, Greece and Switzerland), in culture and climate (Italy and Greece) and with regard to the complexity of the challenge. In the short term and contrary to Israel, in all four countries, the exit from the first wave did not lead to a second wave and another closure.
The study examined the policy principles that underpinned the process of lockdown exit, the way in which policies were implemented in various sectors of the economy, and the economic, health and socio-community response given in each country with regard to each easement. In addition, we examined the testing and monitoring procedures, and impacts of the policies on the health system and public trust. Four important policy principles:
- Professionals (not politicians) must manage the fight against the epidemic and the decision-making process
- The exit policy must be clear and multi-staged (3-4 stages)
- Data must be highly transparent and presented to the public in a reliable, direct and clear manner, and decisions data-driven
- Most of the decision-making should take place at the sub-state level, where enforcement is largely the responsibility of the localities and heads of institutions (who have the appropriate tools for the task).
Stages of return to activity in the various sectors: public transport continued to operate non-stop (during lockdown) in all countries; trade was opened at a relatively early stage, and the educational institutions at a later stage, with the exception of early childhood institutions. In Switzerland, assistance is provided for the opening of day care centers and a special childcare frameworks provided for the children of vital workers.
Economic response: in all countries emphasis was placed on maintaining jobs and grants for the self-employed, tax relief and deferral of payments. In addition, special financial support was provided for families with small children.
Health-care response: various types of assistance were provided to the health-care systems, such as increasing the number of intensive care beds and expanding corona wards in hospitals, and increasing the number of nurses and improving the infrastructure of the health and nursing systems in general. In Switzerland, the army was also recruited to assist at hospitals. In Austria and Switzerland where the health- care infrastructure was strong pre-epidemic, there was no need to reinforce intensive care beds. Hotlines in the field of mental health have been opened in Austria.
Civil society is very active in all countries and has played a significant role in dealing with the crisis. In some cases, important participation of civil society organizations with government officials are highlighted.
With the exception of Greece, in the rest of the country, continuous and transparent monitoring of the infected is done, as well as voluntary monitoring through various applications.
In all countries there has been a general increase in public trust in the government. Preliminary insights that can be deduced for Israel:
- Exit process must be clearly communicated, transparent and gradual
- Decision-making process should be led by professionals
- Delegation of significant aspects of the decision-making to the local level who should incorporate civil society networks. Delegation of enforcement powers to localities and heads of institutions and organizations
- Public transportation can be left operative (perhaps while increasing frequency and lowering congestion)
- Government support to maintain jobs and prevent leave without pay; provision of effective assistance to the self-employed
- Provide operating frameworks for early childhood care, whether in kindergartens or with the help of babysitters
- Opening of businesses are a priority; full opening of the education system follows
- Mental health should be addressed (as is done in Israel)
- Timeliness and transparent management increases public trust. Data-driven decisions and their transmission to the public in a reliable, direct and clear manner is critical.
Report (Hebrew): https://muchanut.haifa.ac.il/images/European_exit-COVID-19-Nov-2020.pdf
Bibliographic details:
OECD (2020), Common Ground Between the Paris Agreement and the Sendai Framework: Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3edc8d09-en.
Abstract:
Countries are faced with the growing challenge of managing increasing risks from climate change and climate variability, putting development and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals at risk. The adoption in 2015 of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the Paris Agreement on climate change provides a clear mandate for increased coherence in countries’ approaches to climate and disaster risk reduction. Countries increasingly recognise the benefits of improved coherence between the two policy areas, exemplified by the number of countries that either have developed joint strategies or put in place processes that facilitate co-ordination.
Informed by the country approaches of Ghana, Peru and the Philippines, in addition to a review of relevant literature, this report examines the potential for increased coherence in approaches to climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction across levels of government and sectors. It identifies ways in which government officials, development co-operation and other stakeholders can support efforts to further enhance coherence between the two policy areas, not only in the three case study countries, but also those in other countries as well as providers of development co-operation.
Bibliographic details:
Aengus Collins (2020) COVID-19: A risk governance perspective. Spotlight on risk, IRGC (International Risk Governance Center). EPFL, Switzerland.
Abstract:
The COVID-19 crisis has required policymakers to take high-stakes decisions under conditions of uncertainty and compressed timescales. In this article we use our risk governance framework to outline the key stages of the evolution of the crisis, and ask what lessons might be learned for the immediate future.
Webpage: https://www.epfl.ch/research/domains/irgc/spotlight-on-risk/
Bibliographic details:
Caballero-Anthony, M. (2005). SARS in Asia: crisis, vulnerabilities, and regional responses. Asian Survey, 45(3), 475-495.
Abstract:
This article examines lessons learned from the recent Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome crisis in East and Southeast Asia, arguing that the wide-ranging impact of infectious diseases makes it imperative for states to treat these diseases as security concerns. ““Securitizing”” infectious diseases provides urgency for mobilizing resources and strengthening regional cooperation. Adding infectious diseases to the security agenda allows for better handling of sudden outbreaks that endanger lives and threaten the survival of nation-states; this is also in line with the region's concept of comprehensive security.
Bibliographic details:
Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) (2020). Disaster Recovery Framework Guide, Revised version, March 2020. World Bank Group.
Abstract:
A revised and updated version of the Disaster Recovery Framework (DRF) guide that was originally issued in 2015 has been published in March 2020. The guide is intended as a practice-based, results-focused tool to assist governments and partners in planning for resilient post-disaster recovery following a large-scale disaster. It provides key planning and decision-making processes for the development of recovery policies and programs. It is intended primarily for stakeholders involved with preparedness, planning and management of recovery and reconstruction activities within government systems. The updated DRF guide provides new and improved examples of recovery experience, focusing on results. Two new areas have been added, one focusing on the specificities of disaster recovery at the local level, and one on recovery in conflict and post-conflict contexts.
Webpage: https://www.gfdrr.org/sites/default/files/DRF%20Guide.pdf
Bibliographic details:
Bailey, Laura E.; Wrobel, Robert. 2020. Peacebuilding and Recovery in the Culture in City Reconstruction and Recovery (CURE) Framework : Technical Notes (English). Washington, D.C. : World Bank Group.
Abstract:
In 2018, the World Bank and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) jointly issued a position paper on Culture in City Reconstruction and Recovery (CURE), reflecting the shared commitment of these two organizations to place culture at the forefront of the reconstruction and recovery of cities in post-conflict, post-disaster, and urban distress situations. The paper presented a new approach, the CURE Framework, intended to help practitioners integrate culture and cultural heritage into post-crisis recovery processes. The CURE Framework draws from existing frameworks and tools for reconstruction and recovery in urban settings. It seeks to knit together people-centered and place-based approaches to produce integrated policies that share a common cultural thread. This technical note provides background information, checklists, and entry points based on the relevant CURE guiding principles, of which the framework provides seven principles that are applied through the implementation of four phases.
Bibliographic details:
Davidsson, Å. (2020). Disasters as an opportunity for improved environmental conditions. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 101590.
Abstract:
This paper presents case studies where disasters provided a window of opportunity for change that included social action with (potentially) positive effects on the environment. The research literature was screened for empirical cases in support of societal changes with a focus on environmental issues, and a more in-depth case study of the extensive tree felling after the storm Gudrun in Sweden 2005 was also conducted. The case study is explored through available research as well as “grey” literature to identify societal actions taken after the storm that had – or not – an effect on environmental conditions. With the help of the framework presented by Birkmann et al. (2010), the study aims to characterise the nature of these anthropic changes. The framework was modified to focus specifically on societal actions implemented because of an “open window”, and the environmental effects of the actions. This enabled identifying changes with a positive/negative and intended/unintended effect on the environment, as well as determining if a change was based on formal or informal decisions. Several cases identified in the literature provide empirical support for the theory that disasters can generate a window of opportunity for positive environmental change. However, open windows are not always exploited, as is apparent in the case of the storm Gudrun.
Webpage: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S****************#!
Bibliographic details:
United Nations Secretary General (2020) Shared responsibility, global solidarity: Responding to the socio-economic impacts of COVID-19. Report.
Abstract:
The new coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is attacking societies at their core, claiming lives and people’s livelihoods. The potential longer-term effects on the global economy and those of individual countries are dire. This report calls on everyone to act together to address this impact and lessen the blow to people. The report describes the speed and scale of the outbreak, the severity of cases, and the societal and economic disruption of COVID-19.
Webpage: https://unsdg.un.org/sites/default/files/2020-03/SG-Report-Socio-Economic-Impact-of-Covid19.pdf
Bibliographic details:
Mika Aaltola (2020). Covid-19 – a trigger for global transformation? Political distancing, global decoupling and growing distrust in health governance. Finnish Institute of international affairs, FIIA working paper 2020.
Abstract:
Since late 2019, the world has sought – frantically at times – to appropriate policies for responding to the coronavirus pandemic (Covid-19). This Working Paper reviews the political significance of Covid-19 in order to understand the ways in which it challenges the existing domestic order, international health governance actors and, more fundamentally, the circulation-based modus operandi of the present world order. The analysis begins with the argument that contagious diseases should be regarded as complex open-ended phenomena with various features; they are not reducible to biology and epidemiology alone. In particular, politics and social reactions – in the form of panic and blamecasting, for example – are prominent features with clear historical patterns, and should not, for the sake of efficient health governance, be treated as aspects extraneous to the disease itself. The Working Paper further highlights that when a serious infectious disease spreads, a “threat” is very often externalized into a culturally meaningful “foreign” entity. Pandemics tend to be territorialized, nationalized, ethnicized, and racialized. This has also been the case with Covid-19.