Coronavirus (COVID-19) community resilience in Scotland's islands: research

Resilience on Scotland's islands: key learnings and recommendations

The case studies, while distinct in many ways, share some characteristics which offer insight into the factors that make a community resilient. The themes that emerged from the case studies and stakeholder interviews are summarised here and form the key learnings and recommendations for how resilience may be strengthened across the islands and mainland of Scotland.

Key learnings

Mobilisation and coordination

Across the islands, a commonly cited success factor was the speed with which individuals or groups came together to respond to the pandemic.

The communities with existing groups and infrastructure were able to come together and deal with the pandemic emergency more quickly. This included a formal network of community organisations and groups that already existed prior to the pandemic that could mobilise immediately (such as trusts, community councils or emergency planning groups), as well as the more informal networks, including the residents and local businesses. These networks were commonly viewed as proactive, resourceful, and collaborative.

Another element to mobilisation in the context of the pandemic was the prevalence of furlough within communities.^[13] While not a prominent theme in the case studies, furlough was highlighted by some as a contributing factor to the mobilisation effort, such as in Islay where administrative support was able to be provided by those furloughed. Similarly, one of the organisers of the prescription delivery service in Bressay was able to offer more of their time because their normal work had stopped due to the pandemic.

Having a group or individual responsible for coordinating the community response was also identified as an important success factor in the islands' pandemic responses. In all case studies, there were individuals and groups who felt a sense of responsibility to take on a coordination role to ensure support reached those who needed it. This echoes one of the key principles in building resilience highlighted in a Ready Scotland guidance document from May 2019, which states that creating a culture of empowerment is fundamental to individuals and communities feeling able to take action in response to emergencies.^[14]

Having a local emergency plan

Preparedness for emergencies is underpinned by legislation that outlines the key organisations responsible for ensuring the effective management of emergencies.^[15] Under this legislation, there is a statutory duty placed on local authorities, NHS bodies and emergency services to assess the risk of emergencies occurring and put in place emergency plans.^[16]

In Scotland, there are Regional Resilience Partnerships (RRPs) (North, West and East) which enable multi-agency co-ordination in the event of emergencies (for example the police, fire, ambulance, and coastguard services). Within each RRP area there are a number of Local Resilience Partnerships (LRPs) which work with RRPs to develop approaches to dealing with emergencies.

In some cases, such as in Islay, there was a responder-led emergency planning group and plan in place at the island level which offered an established vehicle to respond quickly, with community input and support from the Local Resilience Partnership, during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In other areas, such as in Broadford and Strath, and Galson, there was not a plan in place at the community level to coincide with statutory emergency planning. Reflecting on their experiences of the pandemic, it was felt that the communities needed a local plan in place to respond to future emergencies (for example, to prepare for the impact of climate change).

As well as expressing a desire to develop an emergency plan at a community level (with support from Scottish Government), it was suggested that communities should be involved in the development of emergency planning at a local authority or Community Planning Partnership level. The Scottish Government's Resilience Division leads on emergency planning and provides guidance on emergency planning for community groups on the Ready Scotland website.^[17]

Communication

Communication was also recognised as a key component of initiatives that took place during the COVID-19 pandemic. Regular communication between groups, with the community and with local authorities was important to ensure that effort was not being duplicated and that the communities were being appropriately and fully supported. Dialogue and engagement is another key principle highlighted by Ready Scotland's guidance on building resilience.^[18]

Communication within the community took various forms; in Sanday there were fortnightly meetings with the Community Development Officers from other islands, while in Galson WhatsApp groups were set up to ensure everyone was looked out for and to gather feedback from the community over the course of the pandemic. In Bressay, word of mouth was a particularly important vehicle for encouraging service use.

The cascading down of accurate information on COVID-19 from the local authority level to organisers was also highlighted as an important aspect of communication which enabled them to tailor responses and decisions according to local need. Conversely, where communication was not as clear, it resulted in duplicated efforts, such as government-arranged food parcels being delivered to areas where community-arranged food parcels were already being distributed.

Local knowledge and networks

Tapping into existing community networks and utilising local knowledge was another key and common reason why the initiatives on these islands were considered to be successful. In Islay, this ensured that a volunteer network could be coordinated across the island to serve the needs of the communities. In Broadford and Strath, local knowledge and contacts were also central to the success of the project, both in terms of getting people involved, mustering resources, and reaching beneficiaries. By comparison, in Bressay an initial lack of local knowledge was the biggest challenge to delivering the prescription service.

The energy and spirit demonstrated by residents, organisations and local businesses helped to show communities what they were capable of and highlighted the level of trust placed in these existing networks. The experience of the pandemic helped some organisations on the islands to feel more confident about their own resilience.

On the other hand, the pandemic also eroded the strength of some local networks, reliant as they were on building familiarity through in-person social interactions. To ensure communities are resilient and able to respond to future emergencies, rebuilding networks will be an important part of the pandemic recovery on the islands and in rural parts of Scotland. With knowledge and experience being held, in some cases, among a relatively small number of people (such as among a few residents, as in Islay, or within organisations like the Galson Estate Trust), knowledge sharing and succession planning is another important consideration for the sustainability of community resilience.

Tackling stigma

The established networks and close-knit communities, while a strength, also posed a challenge in terms of the stigma associated with vulnerability and needing support. The initiatives described in this report, such as in Broadford and Strath and Sanday, sought to tackle stigma and minimise the barriers to accessing support by adopting open and proactive approaches involving direct outreach. In Broadford and Strath, for instance, the focus was on reducing food waste rather than addressing food need, thereby taking away any stigma that might be attached to using the facilities set up.

Confidentiality was also an issue in smaller communities and posed a potential barrier to support. The range of ways in which this was managed highlights again the different approaches taken based on local knowledge. In Islay, having one familiar and trusted person for residents to contact when in need was considered most important. Meanwhile in Bressay, the organisers felt that people were reassured about confidentiality because of their relative neutrality and newness to the community.

Autonomy and support

Having control at a local level was an important factor for the success of the various initiatives; community organisers were able to get on and do what they felt was needed. That said, support from the local authorities and the ability to share learnings across island communities was also important.

During the pandemic, external funding – for example from the Scottish Government's Supporting Communities Fund –was considered to be a valuable source of support. For some organisers, especially those operating at a grassroots level, there was some discomfort at first around the funding and issues of accountability associated with it. However, the accessibility and flexibility of funding – from various streams including local businesses and government grants – sustained many initiatives, such as the food growing, sharing and delivery schemes that took place in several of the islands.

For islands to be able to respond to a future emergency or crisis, there was a sense that communities should not have to compete for funding, but that there should be resources available to deliver what is necessary for the community, 'without strings attached' and with the flexibility to meet local needs.

Capacity and scale

Given the diversity and range in Scotland's islands in terms of geography, population and sociocultural characteristics, there were different approaches taken in building community resilience. Islay and Sanday's pandemic responses, for instance, were both island-wide, while Broadford and Strath's was focused on a particular area in Skye, and Curious Pilgrims in Bressay focused on a particular service gap (prescription deliveries).

As was highlighted in the case studies, the scale of the responses varied according to local needs. This was echoed in the stakeholder interviews conducted in the early stages of this research. From the stakeholder perspective, community capacity was considered to be a core part of community resilience and something which existed to different degrees across the islands. There is perhaps an optimum size and scale which lends itself to this grassroots response; Islay, Bressay and Sanday were clearly small enough to have an island-wide response, whereas Skye and Lewis were too large and diverse. This suggests that the scale at which any community emergency plan should be developed will depend on how communities see themselves, with some islands being able to develop a plan for the whole island, and others not.

Emergency planning and responses may need to happen at several levels (government, local authority, statutory agency, or community level), and how far it is appropriate to drill down will vary across islands. There was general agreement, however, that while a plan that applies across different local authorities (with community input) would be valuable, a plan at a more local, community level would also be needed. It was also felt that these two 'levels' of planning should be interwoven to some extent to avoid duplication.

Recommendations

The recommendations for strengthening community resilience across the islands and mainland of Scotland, based on the experiences and learnings of those communities included in this research, are to:

• Support and encourage communities to tap into their existing networks and infrastructure to respond quickly to future emergencies. This includes both formal networks, in the form of established community organisations, and informal networks of individuals, groups and businesses within the community.
• Where existing community networks have been eroded or are at risk, prioritising the rebuilding of networks as part of the pandemic recovery. This could be achieved through knowledge sharing between communities, particularly drawing lessons from communities with well-established community organisations. The Ready Scotland website provides guidance on recovering from emergencies which could support this rebuilding effort.^[19]
• Support and encourage the development of local, community level planning. This should include involving communities in the development of emergency planning at a local authority or Community Planning Partnership level, and promoting existing resources such as the guide to emergency planning provided on Ready Scotland website.^[20]
• Support and encourage communication between communities, both at time of crisis but also on an ongoing basis. This networking (for example between representatives of community organisations) can help to share lessons and best practice related to community resilience. Existing resources on communication when an emergency is likely or has occurred could also be used to support this.^[21]
• Ensure there is regular communication between communities and local authorities. As highlighted in Ready Scotland's guidance, responders (such as local authorities and emergency services) often play the role of experts, disseminating information to communities. This could mean ensuring that, during periods of emergency or crisis, there is a regular line of communication from local authorities down to the existing community infrastructure, making clear what response is being provided from the local authority. This can help to avoid duplication of efforts.
• Consider ways to tackle the stigma associated with seeking support to ensure that it is accessible to those in need during an emergency.
• Where available, signposting communities to funding or other resources that can help them respond to emergencies and/or support their ongoing resilience (such as the Ready Scotland guidance). The value of funding provided to support communities during the pandemic was clear from this research.
• Ensure there are flexible resources in place to enable communities to meet their local needs (as was the case with COVID-19 funding).