While investments in economic infrastructure like roads and power plants are important, the coronavirus pandemic highlights the need to focus also on inclusive social infrastructure.
The responses to COVID-19 in most countries suggest that investment in social infrastructure – such as healthcare systems – has been long neglected, with the majority of funds having been spent on economic infrastructure like roads, airports, dams and power plants. Many countries have now found they do not have enough hospital beds, masks and respirators to battle the current pandemic.
The need to rebalance investment between economic and social infrastructure is apparent.
Unlike economic infrastructure, which can generate and recover revenue from end users, social infrastructure is often reliant on financing from the public sector. As a result, more than twice as much investment goes into economic infrastructure than to its social counterpart.
Integrated planning
Infrastructure systems require integrated, cross-sectoral planning and built-in redundancy to ensure that they continue to function when stressed. When unforeseen crises inevitably strike, well-integrated infrastructure systems, with planned redundancy, allow for greater fiscal, institutional and technical capacity to respond and adjust towards more sustainable future pathways. Transboundary threats such as COVID-19 underline the need to plan infrastructure systems with spatial flexibility and optionality. Switzerland, for instance, established a National Strategy for the Protection of Critical Infrastructure in 2012 to improve the resilience and cross-sectoral integration of the country’s critical infrastructure.
Socially inclusive infrastructure
The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the need for infrastructure to be socially inclusive. A crisis such as this disproportionately affects vulnerable groups, particularly poorer and older people. Infrastructure systems, therefore, must be able to deliver services to all members of a society, and especially the most vulnerable. While urban areas may be the hotspots of pandemics, rural areas have the potential to become the most isolated as a result of prevention and mitigation measures and may lack access to essential services.
One area where past investment has made a difference to the COVID-19 response is digital communication infrastructure. In several G20 countries, occupational and educational activities have successfully shifted onto virtual platforms, allowing people to continue to pursue livelihoods during the crisis. This will not be the case in many developing countries, where telecommunications remain basic and targeted investments are still required. In Eritrea, for example, only 1% of individuals use the internet.
But as more people and organizations start to embrace remote working, conferencing and learning platforms, there could be significant value in locking in these modes of operation by propagating the gains from investing in and upgrading virtual communication capabilities. This would have major implications for future investment and planning decisions in transport systems and office buildings. If less physical infrastructure is needed to be built, then this would have a double benefit of reducing the environmental footprint of infrastructure, as well as allowing for greater flexibility and resilience during times of crisis.
Reducing carbon emissions
Infrastructure is also at the heart of wider links between environmental and health concerns. Scientists have found that climate change may be facilitating the spread of disease. For example, the warming of permafrost in the Arctic Circle can release dangerous dormant microbes and viruses, and higher temperatures can increase transmission of vector-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever.
Infrastructure is a major driver of climate change. According to a New Climate Economy report, the current stock and use of infrastructure is associated with over 60% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Low-carbon, sustainable infrastructure is of exceptional importance to avoid health crises like the COVID-19 pandemic in the future.
One interesting development during this pandemic is that there have been examples of improved air quality and reduced emissions, due to reduced transportation and manufacturing activities. The lockdown in Italy, for example, has led to about a 40% decrease in nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels in northern parts of the country. However, these effects are unlikely to be sustained. Once the crisis is over, and governments initiate economic recovery plans, the environmental benefits could be quickly lost. In many cases, investments are likely to focus on large infrastructure projects in an attempt to create jobs, and short-term government financial support will be rightly focused on medical supplies and income support.
Build back better
Unlike in the past, economic recovery packages deployed after the crisis should support economic stability and jobs in ways that are consistent with environmental and development commitments, such as the Paris Agreement and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. To build back better and avoid future interconnected crises, longer-term recovery spending must focus on investments in sustainable infrastructure that is inclusive, resilient, low-carbon and does not compromise ecosystems.
The COVID-19 crisis has prompted both industries and individuals to reflect on consumption and production patterns. Faced with disrupted supply and distribution chains and shortages of certain foods and consumer goods, businesses and people have had to change the way they produce and consume during the crisis, limiting waste and making do with less. Based on these experiences, businesses and industry can use economic recovery packages to build circularity into production methods, and governments can promote more sustainable consumption among individuals. Building circular and sustainable models will, however, require that infrastructure is fit for purpose. Redesigning supply chain infrastructure for food – including transportation and waste systems – combined with changes in consumer behaviour, could help generate annual benefits in cities worth $2.7 trillion by 2050.
Governments have already acted rapidly and decisively with huge economic bailout and recovery packages to offset the negative economic impacts of COVID-19. Singapore announced a supplementary budget of over $34 billion, including support for its most affected sectors, and China is implementing fiscal measures worth 1.2% of GDP.
The scale and urgency of government response to the coronavirus is what is needed to combat climate change, which, if not addressed, is likely to bring far greater costs than COVID-19. A well-planned and just transition to combat the impending climate crisis is still possible today, but emergency measures like those required now will become increasingly necessary in the future. This current crisis shows us how devastating sudden and dramatic measures can be if early action is not taken.
Joseph Price is a Consultant in UNEP’s Resources and Markets Branch in Geneva, working on sustainable infrastructure and inclusive green economy policy reviews. His previous experience includes research and policy advice in Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Bolivia and the UK. He holds an MPhil in International Relations and Politics from the University of Cambridge, and a BA from King’s College London’s Department of Political Economy. Joseph is a Fellow of the UK’s Royal Geographical Society.
Rowan Palmer is a Research Specialist at UN Environment’s Resources and Markets Branch in Geneva, where he leads UNEP’s Sustainable Infrastructure Partnership. Prior to joining UN Environment, Rowan worked as an environmental manager for large-scale transportation infrastructure projects in Canada. Rowan holds a BA in International Development and Environment Studies from McGill University in Montreal and an MA in International Relations from Instituto de Empresa in Madrid.