The pandemic has, within a global context, identified certain risks and exposed errant planning in an unprecedented manner. Initially, and without the benefit of reliable data (concerning transmission, treatments, high risk targets etc) national governments introduced measures considered to be appropriate to containment and, when these failed, upscaling hospital provision for the most seriously affected citizens. In many countries this also failed. Until the (differentiated by the wealth and infrastructure of specific nations) roll-out of vaccines medics focussed upon the provision of ventilation in order to keep patients alive until their immune systems hopefully removed them from the immediate threat of death.
The pandemic further highlighted the potential conflicts experienced by governments seeking to protect both human life and the economy. Very often measures designed to deliver the first objective (rightly a priority for most nations) compromised the second.
The true extent of global interconnection has been exposed as fragile by the pandemic, and recognised as impossible forgovernments to control. Within an economic/trade/consumerism perspective this includes supply chain logistics and commodity addictions. Within a public health context transmission through domestic and international travel provoked periods of ‘lockdown’ in many countries, with unprecedented restrictions placed upon the movement and behaviour of citizens.
Further, Covid-19 obliged many administrations to accept that there has been too much investment in unsustainable polluting industries and sectors, with negative long-term returns, as well as financial projects that lead to more unequal distribution of wealth (mirrored by the unequal distribution of vaccine doses).
On a positive note the pandemic triggered a healthcare and fiscal response unprecedented in terms of speed, scope and magnitude. On a global scale, fiscal support exceeded $16 trillion (around 15 percent of global GDP) in 2020. The total for the entire period of the pandemic is calculated at > $38 trillion. However, the capacity of countries to implement compensatory fiscal measures and deliver medical care for the most unwell/at risk varied significantly. On this note, we identify three important pre-existing conditions that either contained or amplified the impact of the pandemic:
1. Whether a nation has the fiscal capacity to support household and firms during periods of business inactivity. This largely depends on existing liquidity and ‘war chests’ and the ability to divert funds or quickly create fresh reserves.
2. Whether the state possesses the capacity to quickly implement efficient policies to support households and firms through the utilisation of a well-developed – but ‘tweakable’ tax and transfer infrastructure.
3. Whether the labour market cohort of informal workers, which faces significant challenges to adopt and adapt to remote working, alongside high levels of ‘shadow’ poverty and inequality, deepens the deleterious impact of the crisis.
4. The relationship between actual and prospective reserves. The ability of a nation to borrow from its own future.
During periods of social restrictions – working and learning at home, not being allowed to leave the home unless for specific and approved reasons – the internet became the principal tool of professional and social interaction in developed countries. While offering a virtual lifeline within certain contexts, its capacity to expose and accentuate greater social risks, for example increased mental health issues, cybercrime, cyber-attacks, lack of control, privacy, fake news influence, and reduced efficacy of schooling and higher education programmes.
In Seychelles an effective public health information campaign and the temporary closure of borders coupled with high vaccination rates meant that during the early stages of the pandemic Seychelles escaped high mortality rates. In common with other nations, large and small, mortality was invariably connected to other underlying health issues. At the time of writing Seychelles continues to experience Covid-19 transmission, however the impact in terms of individual severity and pressure upon medical resources has been reduced due to the less dangerous (but more transmissible) Omicron variant.
Globally more and more nations are removing restrictions on movement and behaviour and encouraging their populations to remain vigilant in terms of personal protection while at the same time learning to ‘live with Covid-19’.
Environmental impacts
Although less profiled than mortality rates and economic statistics, the impact of Covid-19 upon the environment was undeniable and, for many, served as an illustration of what might be possible if, post-pandemic, governments applied restrictions upon industrial activity which degraded the environment.
It was unsurprising that the pandemic – or rather strategies and policies adopted in response to it by governments – led to almost immediate quality of life benefits for significant numbers of people. Air quality in many locations improved significantly. GHC emissions dropped, water and noise pollution reduced, as did the pressure on major tourist destinations such as Venice. These and other impacts assist with the temporary restoration of a more balanced ecological system. On the other side of the coin however, there are also some negative environmental consequences of Covid-19, such as the increase of medical waste, the haphazard use and disposal of disinfectants, the careless disposal of masks and gloves; and the ongoing burden of untreated wastes which continuously endanger the environment. It seems that many harmful economic activities have resumed as the pandemic has receded, and that ecological gains inadvertently realised will soon be cancelled.
Of course, governments can elect to put legislation or taxation structures in place which preserve these gains, however this is less likely because of the need for deficits caused by the pandemic to nations, businesses and individuals to be redressed.
Social wellbeing
Globally the Covid-19 pandemic has had significant psychological and social effects on populations. Research has highlighted the extreme negative impact on the psychological well-being of the most exposed groups, including children, college students, and health workers, who are more likely to develop post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, and other symptoms of distress. Social distancing rules and related security measures have corroded human relationships and damaged people’s perception of and regard for the demonstration of empathy toward others. From this perspective, telepsychology and technological devices have assumed important and pivotal roles in order to (hopefully) mitigate the negative effects of the pandemic.
In Seychelles, despite loss of life and individual health and economic tragedies, the population has responded to the challenges of the pandemic with resilience. Being a small island state has advantages and disadvantages when the outside world effectively closes down around you. The challenge now is to audit our pandemic experiences, honestly identify what was done well and what could have been done better, and devise a realistic plan for any further health pandemic.
Looking ahead
Many scientists believe that further pandemics will emerge and for governments and public health administrations the challenge now is how best to prepare for them. The risk of future pandemics has created a need for a more finely tuned, disciplined, logical and balanced portfolio of strategic actions, with stronger policies informed by experience. Otherwise, local, regional and international social situations could potentially degrade into chaos and conflict in the case of a future outbreak, with perceived failures of Covid-19 strategies identified with the advantage of hindsight reducing potential societal compliance with further restrictive legislation.
The preparation for future virus transmission will require new work methods and schemes, better education, and targeted financial policies. Lessons will have been learned from an over-reliance on scientific modelling when determining policy, as well as a fresh understanding of the crucial interface between fiscal and public health landscapes. More sustainable and non-growth-oriented economies will be needed, alongside revitalization and better coexistence with the environment, through which we will need to more wisely manage our limited resources. This will be an essential template regardless of when another pandemic occurs.
New systems will be required to safeguard personal and worldwide health. Economies will need to be more diversified, balanced and resilient to shock. Social sectors will have to understand the lives of citizens within the context of a new reality, while maintaining enthusiasm for the attainment of a holistic quality of life which delivers high quotients of happiness and personal satisfaction.
In Seychelles we are especially vulnerable to outside economic and health ‘shocks’ due to our overt reliance upon tourism – one of the most pandemic-affected global economic sectors. We are unable to sufficiently compensate by resorting to other economic sectors. This is unlikely to change in the next ten years or more.
There are several key questions which we must ask at this point:
What will emerge as the lasting impacts of this pandemic? If we are destined to ‘live with Covid-19, how can the continued presence of the virus be best managed in Seychelles?
How can we better manage the economy/health fulcrum and address what are often contra- complexities? What can we learn from experience, and how might we respond quicker and better to similar future crises?
Everything is connected. Although we can recognise different templates for preserving human and fiscal health, the two strands are clearly connected. Health care – whether it be in hospital after infection or through vaccination – costs money. Seychelles was fortunate to receive both private sector and international support for government policies implemented by both the Faure and Ramkalawan administrations. Why? Well, the fact that we are small in terms of population and consequently need makes us a relatively attractive aid prospect. A large nation could claim to ‘vaccinate the entire Seychelles nation’ at little cost.
However, with most of our eggs still in the tourism basket the issue of economic diversification (the subject of another text in this collection) presses with increased urgency. Our fishing industry is often referred to as a sector of economic activity ripe for expansion. Indeed, during the period of lockdown and closed borders fishing continued to contribute to the national coffers. But it is still a very long way from challenging the dominance of the tourism sector which, in its own right, also needs to diversify in order to remain competitive.
Because of climate change water could become a new export, a high-end and highly valued product. Seychelles has clean water coming down from the mountains, most of which is recouped by the ocean. Less than 2% of our rainfall is processed to reach the customer’s taps after a tortuous journey through a network of leaking and out of date piping. Can we imagine pipelines in the future exporting millions of gallons of fresh water to our ‘drier’ neighbours?
When people say that fishing is the lifeline of the economy, experts in the field ask exactly what fishing is being referred to. In the opinion of one leading authority the only sector ripe for expansion would be tuna fishing, with the added complication that the yellow fin tuna is already overfished. If a further 60000 tons of tuna were to be processed on Seychelles land, then maybe there would be a net (no pun intended) improvement in profitability for the nation.
At the moment all the boats licensed in Seychelles need more reliable and efficient services. Investors need to be attracted for boat repairs, improvement of equipment and renovation. Trust needs to be nurtured with potential investors and in order to demonstrate that we are a serious prospect we have to ensure that the land is ready for processing, the lease is ready and the bureaucracy is ready. Whether we refer to fishing or any other economic activity we know that the greater the amount of red tape the higher the chance of losing the business. This is challenging in the light of the necessary beefing up of financial anti-laundering protocols.
Then there is the issue of bank loans, and the relationship between the central and the commercial banks of Seychelles. Early in the pandemic the banks realised that a suspension of payments was the only way in which the majority of businesses carrying commercial loans, would survive the pandemic. Commercial banks had to align this with their principal objective, which is to look after their shareholders. Central Bank had to ensure that its strategies were in line with the government’s, for, in common with all central banks, the presentation of autonomous operation is an illusion and central banks are the instruments of governments. Of course, there was no cancellation of debt, simply deferment, with borrowers emerging from hibernation owing more than they had when the pandemic began. Government introduced FA4JR, but then mismanaged it so badly that, rather than assist towards an election victory in 2020, the scheme quite possibly contributed to its defeat.
Restructuring plans were identified, drawn up and adopted, on a case-by-case basis. The lending banks listened to their clients, with fingers firmly crossed on both sides.
As we emerge from the lingering shadow of Covid-19 the issue of need versus greed arises. Can we live well with fewer import? Can we maximise our own resources more effectively? Can less truly become more, and could the word ‘growth’ (GDP growth year on year being the ultimate capitalist fetish) be over-written in the future with the vocabulary of quality of life and a balanced, circular economy? Can we re-examine what lies at the core of what makes us truly happy? And have two years of Covid provided us with insights into what really matters, annotating the difference between what we need and what we want, or think that we want? Can society focus Seychelles on a quality of life index, with a considered internal plan which is built around an agreement of just how much economic expansion is needed, and how such expansion can exist complimentarily with sustaining the environment and compliance with international best practice in areas such as offshore and taxation?
Source: Seychelles Nation
