Summary record of the eighth session of the Resilience Council

Summary record of the eighth session of the Resilience Council

Symbol: RC/RS/2026/SR.8
Date: 21 September 2026
Kind: Minutes
Status: Published
Chair: Gregorio Yap, Chair of the Resilience Council, Tacloban, Philippines
Attendance recorded: 131 members from 47 countries
Sittings: Asia-Pacific, 06:00 UTC; Europe/Africa/Americas, 16:00 UTC

Agenda

1. Review of the interim pattern review on closures and reopening after disasters (RC/RS/2026/N.1).
2. Consideration of the evidence and current status of RS-001, the Reopen Standard.
3. Discussion of insurance claim decisions, bridge funding and continuity planning support for micro businesses.
4. Review of the Reopen Map and storm and flood readiness activity.
5. Actions, further evidence and arrangements for the next session.

Summary of proceedings

1. The Resilience Council held its eighth session on 21 September 2026 in two sittings. The Asia-Pacific sitting began at 06:00 UTC and the Europe/Africa/Americas sitting at 16:00 UTC. The record of attendance was 131 members from 47 countries. Gregorio Yap chaired both sittings. He recalled that council discussions concerned recurring practices and patterns across small businesses, not allegations against any particular company. Members were reminded that individual stories in the meeting record would not identify the member’s business.

2. In opening the session, Mr. Yap situated the work within the council’s current procedure. RS-001 had passed four of the five parts of the pattern test; corroboration remained pending. The session was therefore a review of evidence and possible next steps, not a finding that the test had been completed. The chair noted that no draft Reopen Standard was before the council for a decision. The proposal under consideration remained an ask for insurance claims to be decided within 30 days, bridge funding to be made available within 10 days of a declared disaster, and continuity-planning support to be accessible to micro businesses.

3. Mr. Yap introduced RC/RS/2026/N.1, the interim pattern review issued on 15 September. He described it as a working review of reports about closure and reopening after disasters. Members were asked to identify where the evidence was consistent, where reporting remained incomplete, and which claims would require independent corroboration before the council could make a formal finding. The review did not settle the appropriate design of a standard or establish that the proposed timelines were already being met or breached across the sector.

4. Ms. Lani Mercado of Tacloban, Philippines, described the difficulty of separating the immediate effects of a storm from the longer period before a small business could reopen. She said that a physical repair alone did not restore trade where supplies, power, transport or customer access remained disrupted. Her contribution emphasized that recording the date of damage and the date of reopening would not by itself capture the intervening loss of operating capacity. She supported collecting comparable time-to-reopen information, while cautioning that members should be able to report uncertainty rather than estimate a date they could not verify.

5. Mr. Haruto Sato of Kumamoto, Japan, spoke about the importance of preparation before an emergency. He considered continuity plans useful when they were short, practical and suited to a small team, rather than designed as paperwork for a larger organization. He observed that a plan should cover how the owner would contact workers, protect essential records and resume service when the usual premises or equipment could not be used. The chair recorded the contribution as relevant to the proposed continuity-planning support component, but not as evidence that a particular plan had prevented a specific loss.

6. Ms. Marisol Reyes of Cebu City, Philippines, addressed bridge funding. She distinguished assistance arriving in principle from funds being usable in time to preserve a business’s ability to reopen. In her view, a short-term financing mechanism should make clear what information is required, who can apply and how a decision is communicated. She also emphasized that any discussion of a 10-day period should specify when the period begins, including how a disaster is declared and how a small business is informed that it may apply. The meeting did not resolve those design questions.

7. Mr. Daniel Okafor of Port Harcourt, Nigeria, discussed the role of cash-flow pressure during a closure. He urged the council to record whether members had access to funds for immediate continuity needs, rather than treating all reports of business interruption as equivalent. He noted that the consequences of a delay may differ by business activity and by the extent to which operations can move away from a damaged location. The chair asked that further reports distinguish the amount at stake, where known, from the time required to restore operations.

8. Ms. Amina El Idrissi of Tangier, Morocco, raised the need for accessible communication. She said that a process can be difficult to use if notices, forms or requirements are not understandable to owners working with limited administrative capacity. She encouraged the council to examine the route from initial notification to a claim or funding decision, including whether members know where to seek help. Her contribution was recorded as a question for future evidence gathering; the council did not make a finding about the communication practices of any insurer, agency or other provider.

9. Ms. Sofia Alvarez of Valencia, Spain, commented on the Reopen Map. She supported making the map useful for identifying patterns across places and types of disruption, while warning that reports should not expose individual members or make a single account appear representative of an entire location. She recommended that the council continue to describe the limits of the data and keep individual business identities out of public-facing material. Mr. Yap confirmed that the council’s rule remained to refer to anonymous members and general categories of providers in public documents, unless a member chose a public seat.

10. Mr. Benjamin Clarke of Halifax, Canada, spoke about the evidence needed to corroborate reported experiences. He proposed comparing members’ accounts with suitable independent material, where it was available, and recording the source and date for each corroborating item. He cautioned against treating the same report repeated through several channels as several independent confirmations. The chair noted that corroboration remained the outstanding part of the five-part test and that a method for assessing independence and relevance would need to be applied before any completion of that test was reported.

11. Ms. Keiko Tanaka of Sendai, Japan, referred to research on preparedness and recovery. The council noted a UNDRR report citing a Japan METI survey in which 8 per cent of prepared small and medium-sized enterprises had not recovered sales, compared with 19 per cent of unprepared enterprises.¹ Members treated the comparison as supporting the relevance of preparedness, not as proof that any one continuity measure would produce the same result in every setting. They agreed that material used in later public documents should preserve the qualification and identify the source.

12. Mr. Yap placed the discussion of business continuity in the broader disaster-risk context. UNDRR reports that small and medium-sized enterprises bear about 75 per cent of business disaster losses and that disaster risk reduction can reduce losses by up to a third.² He said those figures were relevant context, but did not substitute for the council’s own five-part pattern test. Members were asked to keep the distinction clear between external evidence about small and medium-sized enterprises generally and reports submitted to Reseated for RS-001.

13. During the discussion of claim decisions, members considered what a 30-day target would need to measure. The points raised included the date a claim is received, the date any request for additional information is made, the date a decision is communicated and whether the decision is final or conditional. The discussion did not establish a single agreed definition. Members also noted that time to decision and time to payment are different measures and should not be conflated in evidence collection or in any future drafting.

14. On bridge funding, the session identified a need to clarify the relationship between a declared disaster, eligibility, application and release of funds. Participants considered that the 10-day proposal should be evaluated against the practical purpose of bridging an interruption, rather than presented as a general promise that every applicant would receive funding. No agreed eligibility rule, funding source or delivery mechanism was adopted. Members were invited to submit evidence describing the sequence of events and any delays without naming their own businesses.

15. On continuity planning, speakers favored support that could be used by an owner with limited time and staff. Cases discussed included a simple contact plan, access to essential records and arrangements for temporary operations. These were cases raised in discussion, not a prescribed checklist approved by the council. Members emphasized that continuity advice should account for different hazards and operating circumstances and should not transfer the entire burden of disaster preparation to an individual micro-business owner.

16. The chair summarized the council’s evidence position. The data available as of 21 September recorded 253 Resilience Council reports from 48 countries and 131 Resilience Council members from 47 countries. The median amount at stake was approximately US$4,525. The reports concerned disaster situations; reported team sizes were 37 per cent “Just me”, 45 per cent with 2–9 people, 15 per cent with 10–49 people and 3 per cent with 50–249 people. The council noted that these figures described submitted reports and participating members, not the prevalence of disaster losses among all small businesses.

17. Members also reviewed the distribution of reports by country. The highest report counts recorded were the United States, 40; the Philippines, 18; Canada, 18; Spain, 16; the United Kingdom, 14; Mexico, 10; Japan, 9; and India, 8. The chair cautioned that counts were not population-adjusted and should not be read as rankings of disaster exposure or service quality. Members agreed that future presentations should retain that qualification wherever country counts are shown.

18. In considering the readiness drive and Reopen Map, the session supported continuing to gather information in a way that could help owners prepare and make reopening delays visible. Members emphasized that the campaign should not imply that all hazards can be prevented or that recovery depends only on individual preparedness. The council did not approve a new public campaign text at the session. Any materials developed from the discussion would remain subject to the applicable review and publication process.

19. In closing, Mr. Yap stated that the council’s status was unchanged: RS-001 had passed four of five tests, with corroboration still pending. No ballot was held, no draft standard was adopted and no external letter was authorized by this session. The next stage was to strengthen the evidence and record the basis on which any corroboration would be assessed. The chair thanked members for distinguishing personal experience, external research and conclusions that the council had not yet reached.

Decisions and action items

1. Status recorded. The council recorded that RS-001 remained at four of five pattern tests, with corroboration pending. The record does not treat the session as completing the test or adopting the Reopen Standard.

2. Evidence collection. Resilience Council members were invited to submit additional evidence on claim-decision timelines, bridge-funding sequences and time to reopen. Where possible, submissions should distinguish event dates, application dates, decision dates and reopening dates, state the basis of any estimate, and avoid identifying members’ businesses.

3. Corroboration review. Gregorio Yap, as Chair, will coordinate the next review of potential corroborating material with the Secretariat. The review should identify the source, date, relevance and independence of each item and distinguish external research from member reports.

4. Reporting safeguards. The Chair will ensure that subsequent public-facing summaries preserve the limits of the country and team-size data, use only approved aggregate figures and do not suggest that report counts represent rates of disaster exposure.

5. Continuity and readiness materials. Members may submit practical suggestions for the Reopen Map and readiness activity. Any proposed materials will be reviewed before publication and will not be represented as a council-approved standard unless adopted through the required process.

Next session

The next Resilience Council session is scheduled for 19 October 2026, with sittings at 06:00 UTC for Asia-Pacific and 16:00 UTC for Europe/Africa/Americas. The proposed focus is the progress of corroboration for RS-001 and the remaining evidence questions identified in this record.

Sources

1. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Resilience of SMEs Report (Japan METI survey finding cited in the report).¹

2. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, “Supporting disaster risk reduction and resilience practices of small and medium-sized enterprises.”²

Notes and sources

Sources

1. UNDRR, Resilience of SMEs Report
2. UNDRR, Supporting disaster risk reduction and resilience practices of small and medium-sized enterprises