A month of evidence, and the work of reopening

RC/RS/2026/CL.6
Monthly letter from the Chair of the Resilience Council
27 July 2026

Dear members,

July has been a month of turning evidence into something members can use. Across Reseated, the revised Platform Fairness Standard moved forward, Fellows were confirmed by ballot, and the Cashflow Council published its first draft standard. Here in Resilience, our work remains focused on a practical question: when a disaster interrupts a small business, what would make it possible to reopen sooner?

That question is not abstract in this council. By 27 July, 99 Resilience Council members in 40 countries had contributed 106 reports from 37 countries. Forty-eight reports arrived in the last 30 days. Every report concerns a disaster situation. The median amount at stake is approximately US$5,014. Those figures describe a spread of experiences, not a single kind of business or emergency.

What moved this month

On 21 July, the Cashflow Council published its draft, RC/CF/2026/L.1. That matters to our work because recovery often depends on whether money arrives in time. The Resilience Council’s proposed RS-001 Reopen Standard asks for insurance claims to be decided within 30 days, bridge funding within 10 days of a declared disaster, and continuity-planning support for micro businesses. These are proposed service expectations, not promises that any provider has already made.

The wider assembly’s process has also kept moving. The revised Platform Fairness Standard is now in the post-consultation stage, and Fellows were confirmed by ballot this month. That process is a useful reminder for every council: a sound proposal needs evidence, a draft people can examine, an open opportunity to comment, and a decision made through the Assembly’s rules. We should expect the same discipline for RS-001.

Our own pattern review stands at four of the five tests passed. Volume, Frequency, Consistency and Spread are established; Corroboration remains pending. That is not a technical footnote. We should not ask members or institutions to treat a pattern as settled until we have done the work to check it against other evidence. Our next task is to strengthen that corroboration while keeping the lived experience of owners in view.

The numbers, and the person behind them

Our reports come from many places. The leading reporting countries are the United States (14), the Philippines (9), Canada (8), Japan (7), and the United Kingdom (7), followed by Spain, the Netherlands and Bangladesh with four each. These counts are not rankings of need. They show where reports have reached us so far—and where we need to make it easier for more owners to contribute.

Team size also tells us who must be included in recovery planning. Forty per cent of reporting businesses are run by one person; another 40 per cent have two to nine people. Eighteen per cent have 10 to 49, and three per cent have 50 to 249. The reported percentages are rounded. A recovery measure designed only for a larger employer can miss the owner who is also the person keeping records, contacting customers and trying to restart work.

Picture a one-person business facing a disaster-related interruption. The owner has limited capacity to prepare paperwork, arrange continuity plans and wait for money to arrive. Across our reports, the median amount at stake is about US$5,014; for a very small operation, an amount at that scale can be a serious obstacle to reopening. The point is not to guess what any one member experienced. It is to see why a clear decision deadline, timely bridge funding and practical planning support belong together.

That picture is consistent with the wider evidence. 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.¹ The Sendai Framework also calls for business continuity to be integrated into business practice, with particular attention to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. Our standard should make those principles usable at the point where an owner needs to act.

What we have learned

First, “recovery” needs a clock. A claim decision within 30 days and bridge funding within 10 days are proposed thresholds members can assess and institutions can answer. They are not the whole of recovery, but they make delay visible and give consultation a concrete question to test.

Second, preparation has to fit the scale of the business. A continuity plan that assumes a dedicated risk officer, spare staff or extensive paperwork will not serve a solo owner. Support should be understandable, proportionate and available before the next emergency—not only after a loss.

Third, our evidence must stay open to challenge. Reports show recurring problems; corroboration helps establish what can be responsibly asked of insurers, funders and public agencies. We will keep members’ accounts anonymous unless they choose a

public seat, and we will not turn individual experiences into claims beyond what they support.

What comes next

The next steps are clear. The Assembly is scheduled to consider the Platform Fairness Standard on 13 August. The consultation on the Cashflow Council’s draft is scheduled to open on 25 August and close on 24 September. For RS-001, we will continue seeking corroborating evidence and preparing a draft that members can scrutinize. We will share the next procedural milestone when it is set.

In the meantime, please keep sending evidence that helps us understand what happened, how long reopening took, what support was available, and what would have made a difference. Do not include information that identifies your business or another member unless you have chosen to make it public. A short, well-dated account can be valuable, especially when it helps us check a recurring pattern.

Thank you to every member who has reported, reviewed evidence or helped make this work understandable across borders. I am grateful to all of you, whether or not your name appears here.

Notes and sources

1. UNDRR, “Supporting disaster risk reduction and resilience practices for small and medium-sized enterprises.” ↩

Sources

1. UNDRR — Supporting disaster risk reduction and resilience practices for small and medium-sized enterprises