Laetitia Boon and Sassia Lettoun, from the Municipality of Brussels, shed some light on increased and new challenges felt by the populations of the URBiNAT intervention areas, and on inspirational solidarity initiatives that helped overcome those challenges while also inspiring and teaching lessons for the future.

Large sections of the population had to deal to increased challenges due to the pandemic crisis. Loss of employment, for example, affected more precarious workers and workers in the tourism, food, and cultural sectors, as well as undocumented people. A decrease in local economic activity forced many small businesses to bankruptcy, partially due to not being able to pay the rent on their spaces.

The use of public space became challenging as physical distancing measures were increasingly enforced, and people stayed at home. This posed other challenges since the size of housing, the density of occupation, and working or attending school from home were particularly difficult for social housing populations. Homeschooling was harder for some families due to limited access to technological devices or parental support. Social isolation of older adults was another area of increased challenges, including mental health problems associated with the pandemics or prejudice and fears against care homes for the elderly.

It is noted highlighting that the worst-paid people were also the ones who continued to have to work, but most children could not go to school. Also, the larger interpretation of ‘family’ and the necessary social circle for social, mental, and economic solidarity purposes must have affected these populations to a certain degree, as the mandatory sanitary measures were based on the nuclear family and an individualistic mindset. For example, grandparents taking care of their grandchildren were not allowed under the strongest restrictions.

Gender-based violence was accentuated by the lockdown, and police control aggravated the situation of some populations that were already disproportionately controlled particularly racialized youth.

The Municipality tried to cope with these challenges in different ways. The public social welfare center (CPAS) offers financial support to those who find themselves in economic difficulties. A ‘Covid social action unit’ supports inhabitants who suffered materially, financially, medically, or psychologically. Other initiatives include shopping support for older adults by the community centres, the cancellation of rent for some commercial spaces during the lockdown by the housing management department, an economic recovery plan to businesses within the framework of a partnership between the municipality and the regional government, involving different dimensions such as listing local businesses on a new website, commercelocal. brussels.

A moratorium on evictions for the months of the lockdown allowed precarious households, squatters, and temporary occupiers to stay in their spaces and maintain their activities, often with a positive social impact on their surroundings in the case of collectives providing services such as food or masks distribution. The Municipality also installed more drinking water fountains and developed a strategy to distribute meals. Cycling paths were increased in length and number, responding to the reduced access to public transport.

To ensure the continuation of projects that were already active, or to launch new projects, the Municipality had to think creatively and make the most of partnerships with associations working in direct and regular contact with inhabitants, such as the Bravvo association, fighting against social exclusion and the feeling of insecurity, social cohesion projects involving different associations and Brussels Housing, the Open Environment Actions, private services approved by the Wallonia-Brussels Federation that support young people in diverse ways, the health house/medical house, which practice preventive local medicine accessible to all, or the non-profit organisation Coin des Cerises, a community mental health project.

Many solidarity initiatives were launched or supported by the Municipality. Among those, the website solidair.brussels gives an overview of solidarity initiatives all over Brussels, the website www.impactdays.co/en/brusselshelps/, was much utilized to coordinate solidarity efforts, or the ‘neighborhood committees’, a solidary activity run by citizens. Citizen or associations-led solidarity initiatives were essential to cope with the crisis in many different ways, including the production and distribution of masks, actions of recognition for essential workers and of social strengthening, support to businesses, donation and distribution of food, computer devices, and other donations.

The social impact of this crisis also raises difficult questions. How to recover from the fear of the other? How to face the upcoming recession? How to avoid disregarding essential societal changes? Will we return to an explosion of mass consumption? How are we going to work from now on?

Looking to the future, we may hope to develop resilient social and solidarity economies that can help us cope with these crises. We can build on lessons learned, become more resilient, and take action. Because we know now that the capacity of public institutions and of citizens is immense, and budget can always be found to support those in need, that solidarity initiatives are possible, valuable, and necessary for facing these crises together, that we can live with much less, degrowth and ‘happy sobriety’ is possible. What we need is access to health, education, culture, and other people, but not necessarily goods. It is not impossible to put values before money.