Four problems related to resilience

In order to make communities more resilient there are four big problems we should aim to tackle:

One: decision-makers do not have routine access to good information about risk.
Such information is vital if we are to mobilise political attention and resources in support of resilience and know where investments in disaster risk managment (DRM) should be targeted. High quality evidence is also integral to the ability of communities to hold those responsible for managing risk to account. In Norway the Norwegian National Risk assessment is a good starting point, but still to general for local and regional DRM planning.

Two: we don't really know which intervention are most effective in reducing risk, saving lives and rebuilding livelihoods after crisis.
Although the incentives to support innovation are not always in place, there is alos a need to develop new approaches if we are to meet an increasing number and more unpredicatble pattern of hazards with the same or less available resources.

Three: the capacity to design and deliver response and to build resilience is already stretched and will be increasingly overwhelmed.   
To date we have relied heavily upon the international community to provide support to disaster-prone communities. But international systems are already stretched. National Governments have the primary responsibility to meet the needs of their inhabitants, and national and local institutions are critical to first line response. We know that populations are most vulnerable where the institutional framework to manage risk is weakest, and where bad politics and conflict further deepen vulnerability. So what are the best ways of supporting national and local institutions to build resilience and manage unexpected incidents?

Four: the right systems and incentives are not in place to ensure that evidence is available and used to inform decision-makers.
At present, humanitarian decisions are often based on poor information. In planning an emergency response we do not know with confidence how many people are affected, whether they are women or men, or how old they are. This weak baseline undermines the scope for robust monitoring and evaluation that can tell us whether what we are doing is making an impact. It is extremely difficult for practitioners to access information about good practise in order to improve their own effectiveness, because information is scattered and is not available in a replicable and consistent format.