Volcano warnings and the next pandemic
Just a year after COVID-19 was identified, the world’s pandemic warning system was deemed a failure by both the World Health Organization and its independent panel, which found the world was not prepared for what lay ahead, despite the warnings.
There are still no standardized alert systems for viral threats that cut across borders, but many lessons can be learned from the management of other hazards and threats. Warning systems for volcanoes are well established and can provide best-practice “lessons” for the development of much-needed pandemic-alert systems at all scales.
Volcanoes have the most diverse range of any hazard. They are subject to one of the world’s most frequently used warning systems, which consists of more than 80 volcano observatories that have been reviewed and improved to enhance their effectiveness over decades.
Though pandemics unfold differently to volcanic crises, volcanic eruptions involve many of the same issues. Scientific uncertainties, large at-risk populations, different industries, government bodies, and nonprofit organizations are all involved. We do not have time to reinvent the wheel and fine-tune global health warnings.
Many nations have devised alert-level systems to protect local populations during the shift from full COVID-19 lockdown precautions to normality. To be effective and timely, these alerts must be embedded in an extensive system of observation and communication that integrates different expert cohorts, tipping points, communication channels, and iconography.
Existing warning systems are already used for hazards and threats such as severe weather, tsunamis, terrorism, or chemical accidents. They often follow a traffic-light color structure or numerical order (as commonly used in military contexts) and are standardized at national and international levels. Numerous alert systems were devised or used during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is no comparative study to establish which were most successful and why. However, there have been some success stories seen in New Zealand, South Africa, and South Korea amongst failures as seen in the UK and the US.
COVID-19 alerts and warnings can be better developed by bringing together lessons learned from a range of hazards and threats to review elements of what makes warnings succeed and what makes them fail. There are three key lessons.
Firstly, warning systems can be effective in generating general awareness and acting as triggers for initial communication, policy, and action. But they require everyone in the scientific and decision-making communities to understand and effectively communicate all relevant information both ways.
“Mind the gap”: this phrase bellows out of most London Underground stations but captures the essence of the second key lesson learned — the challenges of negotiating gaps between hazard and risk information. Alert levels can change due to the perceived threats at hand, but the decision to progress or downgrade these levels can be challenging due to difficulties in interpreting scientific data and understanding what response is required.
Finally, the decision to move between alert levels requires negotiations of perceived political, livelihood, and environmental factors, rather than just evaluation of the scientific data.
Standardization of alert systems is also vital to convey information across communities, but systems need to be designed according to national and international policies while considering local threats. This is very hard to achieve due to the diversity and uncertain nature of hazards across different geographical areas, as well as cultural and political factors. But many volcanic communities globally can do this for volcano ash hazards, particularly in the context of aviation hazards.
Decision-makers at all levels have often failed to recognize or act upon early warnings. This lack of action is a huge problem for all hazard and threat warnings and will inevitably play a role in the next big pandemic, which will arise sooner than we might think. Plenty of examples of excellent science communication exist but there is lack of action.
Action depends on collaboration across the many silos that exist in organizations, disciplines, and hazards, and the newly founded UCL Warning Research Centre aims to foster such collaboration. We can draw on hard lessons learned from other hazards and threats to be more resilient to single, multiple, and cascading hazards.
It is action that is needed the most, yet the ability to make the necessary changes remains our biggest challenge, especially if we don’t go beyond the silos.
* * *
Dr. Carina Fearnley is director of the UCL Warning Research Centre, and associate professor at the UCL Department of Science and Technology Studies. She is an interdisciplinary researcher, drawing on relevant expertise in the social sciences on scientific uncertainty, risk and complexity to focus on how natural-hazard, early-warning systems can be made more effective.
