Abstract.An exponential improvement of numerical weather prediction (NWP) models was observed during the last decade (Lynch, 2008). Civil Protection (CP) systems exploited Meteo services in order to redeploy their actions towards the prediction and prevention of events rather than towards an exclusively response-oriented mechanism 1 .Nevertheless, experience tells us that NWP models, even if assisted by real time observations, are far from being deterministic. Complications frequently emerge in medium to long range forecasting, which are subject to sudden modifications. On the other hand, short term forecasts, if seen through the lens of criminal trials 2 , are to the same extent, scarcely reliable (Molini et al., 2009).One particular episode related with wrong forecasts, in the Italian panorama, has deeply frightened CP operators as the NWP model in force missed a meteorological adversity which, in fact, caused death and dealt severe damage in the province of Vibo Valentia (2006). This event turned into a very discussed trial, lasting over three years, and intended against whom assumed the legal position of guardianship within the CP. A first set of data is now available showing that in concomitance with the trial of Vibo Valentia the number of alerts issued raised almost three folds. We sustain the hypothesis that the beginning of the process of overcriminalization (Husak, 2008) of CPs is currently increasing the number of false alerts with the consequent effect of weakening alert perception and response by the citizenship (Brezntiz, 1984).

<p>This work aims to improve existing Early Warning Systems (EWSs) assessment tools in appraising multi-hazard risk including natural hazards and infectious diseases epidemics or pandemics. The improved EWS assessment tool is applied in four Eastern Partnership countries through the development of a questionnaire, in the framework of the EU-funded PPRDEAST3 project. The analysis of the results of the questionnaire allowed identifying a series of lessons learned to be factored into a revision of the EWSs towards a permanent state of multi-hazard risk.</p><p>Because of the spread of the COVID-19, every country has been encountering challenges in several sectors. In addition to socioeconomic impacts, the declined capacities, especially in the health sector, led to changes in priorities for allocation of the resources in the short term and alteration of the development pathways of governments in the long term.</p><p>Furthermore, the long-lasting nature of the pandemic has increased the possibility of the concurrence of other natural hazards during the spread time of the virus. In this multi-hazard risk condition, civil protection organizations have to consider extra countermeasures for response to prevent the outbreak of the disease, including restrictions in sheltering and evacuation procedures.  </p><p>In the proposed approach, a conceptual model for multi-hazard EWSs, including natural hazards and infectious diseases, based on literature review and experts’ opinion, has been developed and used to derive a new set of indicators useful to understand current EWSs pandemics and multi-hazard risk capabilities.</p><p>The final assessment tool is obtained by integrating the new indicators with the previous ones already present in the EWS assessment tool developed by CIMA Foundation. The tool consists of five groups of indicators, four (already present) assessing the traditional EWS pillars, (i) disaster risk knowledge, (ii) detection, monitoring, analysis, and forecasting of the hazard and possible consequences, (iii) warning dissemination and communication, (iv) preparedness and response capabilities, and the last one added to assess (v) pandemics (specifically COVID19) and multi-hazard capabilities. Each group is divided into three to five sub-indicators.</p><p>Partner countries were asked to score each on a 0-5 scale in the way that 0 corresponds to "no steps have been made regarding that indicator", and 5 means "they fully meet the requirements relating to that indicator."</p><p>The results have been discussed and validated using extra open-source information to evaluate the accuracy of the assessment tool and the compatibility of the given scores with the real situation in partner countries. From this comparison, some biases in the responses have been observed. Therefore, to further improve the assessment tool, it is suggested to firstly, determine the criteria for each point that may give by the responders and secondly, ask for the evidence for each response.</p><p>Finally, the result of this research emphasized the necessity of the integration of infectious disease and natural hazard EWSs, the inclusion of the Health Ministry in the decision-making processes of the civil protection, and the coordination between slow onset and rapid onset hazard EWSs.</p>

<p>The long-lasting Covid-19 pandemic emergency that the world has been experiencing for more than two years is dramatically challenging all national emergency management systems. For the first time in recent history, our society has been dealing with a global slow-onset disaster, whose emergency phase is lasting for such an extended period, with varying levels of intensity, even with well-defined cycles. Furthermore, the pandemic has interacted with other disasters that occurred during the last years all over the world (e.g., the earthquake in Croatia, the tropical cyclone Harold, or the devastating floods in Western Europe including Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands) underlining the compound and cascading nature of disasters. The complex conditions of Covid-19 (and of slow-onsets in general) and their temporal and spatial overlaps with other natural and man-made hazards have highlighted the limitations of the traditional Disaster Risk Management Cycle (DRMC) to deal with complex multi-hazard risk events.</p><p>Our research aims to identify and provide evidence of the main limitations of the current DRMC paradigm when dealing with slow-onset risk events considering the potential interactions with other hazards which lead to the creation of complex multi-hazard risk conditions.</p><p>Existing weaknesses of the current DRMC are investigated starting from the lessons learned during the Covid-19 pandemic. Specifically, we have considered and analysed data provided by the Italian Red Cross on the management of past and ongoing emergencies including the Covid-19 pandemic. We identified those critical risk management conditions and negative feedback loops triggered or exacerbated by slow-onset risks and multi-hazard risk events. In particular, our results indicate: (i) an initial phase shift between the actual pandemic emergency conditions (i.e. intensive care units occupancy) and the Italian Red Cross emergency response (i.e. number of emergency operators), showing the need for an adaptation phase when dealing with long-onset hazard risks such as pandemics; (ii) a reduction of the coping capacity (for all the hazards) due to the number of resources deployed to manage the Covid-19 emergency; (iii) a reduction of preparedness activities (including, e.g. training or exercises), due to the continuous emergency phase imposed by Covid-19, which will result in an overall weakening of the risk management system.</p><p>The analysis has thus highlighted the need for a revised Disaster Risk Management framework, in which prevention, response, and recovery/rehabilitation operate simultaneously rather than sequentially in complex multi-hazard risk scenarios.</p><p>Finally, our study provides insights and lessons learned from the management of the current pandemic seen through the lens of a multi-hazard risk perspective that can be transferred to other slow-onset hazards such as droughts. These results call for improvements of risk management plans within the current national/regional civil protection mechanisms as well as international humanitarian assistance, emphasizing the ultimate need for regional coordination and collaboration.</p>