The Precautionary Principle in Risk Assessment and Management: a Socio-Cognitive Perspective

1. The Precautionary Principlein Risk Assessment and Management:  a Socio-Cognitive Perspective Tomasz Adam Zimny, Adam Maria Gadomski 9 November 2007 ENEA, Research Center CASACCIA http://erg4146.casaccia.enea.it/SC-CRESCO

2. Presentation outline Precautionary Principlein Risk Assessment and Management:  a Socio-Cognitive Perspective (a preliminary study) • Idea and history of the Precautionary Principle (PP) • The Precautionary Principle in relation to the vulnerabilities of engineering Risk Assessment and  Management • Application aspects:  PP in socio-cognitive decision-making modeling • PP and Large Complex Critical Infrastructures Networksmanagement.

3. The idea and history of the Precautionary Principle

4. The precautionary approach The precautionary approach has been applied since the beginning of humanity • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveman

5. The precautionaryapproach Lack of precaution often resulted in unacceptable, disastrous consequences • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI

6. Theprecautionaryapproach The lack of precautionary approach may lead to disastrous consequences. The precautionary approach may also concern events that seem not very probable or hardly possible at all. • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI

7. The Precautionary Principle • A concept developed strongly since the 1980s • Advises to take measures aimed at avoidance of unwanted events in case of insufficient data and knowledge as to their severity or occurrence • Is introduced in many legal documents • Influences risk management policies • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI

8. The PP brief history • 1970 – mentioned in a draft of Clean Air Act in Germany • 1984 – The North Sea Treaties • 1992 – UN Rio Declaration • 2002 – EU Communication on Precautionary Principle[5] • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI

9. The Precautionary Principle: examples Versions of the PrecautionaryPrinciple • UN World Charter for Nature:“[When] potential adverse effects [of activities] are not fully understood, the activities should not proceed.” [1] • London Declaration (Second International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea 1987):“Accepting that, in order to protect the North Sea from possibly damaging effects of the most dangerous substances, a precautionary approach is necessary which may require action to control inputs of such substances even before a causal link has been established by absolutely clear scientific evidence.” [1] • EU communication on the PP, 2000 "The precautionary principle applies where scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain and preliminary scientific evaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern that the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or plant health may be inconsistent with the high level of protection chosen by the EU”[1] • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI Usually these principles apply in specific domains of current main problems and frequently by examples

10. The Precautionary Principle The choice of PP version influences the risk management decisions and their outcomes. It influences such important factors of management, as: • activationof d-m process • duration of d-m process, • efficacy of decisions, • cost of risk management. • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI

11. The Precautionary Principle – working definition and explanation When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm[1] The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus.that harm would not ensue, … The precautionary principle involves complex systems where the consequences of actions may be unpredictable. (Wikipedia, 5 Nov.2007) • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI

12. Examples of Precautionary approach or the consequences of its neglecting • 1854 London Cholera Epidemic[1] • A decision to remove a water-pump handle in a situation of insufficient knowledge between water and the spread of the illness helped to limit the spread of the epidemic. • Recombinant DNA debate in the 1970s[2] • A decision to suspend research with rDNA. It was made out of precaution, we don’t know, what would have happened if it was not made. • The case of asbestos[1] • Negligence of symptoms of damaging effects of exposure to asbestos lead to multiple diseases. • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI

13. Area of the PP approach Expected and assessablepositive and negative results Object/result of decision Area for precautionary approach: a not sufficiently defined set of plausible events • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI PP is focused on the events which could be a threat.

14. PP and vulnerabilities of engineering Risk Assessment andManagement

15. The concept of risk Risk is one of complex indicators of human – environment interactions. There are several understandings of the term „risk”. They relate to: • an unwantedevent which may or may not occur • the cause of an unwanted event which may or may not occur • the probability of an unwanted event which may or may not occur • the statistical expectation value of an unwanted event which may or may not occur.[3] • possibile consequences of a decision. • damage, Risk = Damage x Probability (VITA Consortium, 2005) Numerous technical meanings are specific for the discipline, • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI From the most general systemic perspective: risk is proportional to the assessed losses and probability that they may appear.

16. The concept of risk – Top-down view Regardless from the definition of risk, it is always connected with a decision – making process. NO DECISIONNO RISK Decision ( Risk, Hope, <other attributes>) Risk (Probability (E), Losses (EO)) Hope (Probability, Benefits) where: E – an event-threat, O – an object of losses. • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI

17. Legal approaches to risk Law regulates decision making and also attempts to determine critical risk in multiple domains of activities and when risk is not determined but a threat is plausible. Not only when if Risk> RiskCritthen Decision ( Risk, Hope, . ) is performed. Intervention domains: environment health economy transportation Infrastructures RiskCrit-maximal risk value accepted yet by social actors in their routine activity. • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI

18. Legal approaches to risk The approaches to risk often lack harmonization or uniformity related to: • different understanding of the term • different perception • different assessment strategies • different management strategies Regulations dealing with the issues of risk tend to be separated. • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI

19. Engineeringrisks assessment and management Threat criteria Legal approaches and norms def. Risk criteria Legal approaches to risk An observation: The areas of human activity are interdependent. Risk management regulations should take this under consideration. • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI

20. Engineeringrisks assessment and management(ENEA-HID model, 2007) Interest Domain Threat Threat criteria Probability Possible Losses Proper risk management Socio-cognitive & legislative factors Risk Estimation Intervention New search YES NO • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI Tolerable? Risk criteria

21. Engineering technological risks assessment and management Basic Requirements for engineering risk assessment and management: • sufficient data/information for the calculation of probability of possible and undesirable event(s) • clear criteria for seriousness of threatclassification • sufficient data/information for the assessment of possible losses. Weakness: Impossibility of assessing and managing risks in a situation of unknown and unexpected but theoretically possible events. • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI

22. PP and vulnerabilities of engineering risk assessment and management Possible Threats Engineering Risk Assessment andManagement Tech. assessed responses Socially requested responses • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI

23. PP and vulnerabilities of engineering risk assessment and management Summarizing: PP should provide directives and initial criteria for technical decision-making in areas of uncertainty. However it has several weaknesses: • PP elongates the d-m process • increases costs of risk management • difficulties with deciding on adequate measures • often effects of its application are hard to predict. • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI

24. Precautionary Principle in socio-cognitive decision-making modeling(application aspects)

25. Aim of the current work Our goal is to conceptualize the PP in the context of a general risk management paradigm. It requires acomputational modeling of socio-cognitive decisional processes including legislative aspects of the management and policy making.. In particular, an attempt to answer questions How the precautionary principle works as a part of the dynamic normative system. For the reason of the complexity of the problem (numerous organizational and socio-legislative factors and socio-economical constrains the top-down object-based goal-oriented research methodology (TOGA meta-theory, A.M. Gadomski, 1990-93) is applied. PP will be analysed in the context of preferences, knowledge and information of decision-makers with different roles. It should lead to the development of computational models for the simulation of multi-actor decision-making in the frame of intelligent socio-cognitive networks. The work is a contribution to the ENEA’s long-term large RTD program: “Progetto Governo e Sicurezza Reti Tecnologiche e Energetiche”, and, in particular, to its more specific projects, as national CRESCO and EU IRRIIS. • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI

26. Ongoing activity The model under investigation is aimed at determining, What is PP ?  How threat and risk management policies and decision-making depend on: • The version of the Precautionary Principle applied • The Information, Preferences and Knowledge, the agent possesses • The level on which the decisions are made: • individual • organizational • social • political • The costs of application of PP (economical perspective) • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI

27. Human-dependent factors are often difficult to measure, but they play a hugue role in the risk management process Interest Domain ENEA’s current Intervention domain Threat Threat criteria Probability Possible Losses Proper risk management Risk Estimation Socio-cognitive factors & PP Intervention New search YES NO • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI Tolerable? Risk criteria

28. Domain of Activity Abstract Intelligent Agent Domain of observation Environment Socio-cognitive approach:recognition of risk domain according to TOGA According to TOGA (Top-down Object-based Goal-oriented Approach ), threats/hazard /danger and risks (from external oserver viewpoint)are possible causes and consequences of the decisions of intelligent agents, carried out within their Environment. Cause-consequences propagation Where an intelligent agent comprises of Abstract Intelligent Agent and its physical carrier in the domain of activity. • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI Working hypothesis:TOGA provides top ontology and conceptualization frameworks sufficient for the definition and allocation of PP in managers’ and policy-makers socio-cognitive decision-making modeling.

29. Agent’s cognitive feartures crucial in risk recognition and management The decisions of the agent depend on their Information, Preferences and Knowledge (IPK). They are also interdependent: According to the TOGA meta-theory: • Information(1): data which represent state of agent’s domain of activity • Preferences, (P): ordered relations among states of the domain of activity of the agent which indicate a state with higher utility (preferred) • Knowledge, (K): everything that transforms (quantitatively/qualitatively) information into other information or knowledge or a preference. I P K • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI

30. Universal Reasoning Paradigm - IPK in risk perception(TOGA approach) It means, that on IPK depends also, whether: • The possibility of an event is seen (perceived) • The event is regarded as potentially harmful (threat) • The probability of the event is seen as significant • The risk can be assessed • The assessed risk in some area is critical. Risk (Probability, Losses, .) = R (P(IPK), L(IPK), . ) • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI

31. Risk recognition constrainsaccording to the TOGA meta-theory Levels of risk perception (lack of sufficient I or K): • Agent doesn’t know about the existence of risk • The risk is perceived, but its attributes are insufficient to assess it (PP) • Information about risk attributes’ valuesis sufficient – assessment is possible. • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI

32. Risk recognition constrainsaccording to TOGA meta-theory Technically assessable risk is perceived onlyon level 3. Such perception is usually not possible in case of risk caused by socio-cognitive aspects of decision-making (human and organization factors). PP approach is needed on level 2. • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI

33. Risk recognition constrainsaccording to TOGA meta-theory On the IPK depends the response to an event: • preventive (Level 3) • precautionary (Level 2) • other • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI

34. The organization decision-making context of PP (Universal Management Paradigm in TOGA) PrecautionaryPrinciple • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI Decision

35. The Precautionary Principle in the case of Large Complex Critical Infrastructures (LCCI) networks management.

36. PP in the case of LCCI networks management The safety and service providing by Large Complex Critical Infrastructures Networks depends heavily on human and organization factors, difficult to assess (such as individual and group lack of I or K, as well as improper P). The PP approach is necessary to ensure decision-making and management which are related to the situations, when, large but unpredictable disasters are plausible, e. g. when the expected losses are very big and the probability is not possible to determine especially, when there is a lack of consensus on the managerial level of an organisation. Such situations exist for the reason of the cascading effect of treats and risk causes, when the losses generation process may propagate from one domain (environment, industry, society) to another and between different, interdependent LCCI systems (electricity network, telecommunication network, etc.). • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI See:Threat Taxonomy for Critical Infrastructures and Critical Infrastructure Risk Aspects at EU-level,01/07/06 http://www.hcss.nl/en/publication/308/Threat-Taxonomy-for-Critical-Infrastructures-and-C.html

37. PP in the case of LCCI networks management Management of these this type of uncertain situations requires: continuous, hierarchical, distributed, and locally autonomous decision-making. These numerous and coordinated d-m require legislative norms and criteria on different levels of organization structures, as well as, synchronized between cooperating organizations. Remark: Because of the time constrains (under time limits), such decisions are inevitable and have to be performed independently on the currently available IPK and their distribution between involved decision-makers. Frequently in the case of unexpected hazard/threat, the time is not sufficient for a “regular technical risk assessment”, and PP becomes the necessity. • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI

38. PP in the case of LCCI networks management For these reasons the model in development will be especially focused on Human and Social Factors in LCCI risk managementdecision-making (plannedresearch period: October 07 – January 08). “Logical interdependency means that the state of one infrastructure depends on the state of another infrastructure, usually via human decisions and actions. For example, a lower gas price increases the flow of gasoline and traffic congestion. In this case, the logical interdependency between the petroleum and transportation infrastructures is due to human decisions and actions and is not the result of a physical process. “ From: IIE Transactions. Toward modeling and simulation of critical national infrastructure interdependencies. Publication01-JAN-07 http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-29493291_ITM • Idea and history • PP approach • Application aspects in DM • PP & LCCI

39. Some References • M. Kaiser, Lecture BioT ETHED: Risk & the Precautionary Principle, Brno, 3 July 2007 • The Recombinant DNA debate, http://www.ndsu.edu/instruct/mcclean/plsc431/debate/debate3.htm • S. O. Hansson, Risk, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2007 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2007/entries/risk/ • S. M. Rinaldi, J. P. Peerenboom, T. K. Kelly, Identifying, Understanding, and Analyzing Critical Infrastructure Interdependencies, IEEE Control Systems Magazine, December 2001 • World Commission on Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology, The Precautionary Principle, UNESCO, 2005 • A.M. Gadomski, Modeling of Socio-Cognitive Vulnerability of Human Organizations: TOGA Meta-Theory Approach, Proc. of International Workshop on Complex Network and Infrastructure Protection, CNIP 2006 , 28- 29 March 2006, Rome, Italy. http://erg4146.casaccia.enea.it/IRRIIS-ORG/Vulnerability-Poster2006.pdf • P. Sargeni, A.M. Gadomski, L’ergonomia cognitiva e l’identificazione della vulnerabilità  di organizzazioni umane: organizzazioni umane: la prospettiva socio--cognitiva. Seminar ENEA-CAMO, 10 May 2006. • A. D'Ausilio, M. Caramia, A.M. Gadomski, A.Londei, M.Olivetti-Belardinelli. CRESCO-SOC-COG: Strategies, Competences and Objectives. ENEA-Sede. CRESCOCoordination Meeting, 5 July 2006 (ppt).  • International documentsrelated to the Large Critical Infrastructure Protections, EMSE 232, Disaster Newsletter, Nov.2006, Vol.11 - N. 2: http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~emse232, The George Washington University.  • A.M. Gadomski. Human-Organization Crisis: Identification, Response & Recovery - A top-view, White paper. on the Web since 2004: http://192.107.74.146/gad-crisis.htm

40. Thank you for your attention. The Precautionary Principle in Risk Assessment and Management:  a Socio-Cognitive Perspective. T.A. Zimny, A.M. Gadomski, 2007 Picture from:http://www.volontari.org/lettere/settimana-19.html