1. Tomasz Adam Zimny, Adam Maria Gadomski
The Precautionary Principle in Risk Assessment and Management:  a Socio-Cognitive Perspective
Tomasz Adam Zimny,
Adam Maria Gadomski
9 November 2007
ENEA, Research Center CASACCIA

2. Precautionary Principle in Risk Assessment and Management:  a Socio-Cognitive Perspective (a preliminary study)
Presentation outline
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 Networks management.

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

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

6. The precautionary approach
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 Precautionary Principle
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]
Where action is deemed necessary, measures based on the precautionary principle
should be, inter alia:
· proportional to the chosen level of protection,
· non-discriminatory in their application,
· consistent with similar measures already taken,
· based on an examination of the potential benefits and costs of action or lack
of action (including, where appropriate and feasible, an economic cost/benefit
analysis),
· subject to review, in the light of new scientific data, and
· capable of assigning responsibility for producing the scientific evidence
necessary for a more comprehensive risk assessment
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:
activation of 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 assessable positive 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 and Management

15. The concept of risk an unwanted event which may or may not occur
Risk is one of complex indicators of human – environment interactions. There are several understandings of the term „risk”.
They relate to:
an unwanted event 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 DECISION NO 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 > RiskCrit then 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. Legal approaches to risk
An observation: The areas of human activity are interdependent.
Risk management regulations should take this under consideration.
Threat criteria
Risk criteria
Legal approaches
and norms def.
Engineering risks assessment and management
Idea and history
PP approach
Application aspects in DM
PP & LCCI

20. Engineering risks assessment and management (ENEA-HID model, 2007)
Interest Domain
Probability
Possible Losses
New search
Intervention NO
YES
Proper risk management
Tolerable?
Threat
Risk Estimation
Threat criteria
Socio-cognitive & legislative factors
Idea and history
PP approach
Application aspects in DM
PP & LCCI
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 threat classification
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
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 a computational 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, ) 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  What is PP ?
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. Socio-cognitive factors & PP
Human-dependent factors are often difficult to measure, but they play a hugue role in the risk management process
ENEA’s current Intervention domain
Interest Domain
Probability
Possible Losses
New search
Intervention NO
YES
Proper risk management
Tolerable?
Threat
Risk Estimation
Threat criteria
Socio-cognitive factors & PP
Risk criteria
Idea and history
PP approach
Application aspects in DM
PP & LCCI

28. 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.
Domain of Activity
Domain of observation
Environment
Abstract Intelligent Agent
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)
Risk (Probability, Losses, . ) = R (P(IPK), L(IPK), . )
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.
Idea and history
PP approach
Application aspects in DM
PP & LCCI

31. Risk recognition constrains according 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’ values is sufficient – assessment is possible.
Idea and history
PP approach
Application aspects in DM
PP & LCCI

32. Risk recognition constrains according to TOGA meta-theory
Technically assessable risk is perceived only on 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 constrains according 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. Precautionary Principle
The organization decision-making context of PP (Universal Management Paradigm in TOGA)
Precautionary Principle
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

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 management decision-making (planned research 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. Publication 01-JAN-07
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,
S. O. Hansson, Risk, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2007 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
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 , March 2006, Rome, Italy. 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. CRESCO Coordination Meeting, 5 July (ppt). 
International documents  related to the Large Critical Infrastructure Protections, EMSE 232, Disaster Newsletter, Nov.2006, Vol.11 - N. 2: The George Washington University. 
A.M. Gadomski. Human-Organization Crisis: Identification, Response & Recovery - A top-view, White paper. on the Web since 2004:

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
Thank you for your attention.
Picture from: