Presentation on theme: "Tomasz Adam Zimny, Adam Maria Gadomski"— Presentation transcript:
1Tomasz Adam Zimny, Adam Maria Gadomski The Precautionary Principle in Risk Assessment and Management: a Socio-Cognitive PerspectiveTomasz Adam Zimny,Adam Maria Gadomski9 November 2007ENEA, Research Center CASACCIA
2Precautionary Principle in Risk Assessment and Management: a Socio-Cognitive Perspective (a preliminary study)Presentation outlineIdea and history of the Precautionary Principle (PP)The Precautionary Principle in relation to the vulnerabilities of engineering Risk Assessment and ManagementApplication aspects: PP in socio-cognitive decision-making modelingPP and Large Complex Critical Infrastructures Networks management.
3The idea and history of the Precautionary Principle
4The precautionary approach The precautionary approach has been applied since the beginning of humanityIdea and historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCI
5The precautionary approach Lack of precaution often resulted in unacceptable, disastrous consequencesIdea and historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCI
6The 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 historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCI
7The Precautionary Principle A concept developed strongly since the 1980sAdvises to take measures aimed at avoidance of unwanted events in case of insufficient data and knowledge as to their severity or occurrenceIs introduced in many legal documentsInfluences risk management policiesIdea and historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCI
8The PP brief history1970 – mentioned in a draft of Clean Air Act in Germany1984 – The North Sea Treaties1992 – UN Rio Declaration2002 – EU Communication on Precautionary PrincipleIdea and historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCI
9The Precautionary Principle: examples Versions of the Precautionary PrincipleUN World Charter for Nature: “[When] potential adverse effects [of activities] are not fully understood, the activities should not proceed.” 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.” 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”Where action is deemed necessary, measures based on the precautionary principleshould 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 lackof action (including, where appropriate and feasible, an economic cost/benefitanalysis),· subject to review, in the light of new scientific data, and· capable of assigning responsibility for producing the scientific evidencenecessary for a more comprehensive risk assessmentIdea and historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCIUsually these principles apply in specific domains of current main problems and frequently by examples
10The 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 processduration of d-m process,efficacy of decisions,cost of risk management.Idea and historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCI
11The 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 harmThe 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 historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCI
12Examples of Precautionary approach or the consequences of its neglecting 1854 London Cholera EpidemicA 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 1970sA 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 asbestosNegligence of symptoms of damaging effects of exposure to asbestos lead to multiple diseases.Idea and historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCI
13Area of the PP approachExpected and assessable positive and negative resultsObject/result of decisionArea for precautionary approach: a not sufficiently defined set of plausible eventsIdea and historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCIPP is focused on the events which could be a threat.
14PP and vulnerabilities of engineering Risk Assessment and Management
15The 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 occurthe cause of an unwanted event which may or may not occurthe probability of an unwanted event which may or may not occurthe statistical expectation value of an unwanted event which may or may not occur.possibile consequences of a decision.damage, Risk = Damage x Probability (VITA Consortium, 2005)Numerous technical meanings are specific for the discipline,Idea and historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCIFrom the most general systemic perspective: risk is proportional to the assessed losses and probability that they may appear.
16The concept of risk – Top-down view Regardless from the definition of risk, it is always connected with a decision – making process.NO DECISION NO RISKDecision ( Risk, Hope, <other attributes>)Risk (Probability (E), Losses (EO))Hope (Probability, Benefits)where: E – an event-threat, O – an object of losses.Idea and historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCI
17Legal 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 whenif Risk > RiskCrit then Decision ( Risk, Hope, . ) is performed.Intervention domains:environmenthealtheconomytransportationInfrastructuresRiskCrit - maximal risk value accepted yet by social actors intheir routine activity.Idea and historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCI
18Legal approaches to risk The approaches to risk often lack harmonization or uniformity related to:different understanding of the termdifferent perceptiondifferent assessment strategiesdifferent management strategiesRegulations dealing with the issues of risk tend to be separated.Idea and historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCI
19Legal approaches to risk An observation: The areas of human activity are interdependent.Risk management regulations should take this under consideration.Threat criteriaRisk criteriaLegal approachesand norms def.Engineering risks assessment and managementIdea and historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCI
20Engineering risks assessment and management (ENEA-HID model, 2007) Interest DomainProbabilityPossible LossesNew searchInterventionNOYESProper risk managementTolerable?ThreatRisk EstimationThreat criteriaSocio-cognitive & legislative factorsIdea and historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCIRisk criteria
21Engineering technological risks assessment and management Basic Requirements for engineering risk assessment and management:sufficient data/information for the calculation ofprobability of possible and undesirable event(s)clear criteria for seriousness of threat classificationsufficient data/information for the assessment ofpossible losses.Weakness:Impossibility of assessing and managing risks in a situation of unknown and unexpected but theoretically possible events.Idea and historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCI
22PP and vulnerabilities of engineering risk assessment and management Possible ThreatsTech. assessed responsesSocially requested responsesIdea and historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCI
23PP 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 processincreases costs of risk managementdifficulties with deciding on adequate measuresoften effects of its application are hard to predict.Idea and historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCI
24Precautionary Principle in socio-cognitive decision-making modeling (application aspects)
25Aim of the current workOur 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 historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCI
26Ongoing 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 appliedThe Information, Preferences and Knowledge, the agent possessesThe level on which the decisions are made:individualorganizationalsocialpoliticalThe costs of application of PP (economical perspective)Idea and historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCI
27Socio-cognitive factors & PP Human-dependent factors are often difficult to measure, but they play a hugue role in the risk management processENEA’s current Intervention domainInterest DomainProbabilityPossible LossesNew searchInterventionNOYESProper risk managementTolerable?ThreatRisk EstimationThreat criteriaSocio-cognitive factors & PPRisk criteriaIdea and historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCI
28Socio-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 ActivityDomain of observationEnvironmentAbstract Intelligent AgentCause-consequences propagationWhere an intelligent agent comprises of Abstract Intelligent Agent and its physical carrier in the domain of activity.Idea and historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCIWorking 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.
29Agent’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 activityPreferences, (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.IPKIdea and historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCI
30Universal 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 significantThe risk can be assessedThe assessed risk in some area is critical.Idea and historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCI
31Risk 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 riskThe risk is perceived, but its attributes are insufficient to assess it (PP)Information about risk attributes’ values is sufficient – assessment is possible.Idea and historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCI
32Risk 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 historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCI
33Risk recognition constrains according to TOGA meta-theory On the IPK depends the response to an event:preventive (Level 3)precautionary (Level 2)otherIdea and historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCI
34Precautionary Principle The organization decision-making context of PP (Universal Management Paradigm in TOGA)Precautionary PrincipleIdea and historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCIDecision
35The Precautionary Principle in the case of Large Complex Critical Infrastructures (LCCI) networks management.
36PP 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 historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCISee:Threat Taxonomy for Critical Infrastructures and Critical Infrastructure Risk Aspects at EU-level, 01/07/06
37PP 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 historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCI
38PP 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-07Idea and historyPP approachApplication aspects in DMPP & LCCI
39Some ReferencesM. Kaiser, Lecture BioT ETHED: Risk & the Precautionary Principle, Brno, 3 July 2007The 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 2001World Commission on Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology, The Precautionary Principle, UNESCO, 2005A.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.pdfP. 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:
40Thank you for your attention. The Precautionary Principle in Risk Assessment and Management: a Socio-Cognitive Perspective. T.A. Zimny, A.M. Gadomski, 2007Thank you for your attention.Picture from:http://www.volontari.org/lettere/settimana-19.html