 |
|
TEXT 6. PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
The precautionary principle, a phrase first used in English around 1988, is the idea that if the consequences of an action are unknown - but are judged to have some potential for major or irreversible negative consequences - then it is better to avoid that action.
The substance of the precautionary principle is not new, as the essence of the principle is captured in cautionary aphorisms such as, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," "Better safe than sorry," and "Look before you leap." The precautionary principle may be interpreted as a generalization of the ancient medical principle associated with Hippocrates, of "First, do no harm."
The application of the precautionary principle is hampered by the wide range of interpretations placed on it. One study identified 14 different formulations of the principle in treaties and in non-treaty declarations. The range of interpretation may be characterized as running from the need to show that an action is "probably" safe, to showing that it is "definitely" safe. An analogy can be drawn with standards of proof used in law, which range from the "balance of probabilities" standard often used in civil law to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof often used in criminal law.
This variation in the burden of proof on whether to proceed with an action, however, interacts with varying perspectives on the validity and manner of trading off the action's costs and benefits, particularly when they fall on different groups. This introduces an ethical dimension - for example on the impact on future generations - which falls outside the domain of cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment and in the domain of politics.
The World Charter for Nature, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1982, was the first international endorsement of the precautionary principle. The principle was implemented in an international treaty as early as the 1987 Montreal Protocol, and among other international treaties and declarations is reflected in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (signed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development).
On February 2, 2000, the European Commission adopted a communication on the precautionary principle in which it defined this concept and explained how it intended to apply it. It is also defined in Article III-233 of the draft Treaty establishing a constitution for Europe:
Union policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union. It shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source, and that the polluter should pay.
In this context, harmonization measures answering environmental protection requirements shall include, where appropriate, a safeguard clause allowing Member States to take provisional steps, for non economic environmental reasons, subject to a procedure of inspection by the Union.
Saunders (2000) argues that in some instances, notably World Trade Organization policy, there is in effect an "anti-precautionary principle" under which the burden of proof is on society to quickly show that a new product is dangerous, rather than on the innovator to show that it is safe.
Case Study:Environment/health
An early modern application of the principle was physician John Snow's 1854 removal of the handle of a water pump in Broad Street, London, in order to prevent a cholera outbreak from the infected well (at the time, the science on the spread of cholera through contaminated water was not yet conclusive). However an alternative view is that Dr. Snow was absolutely sure about the infected water and an empirical experiment proved him right. Some might argue that the precautionary principle would advocate not having any water pumps at all until society could be absolutely sure that no contaminants could be transmitted in that way.
The German Duke of Württemberg-Teck had as early as 1778 banned the use of lead pipes for drinking water, two hundred years before the publication of scientifically grounded World Health Organization guidelines on the toxicity of lead. The application of the principle can be seen in the public policy of requiring pharmaceutical companies to carry out clinical trials to show that new medications are safe, as well as effective.