It is mandatory to limit, regulate, or prevent potentially dangerous technologies even before scientific proof is established. Consider the following possible formulation of the precautionary principle: Most prescriptive versions of the precautionary principle share four common components. Perhaps the most famous of these is the so-called Wingspread Statement: “When an activity raises threats to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken, even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically”. Prescriptive versions of the precautionary principle prescribe actions.
#PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE FULL#
It requires that “lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”. An argumentative version of the precautionary principle is found in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration. 4įormulations of the precautionary principle can be divided into two major groups: argumentative and prescriptive versions of the principle. Strictly speaking, it is a principle for decision-making under scientific uncertainty that has been codified in a number of international treaties. The precautionary principle is frequently invoked in debates on environmental issues. Uncertain causal reasoning is then combined, via Bayesian networks, to exemplify how the precautionary principle can be made operational. It begins with different legal interpretations of precautionary principles in EU treaties and case laws (an EU Commission decision to ban export of beef from the United Kingdom), as well as discusses several non-EU approaches (e.g., Canada, India, and the United States). This article discusses the benefits and limitations of the precautionary principle as it appears in a number of legal and nonlegal enunciations. Risk–cost–benefit analysis (RCBA) resolves this dilemma by informing decision-makers about the probable net benefits of each of the actions they may consider to minimize the effects of exposure to a serious environmental hazard. Fundamentally, the dilemma is that the ethical choice, better safe than sorry, can be costly because an action designed to avoid a potential damage can be counterproductive for society: a seemingly precautionary action can do more harm than good. This condition forces decision-makers inevitably to confront a variety of difficulties.
These principles provide a moral justification for acting even though causation is unclear. Precautionary principles bridge the gap between weakly understood causes of potentially either grave or irreversible environmental damages and potentially costly policy interventions. Interestingly, the European Commission states that the measures consistent with the PP should be “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)” and “subject to review, in the light of new scientific data.” This interpretation is consistent with the option value approach that we adopt here.View chapterPurchase book Benefits and Limitations of the Precautionary Principle The European Commission has committed to the PP as a guiding principle since 2000. In France, for instance, the PP was included in the French Constitution in 2005, which implies that it was put at the highest judicial level of this country. The PP has also been enacted in the national law of several countries, especially in Europe. Definitions of the PP with a similar meaning have been proposed for instance in the 1992 Convention on Climate Change, the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, the Maastricht Treaty in 1992/93, and the 2000 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The PP rejects the claim that uncertainty justifies inaction, and its ambition is to empower policymakers to take anticipatory action even under scientific uncertainty. It states “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”Īlthough several interpretations of the PP have been proposed, the basic meaning of the PP is clear.
An important and influential statement of the PP is the principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development in 1992. Beginning in the 1980s, several international treaties endorsed precautionary measures, like the 1987 treaty that bans the dumping of toxic substances in the North Sea. The PP has its roots in the early 1970s as the German principle of Vorsorge, or foresight.
0 kommentar(er)
