MEASURES TO BE TAKEN

Weak version

Measures to be taken in response to the precautionary principle being triggered are not dictated by the precautionary principle. Some defini­tions of the precautionary principle do not stipulate the need for any measures to be taken at all.

There is nothing in this version of the precautionary principle which requires decision-makers to give overriding, primary, or even sub­stantial weight to loss of biodiversity, as compared to social and eco­nomic factors, when deciding how to proceed. (Farrier 1999: 108)

The view that action should be avoided if the benefits of inaction are greater than the costs assumes, firstly, that costs can be measured despite the uncertainty surrounding them, and secondly, that there is only one way of achieving the benefits and that environmental sacrifices are nec­essary to achieve them. This is the view economists often take. For example, David Pearce (1994: 144-5) says:

Put another way, no significant deterioration of the environment should occur unless the benefits associated with that deterioration heavily outweigh the costs of the deterioration... Clearly, the adop­tion of the precautionary principle can be expensive. If the benefits foregone are substantial and new information reveals that the measure turns out not to have been warranted, then there will be a high net cost to precaution. This suggests that some balancing of costs and benefits still must play a role even in contexts where the precautionary principle is thought to apply.

Strong version

A stronger version of the precautionary principle dictates that positive action must be taken to avoid or mitigate the potential harm.

The Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle (1998) clearly mandates precautionary measures and is therefore a strong version of the precautionary principle: 'When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if cause and effect relationships are not fully estab­lished scientifically...'

The strong approach assumes that environmental protection is a pri­ority and that other less environmentally damaging ways can be found to achieve the economic benefits which the proposed action would have brought. Nevertheless, even in the stronger version of the precautionary principle, the action that should be taken is not determined by the prin­ciple. In only a few rare cases is the precautionary principle defined in a way that dictates measures. For example, the Oslo Commission of 1989 agreed that the dumping of industrial wastes, 'except for inert materials of natural origin', into the North Sea should cease; that it should be allowed only where it could be shown that there were no practical alter­natives and it would cause no harm to the marine environment (cited in Harding & Fisher 1999: 305).

Criteria for measures

In most cases, however, the measures to be taken have to be decided and again this is a political decision that should involve the broad commu­nity. Measures can either 'constrain the possibility of the harm' or 'contain the harm', should it occur, by limiting its scope or controlling it (COMEST 2005: 8).

According to the EC (2000a: 18-20), measures taken in response to the precautionary principle should be proportional, non-discriminatory, consistent, beneficial, and provisional.

Proportional

Proportionality means that measures adopted should be proportionate to the level of protection required and that aiming at zero risk is not only unfeasible but an overreaction. Similarly, a total ban on a product or process may be more than is required in the situation. It may be that miti­gating or reducing the potential harm through reducing exposure path­ways or limiting the use of a product may be sufficient to ensure that adequate protection levels are maintained.

Trying to reduce the last 4 per cent of pollution may be excessively expensive and the costs out of proportion to the harm that this last 4 per cent poses. The money might be better spent on other areas of environ­mental improvement.

Non-discriminatory

Measures should not differ according to the geographical origin of a product or any other extraneous factors. Comparable products or processes should be subject to similar measures.

Consistent

Measures taken should be consistent with, and utilise a similar approach to, measures taken in similar circumstances in the past. In particular, measures taken in response to the precautionary principle should be con­sistent with measures taken where products or processes have a similar level of harm but where there is less uncertainty.

Beneficial

When deciding measures to be taken the advantages and disadvantages of the measures to be taken should be considered, and compared with the advantages and disadvantages of not taking action, to ensure that some net benefit will result. Advantages and disadvantages include, but are not reduced to, economic costs and benefits.

Provisional

The measures taken should be reviewed periodically so that considera­tion can be given to relevant new scientific information which may change the assessment of potential harm. There should also be ongoing scientific studies aimed at reducing the uncertainties involved.