NATURE OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
Wisdom
Roberto Andorno (2004: 11-12) points out that the precautionary principle is based on the classical virtue of prudence, where prudence means the 'ability to discern the most suitable course of action'.
Prudence therefore represents 'practical wisdom' rather than risk aversion or lack of courage. It embraces the folk wisdom of 'better safe than sorry', 'look before you leap', 'a stitch in time saves nine', and the commonsense idea that if you are about to try something new, it is best to consider whether it is safe and not to go ahead until you can be reasonably confident that it is, particularly if the consequences of the action could conceivably lead to some disastrous outcome.In the case of the precautionary principle, it is not only a matter of considering consequences for the individual or the action taker, but considering also the broader consequences for the planet and for future generations. It says that if the environmental consequences could be serious we should be cautious. In this way the precautionary principle is a form of 'planetary wisdom'. It is antithetical to a 'wait and see' approach, where policy makers wait till they have more information before acting.
Merits of postponement
Economists argue that in some circumstances it may be preferable to postpone acting on a problem, and incur the costs of fixing it up later, because:
• future costs are perceived to be less burdensome than current costs.
• if good scientific research accompanies the delay, the extra information might enable the problem to be solved in a cheaper and more effective way (Pearce et al. 1989).
Postponing action might not be the best decision, however, because it may cost considerably more to solve a problem in the future than it does to solve it now. In fact, if the damage done in the ensuing time is irreversible, the problem may not be able to be solved at all.
Moreover, it is not fair (morally justifiable) to pass environmental risks on to future generations with the assumption that they will have the knowledge and/or technology to deal with them.Thus, while the cost of precaution may be high and it may be possible to come up with more cost-effective solutions later, 'a society committed to sustainable development will shift the focus of its environmental policy towards an anticipatory stance, especially as reactive policy risks shifting the burden of environmental risks to future generations' (Pearce et al. 1989: 19).
Critics
The precautionary principle remains controversial in the USA, where corporate interests have succeeded in spreading confusion about what it means and what it implies. Opponents argue that the precautionary principle is unscientific; that it can be triggered by irrational concerns; that it aims at an unrealistic goal of zero risk; and that it will result in the banning of useful chemicals and the prevention of technological innovation. Excessive caution, it is argued, leads to paralysis and stagnation.
In fact, as this chapter will show, the precautionary principle cannot be applied without scientific evidence of harm. The Canadian government (Environment Canada 2001) points out that 'sound scientific information and its evaluation must be the basis' for applying the precautionary principle and that, in deciding whether scientific evidence is sound, 'decision makers should give particular weight... to peer- reviewed science'.
Nor does the precautionary principle aim to reduce risk to zero - it aims to avoid or mitigate likely harm. The measures to be adopted to achieve this are not dictated by the precautionary principle and there is no requirement on the part of the precautionary principle to ban anything, although decision makers may conclude that a ban is appropriate in certain circumstances. The precautionary principle is not a 'decisionmaking algorithm' telling managers how to choose between pre-existing solutions, it is a guide as to when precaution needs to be exercised and to the criteria that should be used to evaluate measures adopted (Andorno 2004: 16).
The precautionary principle does not conflict with technological innovation, but requires a new approach - an approach that 'encourages the exploration of alternative modes of development that are compatible with a good quality of life for present and future generations'. It calls for 'greater imaginative effort in the development of safer and cleaner technologies'. What the precautionary principle does do is redirect innovation in more humane and environmentally sound directions (Andorno 2004: 16).
How it works
The precautionary principle has two parts:
(i) The political decision whether to act, which requires:
• identification of potential adverse effects that threaten the desired level of protection now or in the future, when
• these adverse effects are caused or exacerbated by human activity, and
• scientific evaluation of such effects shows they are plausible and highly probable, and
• the exact risk cannot be determined because of scientific uncertainty, and
• postponing action will make effective action more difficult later on.
(ii) The measures to be taken if action is decided upon.