Decision-makers often turn to scientists and engineers to assist them to navigate through complex environmental, health and societal challenges pervaded by systemic uncertainty, ambiguity and ethical implications. This course prepares you to meet the requests and demands of current and future decision-makers and in this course, you will analyze ethical challenges associated with environmental dilemmas and apply different decision making tools relevant to environmental management and regulation.
The Precautionary Principle
Loading...
From the course by Technical University of Denmark (DTU)
Environmental Management & Ethics
21 оценки
From the lesson
Environmental regulation and principles
In this module, we will introduce you to the main different kinds of implementing environmental regulation as well as some of the key environmental principles on which environmental management is based internationally.
Meet the Instructors
Steffen Foss HansenAssociate Professor
Department of Environmental Engineering
Lauge Peter Westergaard ClausenPhD student
Environmental Engineering
[MUSIC]
Welcome to our course on Environmental Management & Ethics.
In this lecture, I would like to introduce you to one of the environmental principles
that are being applied when it comes to environmental management.
My name is Steffen Foss Hansen and I'm an associate professor at
the Technical University of Denmark at the Department of Environmental Engineering.
So, the Precautionary Principle is one of
more regulatory principles when it comes to environmental management.
It originates from Germany,
where this was introduced in the 1970s as Das Vorsorgeprinzip.
Vorsorge actually means forecare, rather than precaution.
So it has been argued in the literature that something has been lost in
translation.
That the Vorsorgeprinzip is actually broader than is just
what is now considered the Precautionary Principle.
Because vorsorge, in German,
means something like forecare, rather than actual precaution.
But now or when it was introduced in the 1970s, the Precautionary Principle was
introduced in Germany's environmental policy as just one of many principles.
Other principals introduced at the time was economic viability,
development of clean technology.
In 1984, the Precautionary Principle was introduced into
the first international treaty and agreement.
It was the one on the International Conference on Protection of
the North Sea Since then, the Precautionary Principle
has been included in a wide range of international treaties and declarations.
The probably most well-known, or at least the most quoted, is the Rio Declaration,
where the Precautionary Principle is Principle Number 15.
It states that in order to protect the environment, the precautionary
approach shall be widely applied by states according to their capabilities.
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.
Since then, the scope of the Precautionary Principle has been
expanded to not only consider environmental considerations,
but also to include human and plant health.
Just before 2000 in 1998, the scope of the Precautionary Principle
was traditionally extended to include human and plant health due
to a number of court cases and decided by the European Court of Justice.
By 2005, the Precautionary Principle has been included in more than
27 declarations, treaties, protocols, laws, etc around the world.
Including the protection of the sea, hazardous waste, and ozone depletion.
What you see here are a number of different ways in
which the Precautionary Principle has been included in these treaties.
Here you have the Rio Declaration in the original version.
And here you have the the Second North Sea Declaration.
Here you have the Convention on Transboundary Hazardous Waste.
And finally, you have here the one on Ozone Layer Protocol.
What you'll see is that the wording in the different definitions that differ.
It differs in regards to whether it talks about the Precautionary Principle or
a precautionary approach.
Whether it talks about hazards versus irreversible harm.
Whether it speaks about lack of full scientific certainty versus cause-n-effect
and not fully established scientific boundaries or conditions.
And basically, despite the fact that these principles very in regards to wording,
we would argue, I would argue that it has the same overall meaning.
The meaning, which is, that you should not use scientific
uncertainty as an excuse for postponing regulatory action.
There are some key elements of the Precautionary Principle that are worth
considering a bit closer.
The first one is uncertainty.
Of course, if you want to have a principle
that states you should not use scientific uncertainty as next years for
postponing action, it's very important how you define uncertainty.
Uncertainty can be parameter and model uncertainty.
It can be both systemic and epistemic uncertainty.
It could also be smokescreen uncertainty manufactured by various stakeholders.
And finally, you could have indeterminacy and
ignorance As Donald Rumsfeld,
the former US Secretary of Defense once said,
there are many things that we don't know.
And actually what he said that specifically was,
as we know there are no knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know that there are known unknowns.
That is to say that we know that there are some things that we do not know,
but there are also unknown unknowns.
The ones that we don't know we don't know.
And that is very correct, and in this sense it captures everything that you need
to know about uncertainty when it comes to the Precautionary Principle.
Of course, the other element that is important to consider when it comes to
the Precautionary Principle is how you define action.
Remember the principle says that you should not use scientific uncertainty as
an excuse for postponing action.
So the question is, what kind of action and how do you define action?
There's a number of different actions that can be taken to through
the Precautionary Principle or
with reference precautionary principles by regulatory decision-makers.
They could decide to have a ban of a given substance, a given technology.
They could put a moratorium on the technology,
they could decide to have taxes or labeling, or
they could also decide to raise funding through sponsored more research
into a given assumed uncertain health, or environmental hazard.
This actually includes no action, which could seem a little bit counterintuitive.
Because if you have a principle that says that you should not use scientific
uncertainty as an excuse for postponing action, it seems counterintuitive
that one of the action points can actually be to decide not to act.
But that's actually perfectly explainable.
Because as long as you have a deliberate process or
dialogue where you eventually decide that
the best course of action is actually not to take action, I would argue or we
would argue that that's in line with the essence of the Precautionary Principle.
Of course, as more knowledge builds, then you cannot keep
referring to the Precautionary Principle as an argument for taking no action.
But, This is a debated point and
it's still up in the air whether you can actually argue with
convincingly that no action falls under the remits of the precautionary principle.
It's also important to note that it's only policy makers and regulatory
decision-makers that have the legitimacy to apply the precautionary principle.
It's not international agencies such as
the International Agency of Research on Cancer.
It's not the World Health Organization, etc.
It's not industry.
It's not businesses.
It's not private companies and it's not academic researchers.
It's only policy makers and regulatory decision-makers that have the legal,
the democratic authority to apply the precautionary principle.
So if you see a scientific evaluation of a hazard where the scientists claim
that they have used the precautionary principle in their evaluation,
you know that, that's not the right way to use the precaution of principle.
Because you cannot use the precaution of principle in making scientific
evaluations of data and information on a given hazard.
The precautionary principle is a very sometimes considered
controversial principle.
It includes a number of different elements and
draws boundaries to ethics, raises judiciary questions.
It raises questions about how we use science and interpret science.
It raises economic questions and there's also a number of social,
cultural aspect that can be associated or
at least infringe on the application of the precautionary principle.
Some of the ethical questions that can be raised when considering
the application of the cautionary principle are who benefits and
who bears the risks of a given technology, a given risk?
What about equity?
Is there an equal distribution of who bears the risk of a given uncertain
technology or risk versus who actually benefits from them?
Those are questions that have to somehow be addressed when
considering the application of the precautionary principle.
There's also a number of judiciary questions that might be relevant to ask.
When you know that the risks are uncertain,
how do you decide on which precautionary measures which actions to take?
When you don't really know how big or small the risk is,
it's really hard to decide what the proportional regulatory measure to
take is actually the most relevant.
When it comes to science, there's a lot of discussion about what levels of cause and
effect relationship we should actually expect for a given risk.
What so to speak triggers the application of the precautionary principle?
Because when we look at pretty much every technology, every risk that we know of,
there will always be some degree of scientific uncertainty associated with it
and that does not necessarily mean that we want to apply the precautionary
principle on every single risk in every single technology.
So, there's a lot of discussion about what levels of cause and effect do we
actually require when it comes to applying the precautionary principle?
When it comes to economics as you might remember some of the principles,
some of versions of the precautionary principle that were written into
international treaties and protocols and etc.
They specifically state that the states should use the principle
according to their capabilities and
that brings in the whole element, and the discussion of economics.
For instance, when do environmental and health concerns,
when do they outweigh economic considerations?
Can everything, for instance, be reduced to monetary values or is there
other aspects that we need to include when we consider state's capabilities?
And then finally, the precautionary principle has historically raised a number
of social cultural issues as well.
There's the whole discussion about whether we should have
free markets versus state government where some argue that
the precautionary principle provides too much regulatory authority and
power to the state versus having free market regulate itself.
And then finally, there's also a number of cultural differences
in how we perceive different risks and those often lead to
controversies between various states, especially when one state
has decided to use the precautionary principle to ban a product.
That is manufactured in another state.
In 2001, the European Commission decided to publish what is known
as the communication under precautionary principle in an attempt to outline
how the European Commission intended to apply the precautionary principle.
Or maybe I should correct myself a little bit,
define the procedures by which the European Commission would decide when and
how to use the precautionary principle.
It states that the precautionary principle only applies,
if available scientific information is either inconclusive or it's uncertain.
And if there's a reasonable grounds for concern that potentially
dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or
plant health may be inconsistent with the chosen level of protection.
Of course, this raises a number of new questions.
Because for instance, what does it mean that the available scientific
information is inconclusive or uncertain?
What does reasonable grounds of concern mean?
And then finally, what is the chosen level of protection?
The communication from the European Commission on how it intends to apply
the precautionary principle does not further define these key elements.
The communication furthermore assess that risk assessment
is not something where the precautionary principle belongs.
The precautionary principle according to the communication from the commission
emerge to the risk management process.
Reaffirming what I stated earlier that let scientific experts
cannot use the precautionary principle in their evaluation.
It's only policy makers and
regulatory decision-makers that are involved in the risk management processes.
It furthermore states that the protection of health and
environment should be given more weight than economic considerations.
However, it does not specify how much more weight and
how this should be determined in practice.
In 1999, the Danish government decided to ban two antibiotics as growth promoters.
This subsequently led to a law suit
that was decided by the European Court of Justice.
The reason why I mention this, here, is because the outcome of this court case and
the decision by the court, has had a profound influence on our understanding
about when and how to apply the precautionary principle.
Therefore, I'm going to give you a few backgrounders on this specific cold case.
So what happened was, that the Danish Environmental Minister decided to
ban 2 animal growth promoters with reference to the Precautionary Principle.
The Danish Veterinary Institute had published 3 studies on which the decision
was based.
The first study had shown that animals developed antibiotics resistant
when exposed to proof promoters.
The second study showed that these
resistant bacteria could be transferred through human food.
And finally, they published a study where they showed that humans could be infected
by these resistant bacteria from contaminated food.
So the Danish concern was that there might be a transfer of
antibiotic resistant bacteria from animals to humans.
Antibiotic resistant bacteria is an increasing problem
in the treatment of humans.
The 2 banned growth promoters,
they were very similar to the most used antibiotics in human treatments.
And hence, there might be a possibility that you
will have a development of what is known as cross-resistence, and that's what
the Danish government wanted to avoid with reference to the Precautionary Principle.
The producers of the two growth promoters, they sued the Danish government.
Arguing that European Member States,
such as Denmark, cannot use the Precautionary Principle.
They argued that it's only the European Commission that can actually
use the Precautionary Principle.
They argued that the Danes had done an improper risk assessment.
That they had done an improper or no social-economic analysis and
that the Danish had ignored animal welfare benefit.
The court rule in favor of Denmark,
dismissing this claims, although not completely.
But they stated and specified was,
that it is correct, Member States cannot use the Precautionary Principle.
It's only the European Council that is able to do that.
They argued that, yes, Denmark had provided an incomplete risk assessment,
but that's okay, given the fact that we have scientific uncertainty.
But that's why the Danes had made reference to the Precautionary Principle.
And finally, they argued that the socio-economic impacts were considered by
Denmark and that the extent to which they had considered it was good enough.
So, what do we now know about he conditions for
applying the precautionary principle?
First, we know that you need to have a scientific risk assessment
that's as complete as possible.
It has to be based on excellent independency and transparency, and
that's referring to the experts that complete the risk assessment,
they have to be independent, they have to be excellent, and
they have to perform the risk assessment in a transparent manner.
We also know that the general principles of risk management, they still apply,
despite the fact that you're making reference to the Precautionary Principle.
This means, that you have to have socioeconomic
considerations taken into account.
You have to consider proportionality.
And you have to have reviews of the decision that you've made,
which makes a lot of sense.
So, if we look at the process by which this might happen,
the decision to apply the Precautionary Principle, what we have is
a scientific risk assessment that is inconclusive and uncertain.
We have a socio-economic analysis of some form and
that goes into a decision to the apply the Precautionary Principle.
Inside this black box, that's where the actual decision to apply
the Precautionary Principle is made at this point in time.
What you have out here is a sphere where the court
says that that's the sphere of regulatory discretion, meaning,
that the decisions to apply the Precautionary Principle
is within the boundaries of the sphere of regulatory discretion.
At the moment, we do not quite know what happens inside this black box,
what actually triggers the precautionary principle, first place.
And second, what actually determines which kinds of regulatory action
Is considered appropriate?
All we know is that out of the box comes a proportional regulatory decision.
But, as I've said, we don't know quite what goes on in the box.
There's been a lot of critique of the European Commission's communication
on the precautionary principle.
First of all, it's been criticized because it's unclear when it comes to
what actually triggers the application of the precautionary principle.
Who and when decides what the level of protection should be?
How does one determine what the proportional measures are when the risk
itself is uncertain and unclear?
Which non-economic factors should be included in
the socioeconomic evaluation or analysis?
And, how do we actually give more weight to environment and
health compared to just economic considerations.
Furthermore, the communication has been criticized for
its very narrow definition of scientific uncertainty.
As you might remember, Donald Rumsfeld, the former US Secretary of Defense,
very nicely stated that there's many different kinds of uncertainty.
But the European Commission's communication of
the Precautionary Principle, only defines scientific uncertainty as
something that's associated with the scientific method, namely,
the variable chosen, the measurements made.
And it completely ignores the indeterminacy and ignorance, the known
unknowns, or the unknown unknowns, as Donald Rumsfeld has termed them.
The Precautionary Principle has not only been discussed heavily in Europe,
it's been discussed pretty much in all parts of the industrialized world.
In the U.S., especially, there's been an attempt to
develop the Precautionary Principle into an overarching
guiding principle rather than a strict regulatory principle.
In this approach by various U.S. academics,
the Precautionary Principle is not just considered part of risk management,
which is the approach that the European Commission has taken.
Instead, the overall precaution is considered
as being something that pervades all aspects of risk analysis.
It means, that it has to be taken into consideration.
In the risk assessment procedures in regards to all the different choices
that scientists make when they evaluate a given risk that have nothing to
do with being necessarily overly objective, or vice versa.
The argument is that we need to change the two fundamental pillows
in how we go about making decisions with reference to the question of principle.
First we need to change the questions that we ask and
second, we need to change the burden of proof.
So the current focus is, for
instance, in determining how safe, is safe enough.
And what levels of risk are acceptable.
What has been argued by US academics is
that we should apply an overarching principle instead.
Which raises questions such as how much contamination can actually be avoided?
What are the alternatives to this activity?
And do we even need this activity in the first place?
By changing the questions that we ask, the precautionary principle becomes a lot more
proactive, focuses on prevention rather than pollution control and remediation.
And in that sense, it changes completely the whole mindset that we have when it
comes to an environmental management of uncertain risks and technologies.
The second key element of the overarching precautionary principle is that it
changes the burden of having to show that something is risky versus safe.
At the moment, the substances for instance, technologies an activities
are very often presumed to be safe until proven that they're not safe.
Until they are proven hazardous by regulatory decision makers very often.
But the overarching precautionary principle argues is
that the responsibility of demonstrating that's safety and
preventing harm should actually fall on the businesses and companies,
etc, the ones that actually undertake the potentially harmful activities.
It's important to realize that the overarching precautionary principle
that is being suggested by US Academics is meant to be a guidance.
It's not meant to be a regulatory hammer that takes
the energy out of all kinds of new innovations.
The precautionary principle is seen as a process
by which you identify the least hazardous alternative.
And in that sense, it places a speed bump on science and technology.
It's not meant to put a full stop on science and technology.
But it asks people to take a step back, reflect for a while,
is this the most appropriate alternative for meeting this societal needs.
It calls for more rigorous and
honest science in the way that we draw evidence from multiple disciplines, and
it calls for clarity in regards to scientific uncertainty.
Instead of hiding scientific uncertainty, which is very often perceived as
a weakness that undermines the credibility of science, scientific uncertainty
is actually perceived as something that we need to bring upfront and discuss openly.
Risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis specifically proceed as tools that
can inform processes rather than make them decisions themselves and
we need to have more comparative analysis rather than to quantify acceptable risks.
Thank you very much for your attention
[MUSIC]
Ознакомьтесь с нашим каталогом
Присоединяйтесь бесплатно и получайте персонализированные рекомендации, обновления и предложения.
Coursera делает лучшее в мире образование доступным каждому, предлагая онлайн-курсы от ведущих университетов и организаций.
© Coursera Inc., 2018 Все права защищены.
