Precautionary Principle Essay ⋆ Environment Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

This Precautionary Principle Essay example is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic, please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.

The precau tionary principle is a response to uncertainties over potentially harmful impacts to humans and the environment. The precautionary principle can be described in two ways. First, it specifies that it is better to avoid a set of actions if they contain potential serious or irreversible negative outcomes. In a more active form, taking a precautionary approach may necessitate action to avoid the potential negative consequences of delay or inaction.

A precautionary approach is used to manage potentially harmful actions (e.g., illegal hunting), processes (e.g., nuclear proliferation), products (e.g., asbestos) and technologies (e.g., genetically modified organisms). The precautionary principle can be implemented to secure personal well-being in the face of external threats or may be applied altruistically in order to safeguard resources and prevent potential harm to others, including future generations. It is this condition-the difficult task of projecting risks and benefits into the future in order to make informed decisions today-that often draws the ire of antiprecautionary advocates.

The precise origins of the precautionary principle are difficult to pin down, especially in light of the principle’s contemporary widespread appeal and seemingly rational “look before you leap” logic (although there are strong counter-sentiments to be addressed below). The term can be traced to the German implementation of the foresight principle, or Vorsorgeprinzip, in environmental law during the 1970s. The 1982 World Charter for Nature was one of the first international endorsements of the precautionary principle. In 1992, Article 130r of the Maastricht Treaty noted that newly formed European Union (EU) environmental policies would 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.”

Managing complex health and environmental affairs in the face of scientific uncertainties has rendered the precautionary principle a common governance axiom. In this context, the precautionary principle suggests that anticipatory action to prevent possible negative outcomes on human health and the environment is worthwhile despite a lack of clear evidence on the risks or the benefits of alternative measures. This is different from “burden of proof” protocols guiding many environmental management decisions where “business as usual” tactics often persist unless there is clear evidence supporting an alternative development path. In the face of scientific uncertainty over potential harms, a “better safe than sorry” approach is usually established by those following precautionary principles.

Precautionary decisions in the policy arena are oftentimes supported by a cost–benefit analysis to measure the risks and rewards of action in monetary, social, and ecological terms. Under this analysis, nonmitigating and mitigating action costs, opportunity costs (or the cost of lost opportunities as a result of a particular chosen course of action), and the option value of putting off action to a later date are all assessed in an effort to find the most efficient path forward.

In the modern-day policy making climate, the decision to apply precautionary principles cannot be reduced merely to an objective debate over the scientific certainty of future events. Instead, decisions involving the management of environmental resources and the well-being of future generations are heavily influenced by politics. Not only is scientific evidence interpreted differently by various interest groups, it is also produced in various capacities to support political ends.

Two notable examples illustrate the use of the precautionary principle. The Montreal and Kyoto Protocols, though different in eventual outcomes, have become widely accepted through the application of precautionary principles. Both the Montreal Protocol, which bans the production of ozone depleting substances, and the Kyoto Protocol, which reduces levels of greenhouse gas emissions, concern themselves with environmental systems that influence a global array of individuals and communities. While the Montreal Protocol is ratified by the major economic powers and exhibits widespread adherence, the Kyoto Protocol lacks the same level of commitment from developed nations, most notably the United States. Nevertheless, the commitment by nations to sign and in some cases ratify these international treaties-especially in the face of significant uncertainties over the accuracy of complex, long-term climate and upper-level atmospheric models-points to the tractability of the precautionary principle in the global policy arena.

Other international protocols, such as the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, signal, at least rhetorically, a commitment to precautionary global environmental governance. Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration specifically states: 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.

Though the precautionary principle has garnered much support over the past 15 years, a number of criticisms remain. The most vocal concerns come from antiprotectionists, supporters of technological innovation, and libertarians advocating personal freedom. Free trade advocates such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) argue that definitive proof should be required before potential health and environmental hazards precipitate the formation of barriers to trade.

One example is the WTO’s position that the EU’s six-year moratorium on genetically modified (GM) food imports from the United States is illegal. The EU ban, premised on the uncertain health effects of GM foods, was finally lifted in 2004 under pressure from the WTO to eliminate protectionist economic policies.

Others argue that technological innovation is inhibited by the precautionary principle. A riskaverse society denies the potential for technological developments that could potentially help, not harm, society. In this context, these groups often refer to once controversial, now widely accepted drugs and medical procedures found in the health care industry. Others are particularly concerned with a loss of personal freedom to innovate arising under strict adherence to the precautionary principle. These critics instead follow “proactionary” principles. Coined in 2004 by Natasha Vita-More, the proactionary principle suggests that many of history’s great technological achievements were not well understood at the time of their discovery.

Bibliography:

Michael Crichton, State of Fear (HarperCollins, 2004);
Indur Goklany, The Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal (Cato Institute, 2001);
Poul Harremoës, The Precautionary Principle in the 20th Century: Late Lessons from Early Warnings (Earthscan, 2002);
Timothy O’Riordan and James Cameron, Interpreting the Precautionary Principle (Earthscan, 1994);
Carolyn Raffensperger and Joel Tickner, Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle (Island Press, 1999).