The Use of the Precautionary Principle in Environmental Conservation - Research Proposal Example

The use of Precautionary Principle in Environmental Conservation s 3 March The use of Precautionary Principle inEnvironmental Conservation Abstract The precautionary principle, also referred to as the precautionary approach has emerged as a widely accepted general principle of environmental law and management especially in the last few decades. The principle serves as an approach to the uncertainty that today’s environment faces in the face of possible human interference and destruction. The principle thus provides for prompt action to avoid grave and irreversible harm to the environment. Whereas the precautionary principle is meant to serve a good and important cause, its acceptance in most parts of the world has been one characterized by opposition and marred by controversy.Precautionary principle is used in various ways with its core concept being its use as a mechanism to counter the widespread presumption by various regulatory bodies in the world today that rule in favour of development or other economic activities on the environment. Implementation of the precautionary approach typically involves a political coupled with a values-based balancing between the interests of natural resource (biodiversity) conservation while also considering other countervailing pressures such as livelihood or economic interests (Cooney, 2004). Introduction The precautionary principle (PP) is primarily described as the basic principle that underlies all environmental policy and which is seen as a fundamental tool that facilitates sustainable development. The principle states that in the event that the environment faces threats that may cause serious or irreversible damage, the absence and unavailability of scientific certainty shall not serve as a reason to postpone cost-saving measures in an attempt to prevent environmental degradation. Through this principle, therefore, a direct opposition is placed towards the dominant regulatory position that facilitates justification of such actions only where scientific proof of harm has been well established and that the costs of the actions fall short of the benefits provided by the regulation. The Precautionary principle first came to the limelight in 1992 in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. It provides direction especially in situations of environmental risk in solving problems that have time ambiguousness and whose danger has a probability of becoming irreversible. In general, the principle is more of oriented towards acting as an anticipatory preventative action that helps to avoid a disastrous outcome(Cooney, 2004). The aim of this paper is to address the meaning of the Precautionary principle, its history, core conceptsand implementation in various parts of the world. The history of the Precautionary Principle (PP) As earlier noted, the precautionary principle first came into popularity following the Rio Declaration in 1992. However, it was in 1996 during the First World Conservation Congress in Montreal that the concept was introduced to the IUCN through a resolution that sought to incorporate the principle in an environmental context. The resolution was adopted by the Congress after the necessary recommendations were provided and brought to the attention of the responsible conventions and secretariats. In the following two years, the principle was explored regarding its implications for the conventional natural resource management. Several workshops were conducted such as in Cape Town, South Africa and also in Cambridge, UK. The Precautionary principle is a conducted as a project of the IUCN and other environmental-related programmes that seek to find out how it can be employed to practically impact on conservation pursuits. The meaning of the precautionary principle with regard to environmental conservation Typically, most societies and jurisdictions have for a long time had a general presumption and orientation towards favouring development and in most cases, at the expense of the environment. The precautionary principle and its application to conservation As noted earlier, most societies and jurisdictions today typically have a general presumption and priority of development over conservation when it comes to handling and utilizing the environment. Under this presumption, most societies rarely consider or are little concerned about impacts of most activities such as fishing, release of pollutants to the environment, building and mining among other activities.All that people generally are concerned about is the “harvests” from these resources without really caring about how much their activities impact or renders uncertain the existence of the same resources in the future. It is the uncertainty about these impacts on the environment that create a rationale for not refraining from these activities that have adverse effects on the environment(Cooney, 2004). However, much has changed in the recent years especially upon a realization that science might not provide all the solutions to the human changes and impacts on the environment. It has become evident to the leadership and the inhabitants of the earth that neither human knowledge nor science can provide a definitive evidence of the harm that faces the environment in advance. It is now known to many that it is close to impractical to intrinsically counter the impacts on time since it would mostly mean that the actions would be late while the impacts might be irreversible and with adverse effects. Precautionary principle, therefore, comes in handy in such cases where a decision is necessary in the event of uncertainty and where an action in favour of environmental protection is the right step to take. In summary, in a case where the uncertainty concerning the intensity of the impacts of an activity, the precautionary principle supports any form of action that can anticipate and avert the imminent environmental harm rather than allowing the activity to proceed to leave irreversible impacts(Cooney, 2004). Formulation of the Precautionary principle for conservation purposes The precautionary principle can be expressed in several contexts formulations such as advocacy, legal, policy and analytical instruments and documents. Whereas these formulations take different aspects, each should at a minimum call for the principle to handle a scientific certainty of environmental harm that is not necessarily a perquisite for taking an action to handle it. If given the full effect, the precautionary principle may lead to prohibition of certain activities that may pose an environmental threat. In such a case, it may require the proponents of the proposed activity to demonstrate and prove that the activity in question is actually safe for implementation on the environment. General formulations of the precautionary principle provide more guidelines that illustrate the variations available. For example, one of the most popular one is the Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration of 1992 on Environment and Development. The principle stated; “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." (Cooney 2004). From these, there are the general guidelines and points to note as regarding formulation process of the precautionary principle; Threats- the precautionary principle only becomes relevant where threats of harm towards the environment exist. The guidance on this formulation parameter is still diminutive especially as it regards the level of evidence, suggestion or indication that is required of this threat. In some cases, science-based risk assessment are used as they are viewed to be a vital step in the application of the precaution. Serious/irreversible damage- this means that the minor and other trivial damage which do not raise enough measure of uncertainty do not count in the formulation of the principle. This, therefore, means that the damage should be irreversible or very serious. Lack of full scientific certainty that makes it not a reason for postponing- under this formulation, it is worth noting that protective measures cannot be postponed for reasons such as poverty reduction priorities or economic cost of the process. Additionally, the scientific uncertainty should not provide a basis for delaying protective action. Cost-effective measures- there should be a clear and logical correlation between the cost of the measure adopted for this process and the benefits accrued from it. This, therefore, demands that the measures employed for the formulation of the precautionary principle should be cost effective. This might call for an assessment of the benefits expected from carrying out the process and the cost implications. Applied by the States in accordance with their capabilities- the formulation of the precautionary approach in certain jurisdiction cannot take place without encompassing various capabilities of that State which typically encompasses governance, economic and even technical capabilities for the necessary moderation of the process(Cooney, 2004). An analysis of this version of the principle will show that the precautionary approach suggested here is relatively “weak” in that the principle does not call for protective measures. On the contrary, another version of the precautionary principle that was used for the purpose of environmental advocacy was formulated in the late 1990s following a meeting in the US between scientists, lawyers, environmental activists and governmental officials among others. It may not be the most popular or influential definition of the principle but it certainly provides a broader perspective and approach to the precaution while also providing a useful counterpoint. The definition given stated; “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof” (Raffensperger&Tickner, 1999). According to this version, precaution remains relevant to environmental harm in general, and thus is not restricted to the “serious and irreversible” harm. Additionally, this version provides a positive duty that envisage the precautionary measures. This version adds a new twist at the end that is characteristic of its definition. Shift of the burden of proof- this part of this version provides the most important way in which the principle is given an operational effect. This means that proponents of the potentially harmful activities are required to demonstrate a proof that such activities are safe and thus worth acceptability. Development of the precautionary principle in environmental policy As earlier mentioned, the precautionary principle was not initially accepted in the biodiversity and the natural resources field and it was not until 1996 that it was recommended for consideration by IUCN. The principle had been incorporated in other soft and hard law fields. The principle has now been incorporated in a variety of environmentally-related fields that include marine fisheries, climate change, pollution control and chemical regulations among others. Today, the precautionary principle is popular in the international scene although it has yet to feature extensively as one of the customary international law. At a national level, the precautionary approach has been long accepted by a majority of the countries especially in the areas of human medicine and public health. It is also slowly gaining acceptability in the environmental protection, human rights and public health among other fields. Biodiversity and common environmental law and policy There have been various multilateral environmental agreements related to wildlife conservation, biodiversity and species conservation that incorporate aspects of the precautionary principle today. However, only a few have yet to involve its specific guidance or operational measures. The following are some of the common global agreements that have incorporated the precautionary principle today. The Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) This is the only global agreement for biodiversity and generally contains a version of the precautionary principle providing some form of guidance on how the “serious or irreversible” harm as it has been mentioned in the Rio Declaration should be interpreted in the context of biodiversity. The precautionary principle has henceforth been used to make important decisions in related work such as work on biosafety, invasive alien species, marine and coastal biodiversity and ecosystem approach among others. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (2000) In this protocol, the precautionary principle was influential in that it provided a point of contention in its negotiation process in relation to the Convention on Biological Diversity. The point of contention primarily lied on the trade of living but genetically modified organisms (LMOs). The protocol asserts on the use of the precautionary approach whereby it provides a basis of enhancing contribution towards development, use, transport and transfer of modified organisms in a manner that can prevent or decrease the risks to the biological diversity or on human health. Invasive alien species The precautionary approach has become a very important part in the policy efforts focussed to address the introduction, spread as well as the eradication process of invasive alien species. These are the species that threaten the rest of the ecosystem and thus guidelines have been formulated largely by the Conventional on biological Diversity to mitigate their influence in the ecosystem. These guidelines may not have a straightforward reference to the principle but its aspects can be seen in the guidelines. CITES and the International Wildlife Trade The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (1972)of both the wild fauna and flora incorporates the precautionary principle in its decision-making and advocacy activities and in its resolutions. The principle is incorporated in the criteria that have been formulated for listing the species in the appendixes of CITES. The precautionary principle is formulated in quite an uncommon way in the context of the CITES since the concept lies in the classification of species and their placement in certain specific appendixes lists. With the different species in each list having been carefully chosen to fit in the respective lists, the “precautionary measures” restrict the transfer of any species from one list to another unless upon consultations. Additionally, CITES adopt very strict measures with respect to any form of wild species trade especially during importation processes. The strict measures act as the precautionary measures especially for wild-caught birds’ importation trade and a general prohibition on the import trade of all species labelled as endangered. Other agreements include regional agreements that govern specific regions based on the agreements decided upon by members. A good example is the European Union. European Union Within the European Union, the precautionary principle is a widely accepted concept that has been very influential over the last few years. Various treaties and agreements in this region have been signed by the member states such as the Maastricht Treaty of European Union that was signed in 1992 and the EC Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats of 1992. In these agreements, the precautionary principle is clearly incorporated in what can be described as the European Unions focus on taking precautionary measures that target to protect the biodiversity and environment at large. An interesting part of the Maastricht Treaty is that it comes with it a consequence on anyone who fails to honour it. The treaty indicates that anyone who damages the environment (polluter) must pay for the damages (Freestone & Hey, 1996). Conclusion The precautionary principle is increasingly growing in popularity and acceptability in the world today as regards the biodiversity protection and conservation. This has led to the principle increasingly getting entrenched into within environmental law and policy in most jurisdictions today. The principle emphasises anticipation, prevention and ultimate mitigation of the uncertain risk that does not provide any definitive scientific evidence. The principle has been phenomenal in countering the widespread presumption in most regulatory systems in the world that favour developments where uncertainty about impacts on the environment exists. From the discussion, it is clear that the precautionary principle in the area of biodiversity conservation and management has yet matured and thus can be described as complex and contentious. Its implementation will, therefore, require a keen consideration in all the areas that have yet to become clear. References Cooney, R. (2004). The Precautionary Principle in Biodiversity Conservation and Natural Resource Management: An issues paper for policy-makers, researchers and practitioners (No. 2). IUCN. Freestone, D. & Hey, E. (1996). The Precautionary Principle and International Law: The Challenge of Implementation, The Hague: Kluwer. Raffensperger, C. and Tickner, J. (1999). Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Washington, DC: Island Press. Read More