Precautionary Principle

Burden of Proof

At present, this principle is applied in policy decisions that are based on risks to the environment. It is seen as a “conservative” assessment championing the rubric of “do no harm.” When organizations seek to harvest natural resources or build new facilities, for instance, there is an inherent impact on the environment. The organization may see this impact as trivial or sufficiently outweighed by potential benefits. Conversely, residents or environmental groups may judge the environmental impact as risky and intolerable. The principle provides a standard framework for structuring public deliberation of such risk issues especially when the consequences of a risk can only be determined over time.

Public debates on risk issues typically focus on scientific evidence that notable harm will or will not occur based on the changes advocated by the organization. In some cases, however, the scientific evidence is conflicting, sparse, or simply not available. In these cases, the precautionary principle asserts that the changes advocated by the organization should not be implemented until better evidence is available. This proposition places the burden of proof on the organization proposing the implementation of new technology, access to resources, or new facilities. Guided by the precautionary principle, burden of proof refers to which party has the responsibility for proving that a proposed change will or will not create unacceptable levels of risk.

If the principle is not implemented, organizations can argue that the burden of proof lies with those opposing the proposed change. From this perspective, those opposing change are obligated to generate conclusive evidence that the harm caused by the proposed action outweighs the benefit. Shifting the burden of proof may appear as a subtle philosophical distinction; however, the impact on communication and public policy is considerable. From the rationale of the precautionary principle, if an organization cannot establish that the changes they seek create a negligible risk to citizens and the environment, the proposed changes should be delayed until sufficient evidence is available.

...