Precautionary Principle

Achieving sustainable development relies on the proportionate exercise of the precautionary principle in the regulation of risks. The basic sentiment of the precautionary principle (hereafter, the Principle) is “better a little caution than a great regret” or “better safe than sorry.” The Principle is a regulatory mechanism that enables institutions and decision makers to take into account scientific uncertainty and potential risks of activities before a causal link has been established. In this way, the Principle is a proactive tool used to prevent possibly negative effects on human health and the environment. Embedded in the Principle are controversial issues such as science, perceptions of risk, public involvement, cost and benefits, moral values, and policy making. All of these should be considered within the regulation of risk and are all dependent upon the institutional and administrative arrangements of the state. While the Principle originates as a means of preventing potential irreversible environmental harm from activities, substances, new technologies, and innovations, it is capable of much broader application. In fact, it is in the area of food safety and health where the precautionary principle appears to have found a firmer footing in regulatory decision making.

Precaution is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as a mode of action where caution exercised beforehand provides against mischief, otherwise viewed as “prudent foresight.” However, over the past few decades, precaution has become a matter of legal, scientific, political, economic, philosophical, and academic debate. The Vorsorgeprinzip, or Principle of Foresight, established in German environmental law in the 1970s, was the precursor to the precautionary principle. Its objective was to balance the avoidance of environmental damage against economic viability.

The 1987 Ministerial Declaration of the Second International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea was the first international agreement introducing a precautionary approach toward the protection of the North Sea from possibly damaging effects of dangerous substances. In the same year, the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (the OSPAR Convention) considered the use of the Principle in circumstances where there is no conclusive evidence of a causal relationship between inputs and effects. Possibly the most commonly used definition of the Principle is that found under Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development in which states set out their collective intention to apply the precautionary approach according to their capabilities in order to protect the environment. Principle 15 provides: “[w]here 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.” Other international conventions integrating the Principle include the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Australia was one of the first countries in the world to adopt the Principle as part of its national environmental policy as well as within many of its environmental statutes. In the United States, the Principle has a short history. The 1998 Wingspread conference called for government, corporations, communities, and scientists to implement the Principle in making decisions. Nevertheless, it wasn't until 2003 that a U.S. government body (the City and County of San Francisco) established the Principle as the basis for all environmental policy in its jurisdiction.

...