Bellagio and Precautionary Principle

8/7/2019 Bellagio and Precautionary Principle

1/27

H. W. T. Mapoma, MSc, MES


2/27


3/27

` Background` In 1987, the WCED (Brundtland Commission) called for the

development ofnew ways to measure and assess progress towardsustainable development.

` This call has been subsequently echoed in Agenda 21 of the 1992Earth Summit and through activities that range from local to global in

scale.` In response, significant efforts to assess performance have been made

by corporations, non-government organizations, academics,communities, nations, and international organizations.

` In November 1996, an international group of measurement practitionersand researchers from five continents came together at the RockefellerFoundations Study and Conference Center in Bellagio, Italy to reviewprogress to date and to synthesize insights from practical ongoingefforts.

` The attached principles resulted and were unanimously endorsed.


4/27

` These principles serve as guidelines for the whole of

the assessment process including the choice and

design of indicators, their interpretation and

communication of the result.

` They are interrelated and should be applied as a

complete set.

` They are intended for use in starting and improving

assessment activities of community groups, non-

government organizations, corporations, nationalgovernments, and international institutions.


5/27

` These principles deal with four aspects of assessingprogress toward sustainable development.

` Principle 1 deals with the starting point of any assessment -establishing a vision of sustainable development and cleargoals that provide a practical definition of that vision in

terms that are meaningful for the decision-making unit inquestion.

` Principles 2 through 5 deal with the content of anyassessment and the need to merge a sense of the overallsystem with a practical focus on current priority issues.

` Principles 6 through 8 deal with key issues of the processof assessment,

` while Principles 9 and 10 deal with the necessity forestablishing a continuing capacity for assessment.


6/27

1. GUIDING VISION AND GOALSAssessment of progress toward sustainable development should:

` be guided by a clear vision of sustainable development and goals that

define that vision

2. HOLISTIC PERSPECTIVE

Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should:` include review of the whole system as well as its parts

` consider the well-being of social, ecological, and economic sub-

systems, their state as well as the direction and rate of change of that

state, of their component parts, and the interaction between parts

` consider both positive andnegative consequences of human activity,in a way that reflects the costs and benefits for human and ecological

systems, in monetary andnon-monetary terms


7/27

3. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTSAssessment of progress toward sustainable development should:` consider equity anddisparity within the current population and between

present and future generations, dealing with such concerns as resourceuse, over-consumption and poverty, human rights, and access toservices, as appropriate

` consider the ecological conditions on which life depends` consider economic development and other, non-market activities that

contribute to human/social well-being

4. ADEQUATE SCOPE

Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should:` adopt a time horizon long enough to capture both human and

ecosystem time scales thus responding to needs of future generations

as well as those current to short term decision-making` define the space of study large enough to include not only local but also

long distance impacts on people and ecosystems` build on historic and current conditions to anticipate future conditions -

where we want to go, where we could go


8/27

5. PRACTICAL FOCUSAssessment of progress toward sustainable development should be

based on:` an explicit set of categories or an organizing framework that links vision

and goals to indicators and assessment criteria` a limitednumber of key issues for analysis

` a limitednumber of indicators or indicator combinations to provide aclearer signal of progress

` standardizing measurement wherever possible to permit comparison` comparing indicator values to targets, reference values, ranges,

thresholds, ordirection of trends, as appropriate6. OPENNESS

Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should:

` make the methods anddata that are used accessible to all` make explicit all judgments, assumptions, and uncertainties indata and

interpretations


9/27

7. EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should:` be designed to address the needs of the audience and set of users

` draw from indicators and other tools that are stimulating and serve toengage decision-makers

` aim, from the outset, for simplicity in structure and use of clear andplain language

8. BROAD PARTICIPATION

Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should:` obtain broad representation of key grass-roots, professional, technical

and social groups, including youth, women, and indigenous people - toensure recognition ofdiverse and changing values

` ensure the participation ofdecision-makers to secure a firm link toadopted policies and resulting action


10/27

9. ONGOING ASSESSMENTAssessment of progress toward sustainable development should:` develop a capacity for repeated measurement to determine trends

` be iterative, adaptive, and responsive to change and uncertaintybecause systems are complex and change frequently

` adjust goals, frameworks, and indicators as new insights are gained`

promote development of collective learning and feedback to decision-making10. INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY

Continuity of assessing progress toward sustainable development shouldbe assured by:

` clearly assigning responsibility and providing ongoing support in thedecision-making process

` providing institutional capacity fordata collection, maintenance, anddocumentation

` supporting development of local assessment capacity


11/27


12/27

` A moral and political principleIf an action or policy might cause severe orirreversible harm to the public, in the absence of ascientific consensus that harm wouldnot ensue, theburden of proof falls on those who would advocatetaking the action

` Aims to promote guidance for protecting public healthand the environment in the face of uncertainty risk, Stating that absence of full scientific certainty shall not be used

as a reason to postpone measures where there is a risk ofserious or irreversible harm to public or the environment.


13/27

Other Formulations of PP` 1998 Wingspread Statement: "When an activity raises threats of

harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measuresshould be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are notfully established scientifically."

` The February 2, 2000 European Commission Communication: "Theprecautionary principle applies where scientific evidence is

insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain and preliminary scientificevaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concernthat the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human,animal or plant health may be inconsistent with the high level ofprotection chosen by the EU".

` The January 29, 2000 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety says: "Lackof scientific certainty due to insufficient relevant scientific information. . . shall not prevent the Party of import, in order to avoid orminimize such potential adverse effects, from taking a decision, asappropriate, with regard to the import of the living modified organismin question."


14/27

` PP most often applied in the context of the impact of human actionson the environment and human health, as both involve complexsystems where the consequences of actions may be unpredictable.

` As applied to environmental policy, PP stipulates that for practicessuch as the release of radiation or toxins or massive deforestationthe burden of proof lies with the advocates.

` Concerning potential risks to public health, examples of cases inwhich PP has been advocated (but not always accepted) are: thecommercialization of genetically modified foods, the use of growthhormones in cattle raising, measures to prevent the "mad cow"disease, health claims linked to phthalates in PVC toys, amongmany others.

` important element of PP is that its most meaningful applications

pertain to those that are potentially irreversible, e.g. wherebiodiversity may be reduced. With respect to bans on substanceslike mercury in thermometers, freon in refrigeration, or even carbondioxide exhaust from automobile engines and power plants, itimplies:


15/27

` "... a willingness to take action in advance ofscientific proof or evidence of the need for theproposed action on the grounds that furtherdelaywill prove ultimately most costly to society andnature, and, in the longer term, selfish and unfair tofuture generations."

` concept includes ethical responsibilities towardsmaintaining the integrity ofnatural systems, and thefallibility of human understanding. Someenvironmental commentators take a more stringentinterpretation of the precautionary principle, statingthat proponents of a new potentially harmful

technology must show the new technology iswithout major harm before the new technology isused


16/27

` application of PP is hampered by the wide range of interpretations

placed on it.

` One study identified 14 different formulations of the principle in

treaties andnontreaty declarations.


17/27

R.B. Stewart (2002) reduced PP to four basic versions:`

Non-Preclusion PP - scientific uncertainty shouldnotautomatically preclude regulation of activities that pose apotential risk of significant harm .

` Margin of Safety PP - Regulatory controls should incorporatea margin of safety; activities should be limited below the levelat which no adverse effect has been observed or predicted.

` BAT PP -Activities that present an uncertain potential forsignificant harm should be subject to best technologyavailable requirements to minimize the risk of harm unless theproponent of the activity shows that they present noappreciable risk of harm.

` Prohibitory PP -Activities that present an uncertain potential

for significant harm should be prohibited unless the proponentof the activity shows that it presents no appreciable risk ofharm.


18/27

Decisions on how to apply the principle

`Analysis may use CBA to factor in both the

opportunity cost ofnot acting, and the option

value of waiting for further information beforeacting

` Irreducible conflicts betweendifferent interests

(politics) makes it difficult to apply the principle

in modern policy-making


19/27

ApplicationsofPPIn the application of the precautionary principle, public and private

decisions should be guided by:

1. Careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or

irreversible damage to the environment, and

2. an assessment of the risk- weighted consequences of variousoptions.

The application of the precautionary principle and the concomitant

need to take precautionary measures is triggered by the satisfaction

of two conditions precedent:` A threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage and

` Scientific uncertainty as to the environmental damage.


20/27

A. International agreements anddeclarations

` World Charter for Nature (UNGA adopted 1982)` Montreal Protocol (implemented 1987)` Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992

signed at UNCED)` EC (2 Feb 2000) issued a communication on PP and adopted

a procedure for its application

B. PP applied to Environment/ Health1. Global warming or other sudden climate change2. Extinction of species` Threat to biodiversity (e.g., GMO introduction)` Threats to public health, due to new diseases and

techniques (e.g., AIDS transmitted thru blood transfusion)

3. Persistent or acute pollution (endocrine disruptors)4. Food safety (e.g., Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease)5. Othernew biosafety issues (e.g., artificial life, new

molecules)


21/27

` Often applied to biological fields because changescannot be easily contained and have the potential ofbeing global.

` Less relevance to contained field e.g. aeronautics (few

people undergoing risk have given informed consent)Analysis of PP concerning nanotechnology

` Strict form and active form Strict form requires inaction when action might pose a risk

Active form choosing less risky alternatives when they are

available, and taking responsibility for potential risk


22/27

C. Changes of law Concerning Societal Norms

` Associate Justice Martha Sosman's dissent in Goodridge v. Department ofPublic Health, the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusettsthat mandated legalization of same sex marriage, is an example of the PPas applied by analogy to changes in culturally significant social policy.

` She describes the myriad societal structures that rest on the institution ofmarriage, and points out the uncertainty of how they will be affected by thisre-definition.

` disagreement of the majority illustrates the difficulty of reaching agreementon the value of competing perspectives.

` Although the Goodridge case involved interpreting the state constitution, thesubstantive canon in Anglo-American jurisprudence that derogations offundamental societal values should be narrowly construed as analogous tothe PP favoring a statutory interpretation that comports with rather thandamages the common law and establishednorms. See, for example, Holy

Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892).


23/27

D. Resource management

` The Traffic Light colourconvention, showing theconcept of Harvest ControlRule (HCR), specifyingwhen a rebuilding plan ismandatory in terms ofprecautionary and limitreference points forspawning biomass andfishing mortality rate.

Several NR like fish stocks are now managed by precautionary approach,thru HCR based upon the PP

figure indicates how the principle is implemented in the cod fisheries mgt by

the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.


24/27

D. Resource management (contd)` In classifying endangered species if there is doubt about an

animal's or plant's exact conservation status, the one that wouldcause the strongest protective measures to be realized should bechosen.

` a species like the Silvery Pigeon that might exist in considerablenumbers and simply be under-recorded or might just as probably be

long extinct is not classified as "data deficient" or "extinct" (whichboth do not require any protective action to be taken), but as"critically endangered" (the conservation status that confers theneed for the strongest protection),

` increasingly rare, but probably not yet endangered Emerald Starlingis classified as "data deficient", because there is urgent need forresearch to clarify its status rather than for conservation action tosave it from extinction


25/27

a. Threshold of Plausibility` The Wingspread Statement version of the PP takes the form

"When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or theenvironment, precautionary measures should be taken even ifsome cause and effect relationships are not fully establishedscientifically".

` Does mankindneed a minimal threshold of scientific certainty orplausibility before undertaking preventative action?

` Normally, no minimal threshold of plausibility is specified as atriggering condition, so that even the slightest indication that aparticular product or activity might possibly produce some harm tohuman health or the environment will suffice to invoke theprinciple.

` And just as oftenno other preventative action is contemplatedthan an outright ban on the incriminated product or activity.


26/27

b. Negative consequences of poor application` some applications, the PP may cause more harm than it

alleviates. because people are more acutely aware ofnegative changes than

they are of positive changes. a technology which brings great advantages may be ruled out by the

PP because of its potential for severe negative impacts, leaving theoverriding positive benefits unrealized.

` The Hazardous Air Pollutant provisions in the 1990 amendmentsto the U.S. Clean Air Act are an example of the PP where theonus is now on showing a listed compound is harmless.

Under this rule no distinction is made between those Hazardous AirPollutants that provide a higher or lower risk and there is a perverse

incentive to use less well studied agents that are not on the existinglist.


27/27

`

Critics of the principle argue that it is impractical, since everyimplementation of a technology carries some risk ofnegativeconsequences.

` Proponents counter that the principle is not an absolute rule, it is aconceptual tool to clarify arguments, and especially an issue of where theburden of proof lies

`

Critics also claim that proponents are sometimes selective in their use ofthe PP applying it for political reasons, rather than scientific reasons. They note that the selective application of principles in government is considered a

fundamental form of injustice ~ selective enforcement is considered an abuse ofpower.

` Proponents counter that acting with insufficient knowledge of risk (e.g.,spreading new lifeforms into the biosphere) can also be socially unfair,costly, anddetrimental when applied to complex environmental choices. They note that the reckless application of technology is a worse abuse of power.

Documents

Bellagio and Precautionary Principle