The Precautionary Principle/Approach

The precautionary approach was first formalized as a principle in an international treaty within the World Charter for Nature, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1982, and since that time has been expressed in numerous international texts¹ and agreements on environmental policy. In relation to biodiversity, the Precautionary Principle is listed as Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which states that "In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach should 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." The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety reaffirms the precautionary approach contained in Principle 15. Articles 10 and 11 of the Protocol state "Lack of scientific certainty due to insufficient relevant scientific information and knowledge regarding the extent of the potential adverse effects of a living modified organism on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in the Party of import, taking also into account risks to human health, shall not prevent that Party from taking a decision, as appropriate, with regard to the import of the living modified organism."

Because the Precautionary Principle is essentially a political axiom, open to various interpretations, it has been expressed and implemented by different parties in forms ranging from "weak" (i.e. lack of full certainty is not a justification for preventing an action that might be harmful) to "strong" (i.e. take no action unless you are certain it will do no harm). The Precautionary Principle has received its greatest criticism as a disguised trade barrier when implemented in the "strong form", such as in cases where there is neither credible theoretical nor empirical evidence establishing the possibility of harm.

In an effort to clarify its application within the European Community, the EC Commission issued a communiqué describing guidelines² for using the Precautionary Principle in a politically transparent manner. Briefly summarized, these guidelines stressed:

• Proportionality "Measures...must not be disproportionate to the desired level of protection and must not aim at zero risk"


• Nondiscrimination "Comparable situations should not be treated differently and... different situations should not be treated in the same way, unless there are objective grounds for doing so."


• Consistency "Measures...should be comparable in nature and scope with measures already taken in equivalent areas in which all the scientific data are available."


• Examination of the benefits and costs of action or lack of action "This examination should include an economic cost/benefit analysis when this is appropriate and feasible. However, other analysis methods...may also be relevant"


• Examination of scientific developments "The measures must be of a provisional nature pending the availability of more reliable scientific data"... "Scientific research shall be continued with a view to obtaining more complete data."

Adoption of a precautious approach to genetically engineered crop approvals can be seen to be prudent, particularly in countries that have limited scientific knowledge and experience with genetically engineered organisms. However, this application may actually contribute to continued deficits in this regard. Overly precautious regulations and policies in many countries have resulted in either moratoria or severe restrictions on the research, including small scale field trials of genetically engineered crops, that is essential if scientists within these countries are to gain the experience needed to be able to conduct risk assessments or interpret those performed by other parties.³
 
Chapter footnotes

1. Ministerial Declaration of the Second International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea (1987) states that "in order to protect the North Sea from possibly damaging effects of the most dangerous substances, a precautionary approach is necessary which may require action to control inputs of such substances even before a causal link has been established by absolutely clear scientific evidence".
   Ministerial Declaration at the Third International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea (1990) further stated that "the participants … will continue to apply the precautionary principle, that is to take action to avoid potentially damaging impacts of substances that are persistent, toxic and liable to bioaccumulate even where there is no scientific evidence to prove a causal link between emissions and effects".


2. EC (2000). Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, 26 January 2000. COM(2000) 1.


3. "The problem of how to regulate the development, importation, and release of GMOs in the face of scientific uncertainty cannot be effectively addressed by the mere integration of the precautionary principle in national biosafety measures. Countries can only effectively apply or invoke the precautionary principle as their scientific knowledge and information on GMOs grows. In other words, as their knowledge and information grow they are able to determine the nature and level of scientific uncertainty. Those that do not invest in scientific inquiry are likely to misuse the precautionary principle to unduly control or restrain technological change. Implementation of precautionary policies should therefore focus on promoting scientific research and technological learning." Mugabe, J. (2000). Precautionary policies and biotechnology in Africa. Centre for International Development, Harvard University, Boston.