THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE PROJECT
ONLINE CONSULTATION
| E-Conference Homepage | Contents |
| Next comment | Previous comment | Previous comment in thread |
From: Susie Brownlie
Affiliation: UNEP South Africa
Remote Name: faunaand-14.dsl1.easynet.co.uk
Time: 17:30:32 +0100
NOTE: THIS COMMENT WAS RECEIVED AS AN EMAIL AND POSTED BY THE MODERATORS A number of very rushed comments for consideration:
1. I think there needs to be a clear definition of 'biodiversity and biological resources' - e.g does it include ecosystem services? Perhaps should respond to the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Definitions and concepts? So often, biodiversity on its own isn't valued, but when translated into tangible ecosystem Services the picture shifts!
2. I think the desired outcome of 'conservation and management of biodiversity and biological resources' needs to be explicit, at either a global level (e.g. CBD) and/or at country level (particularly in developing countries which may not be striving for 'no net loss' as are most developed countries, in order to have a clear idea of what one's aiming to achieve. Such terms as 'conservation threats' and ''threats to biodiversity and resource management' aren't sufficiently explicit, in my opinion.
3. I think the precautionary principle needs to relate explicitly to the risk and associated penalty of irreversible impact and/or irreplaceable loss of natural capital.
4. I should like to see the potential role of early, positive / proactive, responsive and responsible land use (or project) planning, with consideration of alternatives tied to environmental assessment (even just best available professional opinion) at the earliest possible stage of proposal development, highlighted wrt applying a risk-averse and cautious approach. 5. Surely risk assessment, tied to clear levels of acceptable change (or thresholds or standards) should inform application of the precautionary principle? Hope these few points are of some use!
[_borders/disc6_aftr.htm]