THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE PROJECT
ONLINE CONSULTATION
| E-Conference Homepage | Contents |
| Next comment | Previous comment | Previous comment in thread |
From: Christian Lopez-Silva c.lopez-silva@shef.ac.uk
Affiliation: Sheffield Institute of Biotechnological Law and Ethics
Remote Name: dyn070175.shef.ac.uk
Time: 15:40:26 +0100
The conceptualization and implementation of the precautionary principle (PP) has to take into account the trade dimension. This is nowadays essential in the international dimension of national decision-making. The implementation of the precautionary principle, even if part of the implementation of an international treaty, such as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety or any other Multilateral Environmental Agreement, does not operate in the vacuum. The broad scope of trade system has reached the PP already, since it has undoubtedly influenced the evolutionary conceptualization of the PP. In the interpretation of trade rules in previous disputes it has been decided that the application of the PP, in relation to human health, despite some degree of national leeway to protect vital values, must be scientifically based, provisional and maintained only if additional information is sought and used to reviewed decisions. In addition, only the uncertainty that can be reduced can be taken into account. These are strict and concrete aspects that the implementation of the PP must consider. However, the environmental and social aspects of the PP have not been evaluated fully under trade rules yet and this is crucial. The rules regulating the protection of the environment are more flexible, do not emphasize the science-model, and do not impose the requirements of gap-filling and revision. Precisely on this, there is another trade dispute currently being studied in the WTO, specifically focusing on the role of the PP and the CPB in its environmental aspects. The dispute was brought by the US, Canada and Argentina against the EC’s 5 year de facto moratorium on biotech products. The outcome of the dispute will be fundamental in the area and should be taken into account for the guidelines we were invited to discuss here. Guideline #11 relates only indirectly to these above issue as only addresses clearly the one of review. The issue (requirement) of temporality is not properly explained. They are only addressed insofar they appear to be inherent for an adaptive management tool and that is commendable. However, these issues should be more accurately, as well as separately addressed and specially referenced to the trade requirements if the guidelines are expected to be helpful for national governments in appreciating the wider implications of implementing the PP. They represent key points of reference for the practical application of the PP while at the same time they are the clearest points of tension with the trade system. (The full version of this comment is in a separate comment)
[_borders/disc6_aftr.htm]