THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE PROJECT
ONLINE CONSULTATION
| E-Conference Homepage | Contents |
| Next comment | Previous comment | Previous comment in thread |
From: Anil K Gupta
Affiliation: Indian Institute of Management, Vastrapur, Ahmenabad
Remote Name: faunaand-14.dsl1.easynet.co.uk
Time: 12:30:05 +0100
There is never a case of no action. In the context of dynamic environment, no action is also an action, with its attendant consequences. One has to stress this point because in the wake of uncertainty, various forces impinging on ecosystem integrity, such as invasive species or movement of pesticide residues in the ecological change, continue to act. In the struggle between risk and uncertainty, it seems we are more deferential to uncertainty. Public bureaucracies point that to be a convenient way of disowning responsibility. Many times, the problem of risks are converted into uncertainty for this very reason. Precautionary principle should generate responsibility instead of inertia. Many countries or regional bodies may claim not to have much information about the consequences of a particular biological change and at the same time, may not try to generate that information. In such a situation, the precautionary principle is really being abused. A good example is large scale diffusion of Bt. Cotton in Gujarat in which farmers have made process with all kinds of varieties. No systematic study has yet been taken up to understand its implication on soil and other organisms. And yet the regulatory agencies would not permit some varieties performing much better than the released varieties to be formally allowed to be cultivated. In such a case, the principle of uncertainty comes under strain because farmers need more science based information but are forced to take decisions, ostensibly in illegal environment, but at a massive scale. The courts today pass judgments on these matters with limited information and without empirical tests. For example, whether limited amount of money should be used to grow a green corridor around Taj Mahal, to move small scale industries polluting the environment out of the city, or convert automobiles and two wheelers from petrol or diesel to CNG or take any other measure is decided on the basis of limited information and without proper investigation. Political and social considerations replace science based decision. Precautionary principle can sometimes become a tool in the hands of political interest. The principle five therefore, has a special merit. The folkloric knowledge and traditional institutions provide a very good example of how societies have tried to institutionalize precautionary principle in the context of guideline seven. For instance, the origin of most rivers are considered holy places almost all around the world. It is well known that small changes in the ecological systems at the mouth of the rivers could have very large scale consequences downstream. Similarly, those rules which societies have evolved over a long period of time in favour of conservation must be given special importance while making large scale changes in the resource use practices. The entrepreneurship is the heart of economic development. Every entrepreneur makes decisions without sufficient information. In several cases, these decisions turn out to be right and therefore, the engine of economic growth continues to run. But, the internalization of the externalities does not take place at the same pace at which the externalities are generated and hence, the pressure for precautionary principle. When Indian government imported large scale seed of Mexican wheat during 1966-67 subsequent to US sanctions, it took a very major risk. This heralded the green revolution. Many problems came along with it. Philaris miner, a weed was introduced which became a major nuisance requiring a huge quantity of herbicide to control it. Likewise, there were several other consequences. But the most important consequence was that the starvation deaths became almost a matter of past. Every society has to apply precautionary principle keeping in mind the survival options of the most disadvantaged people. If they don’t survive, their ability to use better environment if at all is obviously compromised. While their death may be a certainty, the better environment may be an uncertainty. We have to evaluate the cost of committing type one and type two error. Sometimes, the cost of type two error may be much higher than the type one error. The ethical aspects of precautionary principle require a thoughtful cultural specific approach which pays attention to muddling through process. How much can one muddle through can indeed be a function of contemporary balance of different ethical standpoints. The plimsol line may be defined by drawing the boundaries of those who are on the edge of survival and those who have sufficient surplus to take care of various risks. I propose therefore, the more historical and value based approach to application of precautionary principle for conservation of biodiversity. The literature does not seem to draw much from the historical actions which involve similar trade off.
[_borders/disc6_aftr.htm]