the issues

Traditional medicinal and wildlife products, Phnom Penh

A joint initiative of:

This work is supported by the European Union

In order for the precautionary principle to move from an abstract concept to an operational principle in a way that is coherent, effective and equitable, a number of issues need to be carefully examined. These include the following:

(i) environmental risks vs socio-economic and livelihood risks
Applying the precautionary principle in order to minimise environmental risks can conflict with economic, livelihood or development priorities. more...

(ii) risks of action vs risks of inaction
Advocates of precaution are sometimes accused of ignoring risks associated with “precautionary” strategies. more...

(iii) short-term risks vs long-term risks
Precaution is often advocated to avoid immediate or direct risks to biodiversity and living natural resources, in particular risks of degradation, decline or extinction due to overexploitation. more...

(iv) inconsistent understandings and applications of precaution across different sectors
The importance placed on precaution, and its practical interpretation, varies widely across diverse biodiversity/resource management sectors. more...

(v) scientific and non-scientific technical expertise in risk assessment and risk management
Scientific knowledge can provide insight into the biological and ecological factors influencing the risk of overexploitation faced by, for instance, a species or forest ecosystem. more...

(vi) implications of precaution for governance and participatory decision-making
Making decisions on management of environmental risks typically involves making decisions about who bears the cost of demonstrating the safety of a practice, and who bears the burden of any environmental damage caused. more...

(vii) implementing precaution when capacity and resources are limited
Where application of the precautionary principle is understood as mitigating against adoption of a practice unless it is shown not to cause harm, this may require investment into research at a level which is not feasible for some developing countries, before any utilisation of living natural resources can proceed. more...

(viii) operationalising precaution through local institutions and management
Some management regimes may be viewed as inherently precautionary or non-precautionary. more...

(ix) the relationship between the precautionary principle and adaptive management
Adaptive management is a management tool expressly developed to deal with uncertainty. more...

(x) national implementation practices
Incorporation of the precautionary principle into national law and decision-making on NRM and conservation, by legislation or otherwise, will need to address a number of practical matters. more...

(i) environmental risks vs socio-economic and livelihood risks
Applying the precautionary principle in order to minimise environmental risks can conflict with economic, livelihood or development priorities. For instance, setting precautionary fisheries catch quotas may have immediate impacts on fishers’ income, or setting precautionary harvest levels where elephants are trophy hunted may mean the loss of local livelihoods.

Should the precautionary principle be applied to minimise risks to biodiversity, regardless of livelihood and development risks? Or should minimisation of environmental risk be balanced against socio-economic risks? This is a particularly crucial question in the context of sustainable development, where countries may face urgent problems of poverty alleviation with limited resources. Should the level of development of the state involved influence the level of precaution it is expected to apply? And who decides?


	P.P.vanDijk/TRAFFIC

Agarwood and derived products

		[Top]

(ii) risks of action vs risks of inaction
Advocates of precaution are sometimes accused of ignoring risks associated with “precautionary” strategies. For instance, management interventions such as prescribed forest burning, or selective wildlife culling in protected areas, are sometimes opposed as non-precautionary, while supporters argue that the “precautionary” strategy raises its own risks of environmental harm.

Likewise, some conservationists argue against utilisation or trade of wild species as non-precautionary, in the absence of full scientific certainty regarding sustainable harvest levels. Others emphasise the conservation problems raised where wildlife cannot “pay its way” and is instead eradicated. When conservation and management choices are between risk and risk, not precaution and risk, how should the precautionary principle be understood and applied?


	Simon Milledge/TRAFFIC

Elephants in Ruaha National Park, Tanzania

		[Top]


	*(iii) short-term risks vs long-term risks* Precaution is often advocated to avoid immediate or direct risks to biodiversity and living natural resources, in particular risks of degradation, decline or extinction due to overexploitation.

However, prohibition of extraction, harvest or trade can also raise longer term or indirect risks, in terms of, for instance, alienating local resource users, reducing or eliminating economic incentives to conserve species, or decreasing political will for conservation. On the other hand, exploitation strategies that do not pose immediate extinction risks to targeted species may raise long term risks of genetic change or disruption of ecosystem functioning. Should application of precaution address both short-term (or direct) and long-term (or indirect) risks to biodiversity? How can these be assessed and balanced?


	*(iv) inconsistent understandings and applications of precaution across different sectors* The importance placed on precaution, and its practical interpretation, varies widely across diverse biodiversity/resource management sectors.

For whales, for instance, the Revised Management Procedure developed by the International Whaling Commission explicitly incorporates uncertainty over population parameters, and is highly precautionary in the sense that catches are limited such that greater uncertainty is not associated with greater risk. Limitation of catch does not require information demonstrating the need for such limits, in contrast to traditional management approaches for commercial fish.


		Simba Chan/TRAFFIC

	Cetacean meat on sale

For terrestrial fauna the precautionary principle is often interpreted to mean prohibition of utilisation and trade, whereas for other resources such as non-timber forest products, fisheries or timber this is rarely the case. In a broader context, it has become increasingly evident that some countries adopt widely divergent and self-contradictory stances vis a vis the precautionary principle in different policy arenas, such as WSSD, the Kyoto Protocol, the WTO, the CBD and CITES. Such inconsistent understandings of the relevance and application of precaution can promote distrust and allow abuse of the principle, and impede its consistent and equitable application.


	[Top]


	*(v) scientific and non-scientific technical expertise in risk assessment and risk management*

Scientific knowledge can provide insight into the biological and ecological factors influencing the risk of overexploitation faced by, for instance, a species or forest ecosystem. However, species and resources are exploited by humans making decisions and resource allocations within specific social and economic contexts.

Is there a need for precautionary approaches to NRM and biodiversity conservation to incorporate expertise from non-biological and non-scientific sources such as economics, political science and development studies?


	Miguel Muncia

Swordfish on sale

		[Top]


	*(vi) implications of precaution for governance and participatory decision-making* Making decisions on management of environmental risks typically involves making decisions about who bears the cost of demonstrating the safety of a practice, and who bears the burden of any environmental damage caused.

Should, for instance, international timber companies be obliged to demonstrate their planned extractive regimes will not cause serious or irreversible harm to watershed protection, biodiversity or soil quality, or does this burden lie with those interests which oppose such practices?

And if those who oppose are local stakeholders without the capacity to make such demonstrations, is this equitable?

Should those who will bear the costs of damage, in the form of e.g. lost income, loss of incomes or livelihoods from hunting or collecting, be involved in such decisions?

Is there scope for greater use of mechanisms, such as performance bonds, in which the cost of environmental harm can be borne by those whose actions cause it?


	Caroline Raymakers

Stugeon sampling in the Danube, Romania

		[Top]


	*(vii) implementing precaution when capacity and resources are limited* Where application of the precautionary principle is understood as mitigating against adoption of a practice unless it is shown not to cause harm, this may require investment into research at a level which is not feasible for some developing countries, before any utilisation of living natural resources can proceed.

For poor countries this may not be feasible or equitable.

On the other hand, WTO developments indicate that, in some trade contexts at least, reliance on the precautionary principle may only be held to be legitimate where a very extensive process of risk assessment has been undertaken, which also may be unfeasible for many developing countries.

Both these considerations raise the same question: how can the precautionary principle be operationalised when capacity and resources are limited?


	Simon Milledge/TRAFFIC

Street vendor with lobster, Maputo, Mozambique

		[Top]


	*(viii) operationalising precaution through local institutions and management* Some management regimes may be viewed as inherently precautionary or non-precautionary.

At one extreme, open-access resources are particularly susceptible to overexploitation.

National government control of resource exploitation may be subject to economic and political imperatives such as appeasing industry lobbies and maintaining employment and revenue.

On the other hand, resource management involving local communities who are, in the long-term, dependent on a resource appears in some cases to lead to sustainable management practices.

Is it possible to identify precautionary systems of management? What are the essential factors?


	Rodie H. Kuiter/TRAFFIC

Seahorses

		[Top]

(ix) the relationship between the precautionary principle and adaptive management
Adaptive management is a management tool expressly developed to deal with uncertainty. It emphasises provisional, reversible decision-making, with careful monitoring of impacts feeding back to refined decision-making.

What is the relationship between the precautionary principle and adaptive management? Some see these as competing approaches, with precaution weighing in favour of “doing nothing” until an action can be shown to be harmless, and adaptive management favouring controlled interventions which increase understanding of the system in question.

However, others view adaptive management as an inherently precautionary strategy, as it recognises that in complex systems certainty of outcome is impossible, and seeks to create a dynamic regime capable of responding to unpredictable changes.

Proponents view adaptive management as a primary means by which precaution should be implemented at national and local levels in conservation/NRM. Is adaptive management a sound precautionary strategy?



	E. Fleming

		[Top]


	*(x) national implementation practices* Incorporation of the precautionary principle into national law and decision-making on NRM and conservation, by legislation or otherwise, will need to address a number of practical matters.

A precautionary regulatory framework needs to address, for instance, the nature of rights to object on precautionary grounds to government decisions, determination of who bears the burden of proof to demonstrate harm or lack thereof, the standards of proof considered acceptable to demonstrate harm or lack, and mechanisms for stakeholder involvement. The burden of proof is often an onerous one, particularly where it falls on a party to conclusively demonstrate lack of harm.


		Steve Broad/TRAFFIC

	Kruger National Park


	Similarly, where procedures for invoking precaution are detailed or extensive, it may have little practical value to those most affected by the risks and uncertainties. Guidance for governments on these points, and realistic data on the impacts of various legislative choices, would greatly improve the chances of effective incorporation of precaution into national level regulation.


		[Top]

	next >> back to home page

Copyright 2003 Precautionary Principle Project in partnership with IUCN, TRAFFIC, FFI and ResourceAfrica