Standing up for precautionary approach

Date: 10/02/2000

By Gareth Harding

POLITICIANS have always been caught between a rock and a hard place in their attempts to manage the risks posed by goods suspected of causing damage to the environment or public health.

They know that taking swift action to allay fears will leave them open to claims that they are giving knee-jerk responses to complex problems. Yet they are also painfully aware that failure to act could lead to accusations of irresponsibility.

In a bid to make life easier for decision-makers, the European Commission last week published a long-awaited paper on the precautionary principle which attempts to define the controversial concept and establish guidelines for how it should be applied.

In recent years, use of the principle has hit the headlines after it was cited to justify bans on dioxin-fed Belgian chicken and hormone-treated American cattle. But it has been attacked by industry, the US and the World Trade Organisation as ill-defined, indiscriminate and a barrier to free trade.

At recent United Nations talks aimed at laying down rules for trade in genetically modified organisms (GMOs), for example, the principle faced a withering assault from the 'Miami Group' of exporting nations, which includes the US, Australia and Canada.

The Commission's paper argues that preventative action may be taken where scientific evidence is "insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain", but where failure to act would result in an excessive danger to the environment or public health.

To avoid misuse of the principle, the paper defines how and when it should be used by public authorities. It also aims to ensure that future decisions taken by the EU are coherent, non-discriminatory and proportionate to the risk in question.

The report recommends that a risk assessment study should be carried out when there is a potential threat to the environment or public health. However, the results of this study do not have to be clear-cut for action to be taken, as "the absence of proof should not be used to justify inaction or a non-decision".

Environment groups have welcomed the Commission's vigorous defence of the principle, but have attacked the barriers the executive has placed in the way of its use.

Greenpeace's Axel Singhofen says that requiring a risk-assessment study to be carried out before taking action "stands diametrically opposed to the meaning of the precautionary principle, which has been created in recognition of the inherent limits of science and the need to prevent harm before cause-effect relationships are conclusively demonstrated". The group also believes that taking action based on a cost-benefit analysis will "create another hurdle in which swift action is needed".

However, industry is deeply suspicious of the principle.

The American Chamber of Commerce in Brussels has warned that the Union's attempts to define the principle "give rise to grave concern among members that it could lead to the politicisation of science". In particular, the industry lobby is worried that the precautionary approach will be used as a disguised form of protectionism and could rub up against WTO rules.

Another proposal which has provoked the wrath of Europe's most powerful firms is the Commission's White Paper on environmental liability.

Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström unveiled the much-delayed report yesterday (9 February), a decade after the idea of making companies pay for the damage was first floated and seven years after the institution published a Green Paper on the subject.

The report urges the EU to draw up a legally-binding directive covering the pollution of sensitive natural areas and the contamination of sites caused by dangerous activities. It also plumps for a strict liability scheme, under which plaintiffs would have to find a link between the activities of alleged polluters and the damage caused but would not have to demonstrate actual fault. However, unlike many other liability schemes, responsibility for cleaning up environmental damage would not be applied retroactively.

The European employers organisation UNICE says the proposed regime would damage firms' competitiveness and be difficult to manage. It is also opposed to making companies responsible for products which were safe when developed but are later found to be damaging.

Article forms part of a survey 'Environment'.