Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
The assumption that precaution is a departure from the normal
condition of decision-making based on knowledge of cause and effect
is incompatible with the endemic uncertainty found in connection with
predicting the cumulative impacts of our activities on systemic proper-
ties such as resilience. Indeed, it is arguable that, for decision-making
which takes the preservation of ecosystem health as its objective, pre-
caution should be regarded as the standard approach. In light of this,
I suggest that a different understanding of the precautionary principle is
needed if environmental decision-making is to adapt to an ecological
paradigm. Under this new conception, precaution would be understood
to be a normative concept and one around which legal frameworks for
ecological protection should be constructed. A trigger for precautionary
action would not be required because uncertainty is recognised to be the
medium within which decisions that may impact on ecosystems must
be made.
3.2.2 Taking precautionary action
The fourth component of the precautionary principle is a requirement
that, despite the unavailability of scienti
c evidence concerning the risks
inquestion,actionshouldbetakeninsuf
cient time to prevent unac-
ceptable environmental harm.
36
This aspect of the principle has been
criticised because, in most of its formulations, no guidance is provided
as to what precaution is or how we should decide what action to take
when we do not know what impacts proposals under consideration may
have.
37
Dovers and Handmer describe this as the second paradox of
precaution: that, having been told to take anticipatory steps to prevent
potential damage, decision-makers are left pondering how to anticipate
outcomes that are uncertain, indeterminate or simply unknowable.
38
One conclusion that might be drawn from this lack of clarity is that, in
essence, the principle requires only that holding action be taken pending
the generation of information that will allow the resumption of decision-
making based on causal knowledge. This is a view that is likely to be
Principle: Perspectives and Prospects (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2006),
pp. 261
-
2. See also Klinke and Renn,
'
Adaptive and Integrative Governance
'
, 284
-
6.
36
Trouwborst,
'
The Precautionary Principle in General International Law
'
,189.
37
Dovers and Handmer,
'
Ignorance, Sustainability and the Precautionary Principle
'
,
p. 174; Young,
'
Uncertainty and the Environment
'
,p.17;J.A.TicknerandK.Geiser,
'
The Precautionary Principle Stimulus
for Solutions
-
and Alternatives-based
Environmental Policy
'
(2004) 24 Environmental Impact Assessment Review,805.
38
Dovers and Handmer,
'
Ignorance and the Precautionary Principle
'
, 94.
