1. modus vivendi March 2000 Precautionary Principle Overview Fundamentals Distinction between Principle & application Evolution of the concept What drives (and doesn’t drive) eNGOs Legitimate concerns regarding the PP Wider, strategic context

2. modus vivendi March 2000 Precautionary Principle Why Worry? Competent science of the day missed effects with global implications PCBs & DDT CFCs & the ozone hole Endocrine disrupters Gulfstream shutdown and the NAO? Relying on luck, rather than judgement No way to run a policy! Fundamentals Distinctions Events eNGOs Concerns Context

3. modus vivendi March 2000 Precautionary Principle Scientific Proof Fundamentals Distinctions Events eNGOs Concerns Context A does not cause B A causes B Beyond all reasonable doubt No suspicions/evidence Negligible & insignificant Low probability Quite possible A strong probability Balance/weight of evidence Reasonably certain Statistically significant Scientific suspicion/evidence of risk Probability 75% Probability 95% BSE blood donor bans Animal protein feed bans Catastroph e insurance Swedish Chemical Law on Hazardous substances (evidence of harm) Probability 25% IPPC Climate Chang e Balance of probabilities likely Great Lakes & Chemic al Pollution Evidence of safety (Swedish Chemical Law) Civil Law standard of proof Criminal Law standard of proof

4. modus vivendi March 2000 Precautionary Principle Uncertainty Fundamentals Distinctions Events eNGOs Concerns Context Common usage hides the complexity Risk –Know the outcomes, know the odds Uncertainty –May know the main outcomes, don’t know the odds Ignorance –Don’t know what we don’t know

5. modus vivendi March 2000 Precautionary Principle Risk, Science & Precaution CORNUCOPIAN ‘anything goes’ PERMISSIVERESTRICTIVE APOCALYPTIC ‘stop everything’ NARROW RISK ASSESSMENT PRECAUTIONARY APPROACHES ‘ Unscientific’ Appraisal Opaque, ad hoc, anecdotal, doctrinaire, partisan, unaccountable, no learning PLUS narrow framing, deny incommensuarability, neglect of ignorance ‘Scientific’ Appraisal transparent, systematic, sceptical, peer-review, independent, accountable, learning PLUS broad framing, recognise incommensurability, acknowledge ignorance Narrow regime ‘Proof’ burden on sceptics Alternatives excluded Claimed benefits assumed Emphasise rights of proponent Broad regime ‘Proof’ burden on advocate Openness to alternatives Justification of benefits rights of wider society

6. modus vivendi March 2000 Precautionary Principle Alternatively, Facts vs. Values CORNUCOPIAN ‘anything goes’ PERMISSIVERESTRICTIVE APOCALYPTIC ‘stop everything’ NARROW RISK ASSESSMENT PRECAUTIONARY APPROACHES Facts Values Facts Values

7. modus vivendi March 2000 Precautionary Principle Principle vs. Application Distinguish between the Principle which is simple … & its application where the detailed thinking starts –Toxics – Clean production; –Precautionary Approach to fisheries; –GM – no consensus; –etc. Fundamentals Distinctions Events eNGOs Concerns Context

8. modus vivendi March 2000 Precautionary Principle Major Developments North Sea Conferences & OSPAR –Hazardous substances, nutrients, off-shore FAO Code, UN Straddling Stocks Agreement –Fisheries Trade vs. Environment –Seattle; an incremental watershed? EC Communication –General stance Fundamentals Distinctions Events eNGOs Concerns Context

9. modus vivendi March 2000 Precautionary Principle International eNGOs Driven by Values Rational aims, goals Not driven by Fund raising Irrational hatred of industry or Americans Communists Fundamentals Distinctions Events eNGOs Concerns Context

10. modus vivendi March 2000 Precautionary Principle Legitimate Concerns Becomes pressing as shift to PP Arguable that until now mostly about prevention of identified problems The PP has the potential for False Alarms Unnecessary Burdens Lost Opportunities Fundamentals Distinctions Events eNGOs Concerns Context

11. modus vivendi March 2000 Precautionary Principle The Wider Context An end to the old certainties –Goodbye lobbyists, hello mediators Globalisation –of effects –of information and ideas –of stakeholders Paradoxical importance of cultural differences –e.g. US vs. European perceptions on GM Fundamentals Distinctions Events eNGOs Concerns Context

12. modus vivendi March 2000 Precautionary Principle Closing Suggestions In principle, can have a rational approach to PP –Involving stakeholders, wider society But can’t be done in isolation, or in short term At one level perhaps need to back off –Think strategically Pressing need is to create trust, then consensus –Across society –Not easy; both values and facts –But Industry needs this to happen – Nuclear, CFCs, Brent Spar, Mad Cows, GM, Climate Change … Fundamentals Distinctions Events eNGOs Concerns Context