Human Value, Environmental Ethics and Sustainability by Ryan Mark;

Human Value, Environmental Ethics and Sustainability by Ryan Mark;

Author:Ryan, Mark;
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Unlimited Model


Chapter 6

The Precautionary Principle

The previous chapters gave us a clear analysis of EH, its objectives and why we should value it (ecosystem benefits, ecosystem services and cultural services). In this chapter, I will propose that when we combine it with the PP it gains practical strengths, while the PP gains stronger, scientific and valuative dimensions. I have already demonstrated the reasons for grounding EH and the PP on a weak anthropocentric framework, guided by contributory value, so it is important to develop upon this grounding in order to test the feasibility of the PEHP when it is philosophically scrutinised. I will argue that we should use the ‘PP’ to aid in the decision-making process, but from a weak anthropocentric instrumentalist position, rather than applying intrinsic value. However, firstly, it is important to identify what the PP is and where it originated from, before we investigate the valuative basis of the PP.

The PP originated in Germany in the late 1970s under the title ­‘Vorsorgeprinzip’, translated as the foresight principle – a principle that aims for anticipatory proactive policy in the face of uncertainty (Tickner 2002, p. 493). This term stems from the German term Vorsoge, which ‘could be translated as taking care of the future’ (Douma 2001, p. 111). The PP proposed that when there is a lack of scientific certainty about environmental outcomes, we should act cautiously. ‘In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States, according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental damage’ (Brown 1995, p. 67).

The early understanding of the PP supported precaution when activities threaten human health and the environment and placed the onus on those responsible for the action to prove that there was no threat of harm. When there is a lack of scientific certainty about harms to human health and the environment, then there is a responsibility to err on the precautious side until it can be established that there are no risks or that they are minimal/acceptable. The PP proposed that when there is a possibility of harm the responsibility to show that there is no risk, or that the risk is acceptable, is on those proposing the action(s). Alternatively, more succinctly put by Wingspread:

When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action. (Wingspread 1998)

However, this is just one understanding of the PP, while other definitions imply that the threat of harm should be ‘serious’ or ‘irreversible’. The Rio



Download



Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.