Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 12013543

Implementing the precautionary principle.

Abstract

The precautionary principle can be found in international treaties that protect human health and the environment from a variety of pollutants and perturbations. One of the earliest forms of the precautionary principle was used in the 1980s in Europe to protect the North Sea. In 1992, the Rio Declaration specifically included the precautionary principle in calling on nations to protect the environment. The US articulation that best embodies this approach to environment and human health protection is the Wingspread statement: '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.' The key element is the matter of acting in the face of uncertainty. Applications of the precautionary principle are not, however, new to US environmental policy and management. The present paper uses case studies to examine the application of the precautionary principle to environmental decisions. These cases range from ecosystem protection on the Charles River, Massachusetts, to the effort to prevent computer crashes at the end of the year 2000. These cases deal with the problem of uncertainty, whether concerning the cause, effect, systemic condition or multiple factors. Uncertainty represents one of the features that provoke controversy over these issues and the precautionary principle.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Peter L deFur, Michelle Kaszuba. 2002-04-08. Implementing the precautionary principle.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-9697(01)01107-x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Shifting priorities at the Department of Energy's bomb factories: protecting human and ecological health.

More than 50 years of research, development, manufacture, and testing of nuclear weapons at Department of Energy (DOE) sites has left a legacy of on-site contamination that often spreads to surrounding areas. Despite substantial cleanup budgets in the last decade, the DOE's top-to-bottom review team concluded that relatively little actual cleanup has been accomplished, although milestones have been met and work packages completed. Rather than solely use regulatory constraints to direct cleanup, many people have suggested that human and ecological health should guide long-term stewardship goals of DOE-managed sites. The main questions are how ecological and human health considerations should be applied in deciding the extent of cleanup that contaminated sites should receive and how near-term and longer run considerations of costs and benefits should be balanced as cleanup decisions are made. One effort to protect ecological integrity is the designation of the largest sites as National Environmental Research Parks (NERPs). Recently, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) suggested isolating and conserving DOE sites as a policy priority because of their rich ecological diversity. A more effective long-term stewardship approach for former nuclear weapons complex sites may emerge if the guiding principles are to (1) reduce risks to human and ecological health, (2) protect cultural traditions, and (3) lower short- and long-term cleanup and remediation costs. A "net benefits" perspective that takes both near- and longer-term costs and consequences into account can help illuminate the trade-offs between expensive cleanup in the near term and the need to assure long-term protection of human health, cultural values, and high levels of biodiversity and ecological integrity that currently exist at many DOE sites.

Decision Making↗