What are the core ideas behind the Precautionary Principle?

Highlights

• Identification of the core ideas of the Precautionary Principle.

• Systematically underestimated values justify extra precaution.

• Threats of irreversible, irreplaceable, severe effects justifies extra precaution.

• Extra precaution is justified when timing is at least as important as being right.

• Extra precaution is justified when false negatives are worse than false positives.

Abstract

The Precautionary Principle is both celebrated and criticized. It has become an important principle for decision making, but it is also subject to criticism. One problem that is often pointed out with the principle is that is not clear what it actually says and how to use it. I have taken on this problem by performing an analysis of some of the most influential formulations of the principle in an attempt to identify the core ideas behind it, with the purpose of producing a formulation of the principle that is clear and practically applicable.

It was found that what is called the Precautionary Principle is not a principle that tells us what do to achieve extra precaution or how to handle situations when extra precaution is called for. Instead, it was found to be a list of circumstances that each justify extra precaution. An analysis of some of the most common and influential formulations of the Precautionary Principle identified four such circumstances: (1) When we deal with important values that tend to be systematically downplayed by traditional decision methods – such as human health and the environment. (2) When we suspect that the decision might lead to irreversible and severe consequences and the values at stake are also irreplaceable, (3) When timing is at least as important as being right. (4) When it is more important to avoid false negatives than false positives.

This interpretation of the Precautionary Principle does not say anything about what kind of actions to take when extra precaution is called for, but it does provide a clear and practically useful list of circumstances that call for extra precaution and that is not subject to the most common objections to the Precautionary Principle.

Introduction

The Precautionary Principle has become an important tool for decision making. This principle is recommended or even prescribed by many official sources. These include international declarations and treaties such as the Rio declaration, Agenda 21 and the constitution of the European Union, and also national as well as regional and local legislation in many countries (Ambrus, 2012, Beltrán, 2001, Commonwealth Consolidated Acts, 1999, Cooney and Dickson, 2005, Gignon et al., 2013, Gollier and Treich, 2003, Grandjean, 2004, Grandjean et al., 2004, Herremoës et al., 2001, Lin, 2001, Melin, 2001, O'Riordan and Jordan, 1995, Osimani, 2013, Purnhagen, 2014, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992, Raffensperger and Tickner, 1999, Sandin, 2004a, Sandin, 2004b, Steel, 2015, Turner and Hartzell, 2004, Walsh, 2004, Whiteside, 2006). It has, however also been criticized from a variety of sources and it remains controversial (Cooney and Dickson, 2005, Gignon et al., 2013, Gollier and Treich, 2003, Grandjean, 2004, Grandjean et al., 2004, Hermele, 1995, Munthe, 1997, O'Riordan and Jordan, 1995, Osimani, 2013, Sandin, 1999, Sandin, 2004b, Sandin et al., 2002, Steel, 2015, Turner and Hartzell, 2004, Whiteside, 2006). The problem that is most commonly raised is that the principle is unclear (Ambrus, 2012, Gollier and Treich, 2003, Graham, 2001a, Graham, 2001b, Manson, 2002, Mayer et al., 2002, Osimani, 2013, O'Riordan and Jordan, 1995, Purnhagen, 2014, Sandin, 1999, Sandin, 2004a, Sandin et al., 2002, Steel, 2015, Turner and Hartzell, 2004, Whiteside, 2006). In order to deal with that problem, I will here present a more “tidy” and transparent version of the Precautionary Principle with defined boundaries for its applicability. This version of the principle was derived from an analysis of the most common formulations of the Precautionary Principle, with the aim of identifying the most basic ideas behind the principle.

The analysis revealed that the basic ideas behind the Precautionary Principle contrary to popular belief, has nothing to do with where to place the onus of proof, how certain we need to be that a new invention is safe before we give green light to use, or how to prioritize between different risks. Instead, the basic ideas behind the Precautionary Principle was shown to deal exclusively with which circumstances that justify extra precaution beyond what would be called for by other decision procedures. I therefore suggest that the Precautionary Principle should be interpreted as a list of criteria for when we need extra precaution, not as a principle telling us what to do when we think (for some reason) that we need extra precaution. It tells us, in other words, when we need extra safety and why, not what to do in these situations. This does not mean that the Precautionary Principle is useless as a decision principle. Pinpointing in which situations we need extra safety, and why this is justified is extremely important. Although the formulation presented here is more limited, it is also clearer and more easy to use, which makes it more, not less, useful in practice than previous formulations.