Communication on precautionary principle now adopted
The European Commission has adopted a Communication on the use of the precautionary principle. This sets out how the Commission intends to apply the precautionary principle and establish guidelines for its application. At the same time, the Commission intends the Communication to provide input to an ongoing debate on this issue at both EU and international level. The European Commission has believed for some time that policymakers would benefit from some form of institutional guidelines to follow when science appears to be unable to quantify the magnitude of various risks. Such guidelines, it believes, would be vital in preventing political decisions being made on the basis of irrational fears or perceptions. The Communication is therefore designed to describe the situations in which the precautionary principle could be applied as well as to: - Establish the principles for applying it - Build a common understanding of how to assess, appraise, manage and communicate risks that science is not yet able to evaluate fully; - Avoid unwarranted recourse to the precautionary principle, as a disguised form of protectionism. According to the Communication, the precautionary principle would be useful 'when the potentially dangerous effects of a phenomenon, product or process have been identified', and scientific evaluation cannot determine the magnitude of these risks with a 'sufficient degree of certainty'. The precautionary principle was enshrined at the 1992 Rio conference on the Environment and Development, during which the Rio Declaration was adopted, whose principle 15 states that: 'In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by the States according to their capability. Where there are threats for serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.' There has been much debate in the past over the precautionary principle, both within the EU and internationally. The concept gives rise to questions on how to balance the freedom and rights of individuals, industry and organisations with the need to reduce the risk of adverse effects to the environment, human, animal or plant health. 'Therefore,' the Commission summarises, 'finding the correct balance so that proportionate, non-discriminatory, transparent and coherent actions can be taken, requires a structured decision making process with detailed scientific and other objective information'. The implementation of an approach based on the precautionary principle should begin, says the Commission, with a scientific evaluation, which identifies where possible what the risks are and the degree of scientific uncertainty associated with calculations of such risks. 'Decision-makers need to be aware of the degree of uncertainty attached to the results of the evaluation of the available scientific information. Judging what is an 'acceptable' level of risk for a society is an entirely political responsibility', the Communication reads. 'In some cases, the right answer may be not to act or at least not to introduce a binding legal measure. A wide range of initiatives is available in the case of action, going from a legally binding measure to a research project or a recommendation', it continues. Where action is deemed necessary, says the Commission: 'Measures based on the precautionary principle should be: - Proportional to the chosen level of protection; - Non-discriminatory in their application; - Consistent with similar measures already taken; - Based on an examination of the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action; - Subject to review, in the light of new scientific data, and - Capable of assigning responsibility for producing the scientific evidence necessary for a more comprehensive risk assessment. 'These guidelines guard against unwarranted recourse to the precautionary principle as a disguised form of protectionism', says the European Commission. The Communication underlines that the precautionary principle forms part of a structured approach to risk analysis, as well as being relevant to risk management. It covers cases where scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain and preliminary scientific evaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern that the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or plant health may be inconsistent with the high level of protection chosen by the EU. Mr Erkki Liikanen, the European Commissioner for Enterprise and the Information Society, Mr David Byrne, European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, and Mrs Margot Wallström, Commissioner for the Environment presented the Communication to the Commission on 2 February 2000. The release of the Communication is timed to coincide with current discussions of other important policy statements related to health and the environment, including a recently adopted White Paper on Food Safety and an agreement reached in Montreal on a Biosafety protocol. The new Communication broadens the scope of the precautionary principle, casting the net wider than just the environmental field to also covers the protection of human, animal and plant health. 'Determining what is an acceptable level of risk for the EU is a political responsibility,' the Communication authors warn, continuing: '[the Communication] provides a reasoned and structured framework for action in the face of scientific uncertainty and shows that the precautionary principle is not a justification for ignoring scientific evidence and taking up protectionist decisions'. Presenting the Communication to the European Parliament, Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström explained that in the wake of the BSE and dioxin scares, it was important to present a programme explaining how the Commission intended to act in a coherent way in such crises. It was up to the politicians and decision-makers to assess the level of risk in the wake of the latest scientific evidence. Any action, she said, could be 'proportional' to the scale of the problem and not be 'discriminatory' against any particular country. 'The Commission considers that the Community, like other WTO members, has the right to establish the level of protection - particularly of the environment, human, animal and plant health - that it deems appropriate' states the Commission.