Until now, the benefit of doubt regarding harm posed to the environment usually went to the contaminator - the permissive principle based on the assimilative c:apacity approach. However, current understanding and awareness of the complexities of ecosystems, as well as the diversity and complexity of chemical compounds, warrant a change for a more scientifically rigorous approach.

The risk of error is high given the extent and pace of synthetic chemical production compared to the knowledge of their effects. The potential for severe adverse effects is also.high and has already been demonstrated in numerous examples of environmental degradation.

The precautionary approach addresses honestly and responsibly the problem that in most cases, the level of information and certainty that decision makers need in order to make rational, adequately analysed decisions, does not exist.

An adequate application of the precautionary principle must encompass an approach which states: When decision' makers are faced with scientific uncertainty regarding environmental impact, especially from synthetic and persistent substances, a preventative, precautionary approach must be taken. It means that in situations where scientific debate exists,environ-

ment must be given the benefit of the doubt. In the past, pollution control technologies have largely served to dilute, disperse or otherwise transfer pollutants from one environmental medium to another. Thus, the precautionary principle reflects a recognition of the need to shift from past and current pollution CONTROL efforts to pollution ELIMINATION AND PREVENTION efforts.

It is sometimes suggested that the principle is not scientific. This is not a serious argument. The principle is based on the current state of knowledge, science and a recognition of its limitations, and common sense. It says that, scientific experts should not advise the release of substances into the environment unless their effects are known to be harmless, especially regarding effects of synthetic and persistent substances where the adverse consequences may be severe. Common sense dictates that we cannot afford to use the environment as a large scale laboratory. Such experimentation is irresponsible and unjust when permanent or very long-term damage can be done to the environment. Past experience demonstrates that waiting for scientific proof of the impact of contaminants entering the marine environment may in the meantime result in substantial, and sometimes irreversible damage.

The role of science should not be to ignore uncertainty, but rather to recognise and assess it. This role is more scientifically defendable than current practice, especially in the context of an objective to protect the marine environment.

Back...