The last in the Resource Assessment Commission's public seminar series was a presentation on 23 September 1993 by James Cameron, at the RAC's Canberra office, titled The Precautionary Principle: Meaning and Implementation in Government Policies and Institutions.

Mr Cameron is a practising barrister and Director of the Foundation of International Environmental Law and Development at Kings College, London. He assisted in negotiations at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development; he has also participated in debate and policy formulation on the precautionary principle and environmental issues in many countries in Europe, Asia and Africa.

Mr Cameron traced the development of the precautionary principle in international law and policy in the past decade. Describing it as a principle for action in the face of uncertainty, he said it had three core elements:

• care and foresight in decision making
• cautious risk assessment
• where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, shifting the burden of proof to the developer; that is, to prove there will be negligible damage or that there is no practical alternative.

He also added a subsidiary element, namely cost effectiveness.

According to Mr Cameron, the precautionary principle should be distinguished from the 'no regrets' approach which has dominated recent environmental policy-making in Australia. A 'no regrets' approach is based on acting according to outcomes which are known and therefore certain; the precautionary principle extends this approach to acting cautiously when outcomes are uncertain. Essentially it involves giving the environment the benefit of the doubt where there is a potential for serious and irreversible harm to occur.

The precautionary principle is controversial because it creates a framework in which science establishes the thresholds beyond which there is risk of serious or irreversible damage, without necessarily establishing cause and effect. Decisions on what are appropriate thresholds require judgements based on political and ethical considerations, for example inter-generational equity. The key issue is what level of risk or pollution is acceptable. The vagueness of the precautionary principle in these circumstances is also its strength, since it promotes debate on what is acceptable.

In terms of implementing the precautionary principle, Mr Cameron said it was most appropriate in a constitutional framework, for example in international agreements and as a preamble in legislation. But procedures were also necessary to translate the principle into practice and these could include:

• strict liability
• insurance schemes
• economic instruments (because of their effects on behaviour)
• environmental impact assessment (which allows for decision making in advance of development)
• regulatory standards
• integrated pollution control.

Mr Cameron concluded by indicating that while the precautionary principle is tangible and inspirational, it only becomes effective through the process of people trying to apply it, or having recourse to it.

Back...