Taken to extremes application of the precautionary principle could lead to nothing being permitted unless proven harmless. Such a position was condemned by Fairweather (1993) as 'pseudoscientific folly'. In practice, even though the precautionary principle will be invoked, it is unlikely that it will be applied with equal rigour in all cases.

There will be circumstances where the perception of the consequences of 'getting it wrong' are such that the precautionary principle will be used to reject developments. However, this will not mean that for those developments which do go ahead there can be any absolute certainty as to outcomes. In this session I hope that we can explore an adaptive application of the precautionary principle in which decisions can be modified in the light of experience.

At the present time monitoring is an exercise in collecting large amounts of data which remain unanalysed and unassessed. Rarely is there any mechanism for feedback so that monitoring results lead to changes in operations or, in the ultimate case, their cessation. One of the issues to be discussed therefore is that of conditional approvals where continual operation requires various tests to be met.

Assuming that a process was in place to use monitoring data to protect the environment then other issues can be addressed.

WHO CARRIES OUT AND ASSESSES MONITORING?

These questions raise both practical issues.

If monitoring is carried out by industry it is likely that the scope of recording will be limited. It is unlikely that the cumulative effects of several (different) operations will be revealed through separate and independent monitoring. In addition there has been lack of comparability between data sets. The public may be reluctant to accept the reliability of data provided by industry or government agencies.

WHO MONITORS MONITORING?

Should we be designing frameworks into which the monitoring for particular projects fits, and contributes towards building up an overall picture of the state of the environment? For some aspects of environmental change there are already international monitoring programs in existence are they adequate to reveal significant changes and do they trigger appropriate feedback mechanisms?

WHOSE DATA ARE THEY?

If monitoring data remain confidential between industry and government the public may fear collusion. On the other hand if raw data are released members of the public may reach inappropriate conclusions. Should data only be released after analysis and assessment - if so who should be responsible for the analysis?

WHAT SHOULD BE MONITORED?

In some circumstances, and at one level, this question is answered in conditions of consent which set particular standards. Measurement to evaluate compliance with the standards becomes a technical question and the assessment limited to whether or not the prescribed standards are achieved. At another level we need to ask what is the objective in setting standards, how are standards determined, and are the objectives being met?

In other cases we want to know about 'environmental impacts'.

How do we decide what to measure, how do we design programs so as to detect 'significant impacts'?

HOW DO WE ASSESS IMPACTS'?

How do we distinguish between natural fluctuations and impacts?

And what level of change should response be triggered? Do we know enough about Australian ecosystems to use a limits of acceptable change approach ?

Monitoring is frequently demanded with little thought as to its objectives and eventual use. The design, analysis and interpretation of monitoring programs are not simple tasks; if we are to learn from experience much greater effort will need to be devoted to monitoring.

REFERENCE

Fairweather, P.G. (1993). Links between ecology and ecophilosophy, ethics and the requirements of environmental management. Australian Journal of Ecology, 18, 3-19.

Back...