Precautionary Principle application

Corsendonk

When should it be applied and by whom? There is a debate over the new Eirgrid East West interconnector and the No campaign argue that Eirgrid should apply the precautionary principle. Now my thinking is that is farm yard manure as they have only one scientific paper of any standing that applies to pylons carrying AC current over ground while this is a buried shielded line carrying DC current.

My understanding is that the principle is a last resort method after the risk has been identified, risk analysis conducted, all relative research papers relating to the topic reviewed, further research conducted etc then and only then if there is risk but you can't scientifically prove it but the vast majority of research points towards a risk then and only then is the principle used. BSE and CJD as an example, the research hinted at a link but it was only later that the link was scientifically confirmed.

Tom Young

Is this meant to be in the Legal Discussion?

Corsendonk

Yes.........thats why I posted it here.

Tom Young

Corsendonk wrote: »

Yes.........thats why I posted it here.

Not really sure what the subject matter or legal question is. You might think about breaking it down slightly and re-posting it with some form of clarification on what or where the Precautionary Principle Application arises.

From what you've written, I haven't a rashers what on earth you're looking to discuss.

Edit: Wikipedia tells me this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle .. is that what you mean?

**We need to be careful what we read and rely on from Wikipedia.**

There is a case on injunctions which looked at something along these lines, Schabo v Digifone. Though the overall policy you refer to seems to be more or a macro principle/policy.

Quick and dirty answers:

When should it be applied? When there is a serious and substantial risk to the health of people or persons in a subscribing EU/global state.

By whom? The state itself and following accepted guidelines under the relevant treaties or conventions which apply in given circumstances.

Comment:

I see from Wikipedia it was apparently applied or mentioned under the Maasctricht Treaty, Art 233.

Union policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union. It shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay.

Further:

Threshold of plausibility
The Wingspread Statement version of the PP takes the form "When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically". When applying this principle, it is recommended that society establish a minimal threshold of scientific certainty or plausibility before undertaking precautions. Normally, no minimal threshold of plausibility is specified as a “triggering” condition, so that any indication that a proposed product or activity might harm health or the environment is sufficient to invoke the principle. Often the only precaution taken is a ban on the product or activity.[19].
[edit]Negative consequences of application
The Precautionary Principle may cause resentment, since people are more aware of negative changes than they are positive changes (i.e. a ban is more noted than allowing a proposal to proceed). Because of this effect, a technology which brings advantages may be banned by PP because of its potential for negative impacts, leaving the positive benefits unrealized.[20]
The Hazardous Air Pollutant provisions in the 1990 amendments to the U.S. Clean Air Act are an example of the Precautionary Principle where the onus is now on showing a listed compound is harmless. Under this rule no distinction is made between those air Pollutants that provide a higher or lower risk, so operators tend to choose less-examined agents that are not on the existing list.[21]
A California researcher has pointed out the fallacy of extrapolating possible risk of a proposed product or action, without examining equally closely the possible risks of not adopting the proposal. When looking at the proposal, policymakers tend to apply PP to that proposal while assuming the alternative(s) to be risk-free, which places an unfair burden on the proponents of the new product or activity.[22]
[edit]Perspective
Critics of the principle argue that it is impractical, since every implementation of a technology carries some risk of negative consequences.[20] For example, when the arrival of amplified music came on the scene, the risk of electrocution and deafness arose. However, this did not prevent it from becoming an artistic and cultural norm.
A summary of some representative objections to the precautionary principle are described in a Reason article by Ronald Bailey[23] which, using the Wingspread consensus as a starting point, argues the possibilities for misapplication of the principle.
[edit]

Corsendonk

This might be a better source

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/consumer_safety/l32042_en.htm

Scenerio
A semi state body seeks to bring a buried electric cable through a populated area. The group objecting base there objection around the precautionary principle, they feel there is a risk and have one scientific paper that childhood cancer rates may increase in children living near pylons carrying a different type of electric current. Risk calculated by the study was 5 children per year in a population of the UK and including there higher pylon population. The group insists that the semi state body must apply the precautionary principle to change the route.

Europa.eu

According to the Commission the precautionary principle may be invoked when the potentially dangerous effects of a phenomenon, product or process have been identified by a scientific and objective evaluation, and this evaluation does not allow the risk to be determined with sufficient certainty. Hence use of the principle belongs in the general framework of risk analysis (which, besides risk evaluation, includes risk management and risk communication), and more particularly in the context of risk management which corresponds to decision-making.

The Commission stresses that the precautionary principle may only be invoked in the event of a potential risk and that it can never justify arbitrary decisions.
Hence the precautionary principle may only be invoked when the three preliminary conditions are met - identification of potentially adverse effects, evaluation of the scientific data available and the extent of scientific uncertainty.

Can only the state apply the principle and not a semi state body?

Is the principle a last resort after extensive risk analysis, evalution of risk, risk calculation, review of research etc?

If the state does not ensure the above is carried out before implementing the principle can there decision be overturned by the EU?

If one member state implements the Precautionary Principle on a common technology in other member states does that set a precident for other member states to apply a precautionary principle to that technology in their state?

It seems a worthy principle were science has yet to catch up were we know there is a risk but as yet can't prove it but seems to me to set a dangereous precident if applied without following the stages. Asking for it to apply to one part of the route seems incorrect as doesn't the risk exist on the remainder of the route?

EU Lex is a good link for EU Law
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/

Corsendonk

Guessing no consumer safety experts in the audience.