PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE AND THE POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE

IN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

ABDUL-BAQI ALHASSAN

(MSC ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE POLICY AND MANAGEMENT STUDENT)

INSTITUTE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES- GHANA

OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION

Definition of the principles

Who bears the burden of prove

Advantages of the principles

Disadvantages of the principles

Conclusion

DEFINITION OF PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

This is a moral and political principle which states that if an action

or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in

the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue,

then the action should be stopped

The principle implies that there is a social responsibilities to

protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific

investigation has found a plausible risk.

These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings

emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result

BURDEN OF PROVE

The burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.

These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that

provide sound evidence that no harm will result.

If, for example, a large ground-water body that many people use for drinking

water is contaminated by bacteria (e-coli 0157 H7, campylobacter or

leptospirosis) and the source of contamination is strongly suspected to be

dairy cows but the exact science is not yet able to provide absolute proof, the

cows should be removed from the environment until they are proved, by the

dairy industry, not to be the source or until that industry ensures that such

contamination will not recur.

ADVANTAGES OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

Provide policy makers with simple common-sense approach to

evaluating actions

It allows for greater protection of the consumer and environment

it requires decision-makers to explain the rationale behind their

decisions, to quantify the risks, and to provide objective information.

Allows government to create appropriate plans of action giving good

information

Allows regulators the chance to examine the far reaching effects of

proposed action prior to that action being undertaken

DISADVANTAGES

Blocking innovation and progress generally because applications of strong

formulations of the principle can be used to block innovation, a technology

which brings advantages may be banned by PP because of its potential for

negative impacts, leaving the positive benefits unrealized

Internal inconsistency – (applying strong PP risks causing harm)

Vagueness and plausibility

Given the increased rate of regulatory demands for prove of limited to no

risk, many health related products may be kept from market.

The principle does not stand firmly on its own but would function best

when coupled with the sustainability approach

CONCLUSION

Though this principle has a lot of advantages and

seeks to protect the interest of the public, it also

generates internal inconsistency and therefore

applying the principle in absolute terms actually

contradicts the principle in its self.

DEFINITION OF POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE

It is a principle in the international environmental law

where the polluter pays for damage done to the natural

environment. It is also known as the extended polluter

responsibility.

Whoever is responsible for damage to the environment

should bear the cost associated with it.

Its purpose seeks to shift the responsibility in dealing

with waste from governments to the entities producing it.

BURDEN OF PROOF

The burden of proof lies on the environmental regulators

A straight forward interpretation of the polluter pays principle

would suggest that if the consumption or production activities

of one group of consumers or producers have harmful effects

on others then the perpetrators of the harms should be held

liable for the damages.

A simple example is tax on petrol, when consuming petrol we

create pollution so the tax means the price will pay more

closely reflect the social cost.

ADVANTAGES

It is a simple extension of the principle of fairness and justice

It enhance economic efficiency that is it helps to protect the

environment without sacrificing the efficiency of a free market

economic system

The additional revenues are used to cut payroll, income and

corporate taxes

Revenues collected can help to achieve other social goals

It is a way of internalizing externalities

DISADVANTAGESAmbiguity still exists in determining ‘who is a polluter’

It can be difficult to measure how much pollution is produced e.g. firms may

hide the extent of their pollution

A large number of poor households, informal sector firms, and subsistence

farmers cannot bear any additional charges for energy or for waste disposal.

Small and medium-size firms from the formal sector, which mainly serve the

home market, find it difficult to pass on higher costs to the domestic end-users

of their products.

Pollution can be shifted to countries with weak environmental legislations

Exporters in developing countries usually cannot shift the burden of cost

internalization to foreign customers due to elastic demand

CONCLUSION

The idea that polluters should be made to pay for

damages that they cause to the health and property

of others is sound and, in a free society based on

personal responsibility, should be the guiding

principle for all environmental policy.