precautionary principle and the polluter pay principle
TRANSCRIPT
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.