The Precautionary Principle: Dealing with controversy
by
Ad van Dommelen
| Keywords: |
Biosafety. |
| Correct citation: |
Dommelen, A. van (2000), "The Precautionary Principle: Dealing with controversy." Biotechnology and Development Monitor, No. 43,
p. 8-11. |
International agreements such as the Convention
on Biological Diversity and its appendix, the Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety are meant to settle debates on biodiversity and biosafety.
However, the recently agreed CPB cannot be effectively applied without a
constructive analysis of underlying controversies about biosafety assessment.
The Precautionary Principle does not solve these controversies. In fact
it depends on the transparency of scientific and public debates.
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) begins its preamble with a general
statement about the importance of biodiversity. The Contracting Parties (CPs)
declare that they are “conscious of the intrinsic value of biological
diversity and of the ecological, genetic, social, economic, scientific,
educational, cultural, recreational and aesthetic values of biological
diversity and its components.” However, this appreciation also raises
questions of how to implement the conservation of biodiversity in a complex
field of conflicting interests.
The general challenge can be summarized by the question of what knowledge and
insight will be necessary and sufficient to preserve biodiversity. Without a
constructive analysis of existing scientific and public controversies, the
implementation of the CBD and its appendix, the Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety (CPB) will be obstructed by recurring stalemates of
interpretation.
Article 11 of the CBD states that “each Contracting Party shall, as far as
possible and as appropriate, adopt economically and socially sound measures
that act as incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of components
of biological diversity” (emphasis added). This is obviously a laudable
intention but in practice the disclaimer, as well as others in the CBD, leaves
considerable freedom of interpretation to the CPs. For an agreement with so
many disclaiming qualifications to be effective, it is necessary to limit the
freedom of interpretation for individual CPs as much as possible.
Applying the Precautionary Principle
In the preamble to the CBD, the Precautionary
Principle (PP) is adopted with the statement that “where there is a
threat of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity, lack of full
scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to
avoid or minimize such a threat.” The Contracting Parties to the CBD also
acknowledge that they are “aware of the general lack of information and
knowledge regarding biological diversity and of the urgent need to develop
scientific, technical and institutional capacities to provide the basic
understanding upon which to plan and implement appropriate measures.” The
limited availability of relevant knowledge and insights is a challenge to the
practical application of the PP.
The PP may seem to imply that scientific knowledge is not required for its
application, but this conclusion is misleading. In practice, the PP can only be
triggered when sufficient reason exists to expect that some specific course of
action will lead to “a threat of significant reduction or loss of biological
diversity”. Disagreement is likely to arise about what constitutes a
sufficient reason for expecting such a threat. Policy-makers will find that
even scientific researchers are in disagreement about a qualified assessment of possible threats to biological
diversity. This implies that a method must be found to make these scientific
disputes productive for the purpose of applying the PP.
In the scientific literature, there is profound controversy about adequate
approaches to biosafety assessment. Some experts claim, for example, that
genetic modification is only a more precise, and therefore quite safe, tool for
enhancing agricultural crops. Other, equally qualified, experts claim that our
present knowledge of genome and ecosystem dynamics is too limited to even
characterize the notion of ‘precision’ in this context.
Against this background of scientific controversy, we cannot expect the CPs to
reach agreement without first creating clarity about the research questions
that are assumed to be relevant and that constitute the methodological basis
for precaution in relation to biodiversity conservation.
Sets of relevant questions
The dilemma underlying the practical
application of the PP may be illustrated by the biosafety assessment of genetically
modified organisms (GMOs). Biosafety experts are divided amongst themselves
as to whether the application of GMOs in the field causes “a threat of
significant reduction or loss of biological diversity”.
One expert may stress a multitude of possible benefits from GMOs, another
expert may underline a number of possible costs. Potential benefits include
enhanced food production; reduced use of pesticides; crops with in-built
resistance to diseases, insects, drought or frost; biological treatment of
environmental pollution; production of medicines etc. However, there is an
equally extensive list of potential risks, such as accelerated loss of
effective herbicides and pesticides; disturbance of ecosystems; genetic
pollution; undesired effects to human health etc. What one expert may consider
to be a likely threat, may be qualified by another expert as a merely
hypothetical risk. On what basis can we consider either one of these expert
views more legitimate than the other in a specific context?
This dilemma of scientific legitimacy is at the basis of any practical
application of the PP and it also affects the implementation of the CPB. At the
present stage of biosafety research it is critical to create an overview of the
research questions that may be considered relevant for making sensible decision
about the applications and products of biotechnology.
This inventory of relevant research questions may address such diverse issues
as the susceptibility of non-target organisms and possible consequences for
biodiversity as well as the expected contribution of genetic engineering to
sustainable development. The availability of such sets of relevant questions
(SRQs) for specified purposes would be an important step forward.
The urgent need for such clarity may be illustrated by the frequent use in
biosafety controversies of generalizing analogies in order to represent problem
definitions. Those stressing the possible risks of biotechnology often use the
analogy of negative experiences with the introduction of exotic species in an
ecosystem. Examples include the introduction of rabbits into Australia and the
spread of the water hyacinth in Africa, threatening biodiversity and the
social-economic interests of local populations by the disruption of ecosystems.
Those highlighting the possible benefits of biotechnology, on the other hand,
tend to rely on familiarity with previous experiences in agricultural
domestication. Their preferred analogy is that of centuries of development in
‘traditional breeding’ as an agricultural practice. In this view, modern
biotechnology on the basis of genetic modification is essentially a more
precise continuation of a practice that has always been part of agriculture.
While the latter analogy suggests that genetic modification is not expected to
lead to “a threat of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity”,
the former analogy implies one should be concerned about unexpected and
unwanted effects.
How can these recurring and contested
analogies, with their associated problem definitions, be made productive in the
policy process? In their present form they will do little to advance the debate
since the opposing viewpoints lack specificity and effectively obstruct the creation
of transparency. Such generalizing approaches will promote the continuation of
controversy and opposition. To overcome this stalemate, debate conditions
should be created in which conflicting viewpoints can contribute to the
necessary transparency and learning processes. The alternative analogies need
not reflect an either/or evaluation, but can represent sources of
inspiration for an and/and format of understanding (see box 1). This
inclusive approach implies that other contexts of experience may also be used
as sources of inspiration for transparency in biosafety assessment.
The complementing SRQs that may thus be specified can be used as separate windows
of concern (WoCs) for the purpose of biodiversity conservation. These SRQs
and the associated WoCs can be used as pragmatic tools that together may
contribute to the required transparency on the possible effects of modern
biotechnologies. The scheme provides an abstract presentation of a learning
mechanism in which contested problem definitions can be brought together and
compared in the form of specified research questions that are assumed to be
relevant for a specific purpose of investigation.
By building an inventory of possibly relevant research questions for a
biosafety assessment, and by focusing discussions on effective problem
definitions, it will become possible for all stakeholders with their own
respective interests to contribute to the required transparency. By
representing opposing viewpoints in terms of underlying concerns and implied SRQs,
existing controversies may be made constructive sources of insight for the
purpose of biodiversity conservation (see box 2).
The abstract representation of two complementing Windows of Concern on the basis of Sets of Relevant Questions, illustrates how existing controversies about sufficient problem definitions may be used in one more inclusive discussion. It shows that alternative analogies can reflect and/and concerns instead of either/or concerns.
|
Protection or protectionism?
Another problem lurking beneath the surface
of the CPB is the potential conflict of interest between environmental
protection and economic protectionism. Too much caution on the side of
environmental protection, for instance, could lead to economic protectionism if
a country uses biosafety concerns to justify banning a product. Both from the
point of view of WTO agreements and of the CBD and the CPB, the balance of
decision making will be decided by the use of sufficient and reliable
knowledge. Article 15 of the CPB specifies that “risk assessments undertaken
pursuant to this Protocol shall be carried out in a scientifically sound
manner.” Similarly, in relation to the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS)
of the WTO from 1995, it is stressed that measures to ensure food safety and to
protect the health of animals and plants should be based as far as possible on
the analysis and assessment of objective and accurate scientific data. Both
agreements refer to sound science or reliable research as a prerequisite for
legitimizing protection as well as for safeguarding against protectionism. The
SPS is critical of claims on possible threats to biodiversity conservation,
stipulating that “members shall ensure that such measures are not more
trade-restrictive than required to achieve their appropriate level of sanitary
or phytosanitary level”. In the CPB, countries are protected against each other
with regard to the possibility of endangering biodiversity.
How can the precautionary principle be balanced with free trade as a concern of
the WTO, given the overarching objective of preserving biodiversity? An important
consideration in striking this balance is the fact that such treaties have
first and foremost a legal status within international law. The objective is to
create legal protection between the CPs. The countries become liable to each
other by agreeing to the text, and can be held to that. The focus is much more
on legal liability than on the scientific methodology that underlies a specific
decision.
To give a legal agreement the necessary impact, however, effective mechanisms
for ‘finding truth’ and thus of evaluating the factual or scientific status of
a treaty are also necessary. A legal treaty gives instructions for the
practical usage of established facts, but it does not give instructions for the
assessment and interpretation of the scientific status of these facts. This
becomes a problem in cases where there is controversy about the methodological
status of claimed facts.
Transparency requires an effective learning
structure
The CPB expresses an intention to apply the
precautionary principle. At the same time, the PP is at risk of becoming an
empty legal shell as long as it is not supported by an effective mechanism for
the assessment of possible undesirable impacts on biodiversity. Without such a
learning mechanism it will continue to be possible, for example, to dismiss
protective measures as unwarranted attempts at protectionism. European concerns
about adequate biosafety policies have already generated threats of legal
action from the United States.
Included in the CPB is the agreement to
support a special Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH, see also the article by Meyer) mechanism as part of the general clearing -house mechanism under the
CBD, which aims to:
- “facilitate the exchange of scientific, technical,
environmental and legal information on, and experience with, living
modified organisms; and
- assist Parties to implement the Protocol, taking into account
the special needs of developing country Parties, in particular the least
developed and small island developing States among them, and countries
with economies in transition as well as countries that are centres of
origin and centres of genetic diversity."
The BCH is still at an early stage of
development and may evolve into a substantial tool for reaching the objective
of biodiversity conservation. This will depend on the methodological format it
selects to deal with conflicting expert opinions.
In its present format, the clearing-house mechanism does not effectively
address the existence of scientific controversies about biosafety assessment
and as such it does not provide an effective learning structure to enhance
transparency. This implies that it now fails to sufficiently facilitate the
international process of finding a precautionary balance between stressing the
costs and stressing the benefits of biotechnology by taking both seriously.
The proposed learning structure - on the basis of complementing concerns as
specified by the associated SRQs - can be applied to enhance the required
transparency in the scientific and public debates that are now developing in
national and international arenas.
The CPs have agreed to stimulate public consciousness, and the open
availability of information. The CPB stresses the importance of providing
suitable facilities for this purpose. Article 23 of the CPB deals with ”Public
awareness and participation”, and stipulates that the Contracting Parties
shall: “promote and facilitate public awareness, education and participation
concerning the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms […]”
and “the Parties shall, in accordance with their respective laws and
regulations, consult the public in the decision-making process regarding living
modified organisms and shall make the results of such decisions available to
the public.”
An important practical challenge to the creation of policy transparency is the
fact that the scientific knowledge centres are mainly located in the
industrialized countries, whereas the greater part of the biodiversity to be
protected is located in developing countries. This discrepancy has to be
bridged by cooperation and by the use of an accessible international
infrastructure from which less privileged countries can also benefit in their
decision-making.
As an initial step towards meeting this challenge it will be useful to start
developing an inventory of relevant research questions. This will enable all
stakeholders to share their concerns and to take advantage of other viewpoints
in the process of informing their own perspectives. The history of
environmental awareness can be written as a history of newly raised questions
which were found to be relevant for sustainability.
Ad van Dommelen
SRQ Sustainability Consultancy,
Roompotstraat 11-1, 1078 KS Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Phone (+31) 20 679 9288; Fax (+31) 20 679 9287; E-mail avd@srqnet.nl
Sources
Dommelen, A. van (1999), Hazard
Identification of Agricultural Biotechnology: Finding Relevant Questions.. Utrecht, The Netherlands: International Books.
European Commission (2000), Communication
from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle.. Brussels, Belgium.
Matthee, M. and Vermersch, D. (2000), “Are
the precautionary principle and the international trade of genetically modified
organisms reconcilable?” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, No. 12, pp. 59-70.
Visser, A.J.C. de, et al. (2000), Crops of
Uncertain Nature? Controversies and Knowledge Gaps Concerning Genetically
Modified Crops (Report 12).. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Plant Research
International.
| A forum for relevant questions: SRQnet
To avoid the stalemates of existing controversies and to make the diverse contested problem definitions productive, an internet facility has been started in which concerns about biosafety assessment and biodiversity conservation can be shared as specified research questions with a concise argument for their relevance. This facility is intended as a resource for all who wish to express their specified concerns and for all who wish to compare their own problem definitions with developing scientific and public insights. It is located at http://www.SRQnet.nl.
The SRQnet does not provide room for generalizing opinions, nor does it intend to create consensus. It is a virtual forum to enhance transparency in the form of specified relevant questions, which may be consulted as well as contributed. Debate in this format focuses on the relevance of individual research questions, making it possible to exchange insights without hitting upon paralyzing stalemates. SRQnet is dedicated to mediating in ongoing controversies that may stand in the way of biodiversity conservation and sustainable development.
|
Contributions to the Biotechnology and Development Monitor are not
covered by any copyright. Exerpts may be translated or reproduced without
prior permission (with exception of parts reproduced from third sources),
with acknowledgement of source.
