Risk assessment vs precautionary principle

Basic risk assessments question, “How much harm is allowable?”

The precautionary approach asks, “How little harm is possible?”

The precautionary principle, generated during the late 1980s as a unifying principle for regulating discharge of hazardous material into the North Sea, has been broadened to include a shifting of the burden of proof to the proponent of a proposed activity, adoption of a more holistic assessment process, and encompassing all environmental management decisions, not just pollution prevention activities. The precautionary principle remains a management philosophy, not a substitute for risk assessment. As the principle has been elaborated recently, it nearly always implies three additional ideas, beyond “harm” and “scientific uncertainty”:

-       The notion of seeking alternatives to harmful technologies,

-       The idea of shifting to proponents of a technology the responsibility for demonstrating its safety, and

-       The goal of transparency and democracy in making decisions about technologies

Taken together, these concepts provide what we believe is a sound overarching approach to assessing and making decisions on products and technologies and other human activities that may impact health or the environment. The precautionary principle represents a paradigm shift in decision-making. It allows for five key elements that can prevent irreversible damage to people and nature:

1.     Anticipatory Action: there is a duty to take anticipatory action to prevent harm. Government, business, and community groups, as well as the general public, share this responsibility.

2.     Right to Know: the community has a right to know complete and accurate information on potential human health and environmental impacts associated with the selection of products, services, operations, or plans. The burden to supply this information lies with the proponent, not with the general public.

3.     Alternatives Assessment: an obligation exists to examine a full range of alternatives and select the alternative with the least potential impact on human health and the environment, including the alternative of doing nothing.

4.     Full Cost Accounting: when evaluating potential alternatives, there is a duty to consider all the reasonably foreseeable costs, including raw materials, manufacturing, transportation, use, cleanup, eventual disposal, and health costs even if such costs are not reflected in the initial price. Short and long-term benefits and time thresholds should be considered when making decisions.

5.     Participatory Decision Process: decisions applying the Precautionary Principle must be transparent, participatory, and informed by the best available science and other relevant information.

Risk assessment is a process to identify potential hazards and analyze what could happen if a hazard occurs. Risk = chance of harmful effects to human health or to ecological systems resulting from exposure to an environmental stressor. Environmental stressor = any physical, chemical, or biological entity that can induce an adverse response. Risk assessment = provides information on potential health or ecological risks. There are many “assets” at risk from hazards. First and foremost, injuries to people should be the first consideration of the risk assessment. Hazard scenarios that could cause significant injuries should be highlighted to ensure that appropriate emergency plans are in place. As you conduct the risk assessment, look for vulnerabilities – weaknesses – that would make as asset more susceptible to damage from a hazard. Vulnerabilities include deficiencies in building construction, process systems, security, protection systems, and loss prevention programs. They contribute to the severity of damage when an incident occurs. 

References:

1. 

2. 

3.