Foundations of Science

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 307–341

Fish-Farming and the Precautionary Principle: Context and Values in Environmental Science for Policy

  • Matthias Kaiser
Article
  • 161 Downloads

Abstract

The paper starts with the assumption that the Precautionary Principle (PP) is one of the most important elements of the concept of sustainability. It is noted that PP has entered international treaties and national law. PP is widely referred to as a central principle of environmental policy. However, the precise content of PP remains largely unclear. In particular it seems unclear how PP relates to science. In section 2 of the paper a general overview of some historical and systematic features of PP are presented. In section 3 a specific case is discussed in greater detail. It is claimed that the escape of farmed salmon from fish cages in the Sea, and its eventual invasion of the breeding places of the wild salmon up the rivers, must be regarded a proper case for applying PP. Yet there is no single PP-strategy. Instead, four different strategies are presented, and all of them can be regarded precautionary strategies in the light of PP. The choice between these strategies is based upon personal values. In section 4 of the paper a general analysis is given which relates these different value perspectives to basic differences in risk aversion, which in turn are related to differing conceptions of nature and/or society. In the concluding section 5 some general consequences of the foregoing analysis are outlined.

Precautionary Principle Risk perceptions Risk aversion Environmental values Science for Policy Environmental rationality Scientific responsibility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1994), ‘The Precautionary Principle in Germany — Enabling Government’, in: O'Riordan, T. and Cameron, J. (eds.) (1994), Interpreting the Precautionary Principle, London: Earthscan Publications Ltd., 31-60.Google Scholar
  2. Buhl-Mortensen, L. (1996), ‘Type-II Statistical Errors in Environmental Science and the Precautionary Principle’, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 32, 528-531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dommen, E. (ed.) (1993), Fair Principles for Sustainable Development, published for and on behalf of the United Nations by Edward Elgar, Vermont: Brookfield.Google Scholar
  4. Chisholm, A.M. and Clarke, H.R. (1993), ‘Natural Resource Managment and the Precautionary Principle’, in: Dommen, E. (ed.) (1993), Fair Principles for Sustainable Development, published for and on behalf of the United Nations by Edward Elgar, Vermont: Brookfield.Google Scholar
  5. Freestone, D. and Hey, E. (eds.) (1996), The Precautionary Principle and International Law, The Hague, London, Boston: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  6. Funtowicz S. and Ravetz, J. (1990), Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publ.Google Scholar
  7. Funtowicz, S.O. and Ravctz, J.R. (1993), ‘Science for the Post-Normal Age’, Futures, 25/7 September 1993, 735-755.Google Scholar
  8. Gray, J.S. (1990), ‘Statistics and the Precautionary Principle’, Marine Pollution Bulletin 21, 174-176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gray, J.S. et al. (1991), ‘Scientifically Based Strategies for Marine Environmental Protection and Management’, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 22, 432-440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gray, J.S. (1996), ‘Environmental Science and a Precautionary Approach Revisited’, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 32, 532-534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hanson, S.O. (1995), ‘The Detection Level’, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 22, 103-109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hanson, S.O. (1997), 'Can We Reverse the Burden of Proof¿, Toxicology Letters, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  13. Hutchings, J.A. (1991), ‘The Threat of Extinction to Native Populations Experiencing Spawning Intrusions by Cultured Atlantic Salmon’, Aquaculture 98, 119-132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson, E.J. and Tversky, A. (1980), ‘Representations of Perceptions of Risk’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 55-70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnston, P. and Simmonds M. (1991) ‘Green Light for Precautionary Science’, New Scientist (Talking Point) 3.Google Scholar
  16. Lemons, J. and Brown, D.A. (eds.) (1995), Sustainable Development: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy, Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Lindell, M.K. and Earle, T.C. (1983), ‘How Close is Close Enough? Public Perceptions of Industrial Facilities’, Risk Analysis 3, 245-254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lindsay, R. (1995), ‘Galloping Gertie and the Precautionary Principle: How is Environmental Impact Assessed?’, in: Wakeford T. and Walters M. (eds.), Science for the Earth, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  19. Mayo, D. and Hollander, R. (eds.) (1991), Acceptable Evidence, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Milne, A. (1993), ‘The perils of green pessimism’, New Scientist, 12 June, 34-37.Google Scholar
  21. Mork, J. (1991), ‘One-Generation Effects of Farmed Fish Immigration on the Genetic Differentiation of Wild Atlantic Salmon in Norway’, Aquaculture 98, 267-276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Myers, N. (1993), ‘Biodiversity and the Precautionary Principle’, AMBIO 22, 74-79.Google Scholar
  23. NENT (1993), Oppdrettslaks — en studie i norsk teknologiutvikling, Oslo: TMV forlag.Google Scholar
  24. NENT (1997), Fore-var prinsippet — mellom forskning og politikk, Oslo: De nasjonale forskningsetiske komiteer.Google Scholar
  25. Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy, (1995), Sustained Risks: a Lasting Phenomenon, Reports to the Government, #44, The Hague.Google Scholar
  26. O'Riordan, T. and Cameron, J. (eds.) (1994), Interpreting the Precautionary Principle, London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  27. Peterman, R.M. (1980), ‘Statistical Power Analysis can improve fisheries research and management’, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 47, 2-15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Peterman, R.M. and M'Gonigle, M. (1992), ‘Statistical Power Analysis and the Precautionary Principle’, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 24, 231-234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Reinertsen, H. and Haaland, H. (eds.) (1995), Sustainable Fish Farming, Rotterdam, Brookefield: A.A. Balkema.Google Scholar
  30. Schwartz, M. and Thompson, M. (1990), Divided We Stand. Redefining Politics, Technology, and Social Choice, New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  31. Shrader-Frechette, K. (1991), Risk and Rationality, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  32. Slovic, P. Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. (1984), ‘Behavioral Decision Theory Perspectives on Risk and Safety’, Acta Psychologica, 56, 183-203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stebbing, A.R.D. (1992), ‘Environmental Capacity and the Precautionary Principle’, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 24, 287-295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Taylor, P. (1991), ‘Environmental Capacity and the Limits of Predictive Science — The Precautionary Principle in the Control of Hazardous Substances’, Joint International Symposium on Consequences of Hazardous Waste Disposals, Proceedings Vol. I, Stockholm: Ministry of the Environment.Google Scholar
  35. Wynne, B. (1992), ‘Uncertainty and environmental learning’, Global Environmental Change, June, 111-127.Google Scholar
  36. Wynne, B. and Mayer, S. (1993), ‘How Science Fails the Environment’, New Scientist, 5 June, 33-35.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Kaiser
    • 1
  1. 1.The National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and TechnologyOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations