Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

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

  • 196 Accesses

  • 8 Citations

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

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.

  2. Buhl-Mortensen, L. (1996), ‘Type-II Statistical Errors in Environmental Science and the Precautionary Principle’, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 32, 528-531.

  3. Dommen, E. (ed.) (1993), Fair Principles for Sustainable Development, published for and on behalf of the United Nations by Edward Elgar, Vermont: Brookfield.

  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.

  5. Freestone, D. and Hey, E. (eds.) (1996), The Precautionary Principle and International Law, The Hague, London, Boston: Kluwer Law International.

  6. Funtowicz S. and Ravetz, J. (1990), Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publ.

  7. Funtowicz, S.O. and Ravctz, J.R. (1993), ‘Science for the Post-Normal Age’, Futures, 25/7 September 1993, 735-755.

  8. Gray, J.S. (1990), ‘Statistics and the Precautionary Principle’, Marine Pollution Bulletin 21, 174-176.

  9. Gray, J.S. et al. (1991), ‘Scientifically Based Strategies for Marine Environmental Protection and Management’, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 22, 432-440.

  10. Gray, J.S. (1996), ‘Environmental Science and a Precautionary Approach Revisited’, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 32, 532-534.

  11. Hanson, S.O. (1995), ‘The Detection Level’, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 22, 103-109.

  12. Hanson, S.O. (1997), 'Can We Reverse the Burden of Proof¿, Toxicology Letters, forthcoming.

  13. Hutchings, J.A. (1991), ‘The Threat of Extinction to Native Populations Experiencing Spawning Intrusions by Cultured Atlantic Salmon’, Aquaculture 98, 119-132.

  14. Johnson, E.J. and Tversky, A. (1980), ‘Representations of Perceptions of Risk’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 55-70.

  15. Johnston, P. and Simmonds M. (1991) ‘Green Light for Precautionary Science’, New Scientist (Talking Point) 3.

  16. Lemons, J. and Brown, D.A. (eds.) (1995), Sustainable Development: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy, Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  17. Lindell, M.K. and Earle, T.C. (1983), ‘How Close is Close Enough? Public Perceptions of Industrial Facilities’, Risk Analysis 3, 245-254.

  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.

  19. Mayo, D. and Hollander, R. (eds.) (1991), Acceptable Evidence, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  20. Milne, A. (1993), ‘The perils of green pessimism’, New Scientist, 12 June, 34-37.

  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.

  22. Myers, N. (1993), ‘Biodiversity and the Precautionary Principle’, AMBIO 22, 74-79.

  23. NENT (1993), Oppdrettslaks — en studie i norsk teknologiutvikling, Oslo: TMV forlag.

  24. NENT (1997), Fore-var prinsippet — mellom forskning og politikk, Oslo: De nasjonale forskningsetiske komiteer.

  25. Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy, (1995), Sustained Risks: a Lasting Phenomenon, Reports to the Government, #44, The Hague.

  26. O'Riordan, T. and Cameron, J. (eds.) (1994), Interpreting the Precautionary Principle, London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

  27. Peterman, R.M. (1980), ‘Statistical Power Analysis can improve fisheries research and management’, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 47, 2-15.

  28. Peterman, R.M. and M'Gonigle, M. (1992), ‘Statistical Power Analysis and the Precautionary Principle’, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 24, 231-234.

  29. Reinertsen, H. and Haaland, H. (eds.) (1995), Sustainable Fish Farming, Rotterdam, Brookefield: A.A. Balkema.

  30. Schwartz, M. and Thompson, M. (1990), Divided We Stand. Redefining Politics, Technology, and Social Choice, New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

  31. Shrader-Frechette, K. (1991), Risk and Rationality, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford: University of California Press.

  32. Slovic, P. Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. (1984), ‘Behavioral Decision Theory Perspectives on Risk and Safety’, Acta Psychologica, 56, 183-203.

  33. Stebbing, A.R.D. (1992), ‘Environmental Capacity and the Precautionary Principle’, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 24, 287-295.

  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.

  35. Wynne, B. (1992), ‘Uncertainty and environmental learning’, Global Environmental Change, June, 111-127.

  36. Wynne, B. and Mayer, S. (1993), ‘How Science Fails the Environment’, New Scientist, 5 June, 33-35.

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kaiser, M. Fish-Farming and the Precautionary Principle: Context and Values in Environmental Science for Policy. Foundations of Science 2, 307–341 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009679923315

Download citation

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