1 / 37

Precautionary Principle

Antony
Download Presentation

Precautionary Principle

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Precautionary Principle Decision Making in the Face of Scientific Uncertainty Debbie Raphael Toxics Reduction/Green Building Program Manager debbie.raphael@sfgov.org (415) 355-3711

    3. Inspirational legislation: Here at home National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA,1969)

    4. False sense of security “If it’s legal to buy… it must be safe to use”

    5. Scientific Uncertainty “Ignorance is Bliss” 80,000 chemicals in commerce Only 10% have “complete” information

    6. The Problem: What we don’t know may hurt us

    7. The Precautionary Principle Transforming the way we make decisions

    8. The Precautionary Approach It is NOT sufficient to ask: Is it legal? Is it safe? We also MUST ask: Is it necessary?

    9. The Public Process Direction from elected officials 18 months of public meetings Bay Area Working Group on the Precautionary Principle – NGO’s Input from business groups Committee on Jobs, Chamber of Commerce, Labor Unions, American Chemistry Council Consultation with subject matter experts

    10. Moving From Theoretical Principle to Practical Policy Risk Assessment - What is an acceptable level of harm? (i.e. # of cancers in 1000 people) - Does this activity or product fall within that acceptable level? - Single activity considered Alternatives Assessment - Is this potentially hazardous activity (product) necessary? - What less hazardous options are available? - How little damage is possible? - Multiple activities compared

    11. The Precautionary Principle does not pre-determine an outcome It creates a process.

    12. San Francisco’s Precautionary Principle Ordinance Chapter One of Environment Code – over arching principle. - For complete text see: www.sfenvironment.org Five Tenets Define a Mechanism for Implementation

    13. San Francisco’s 5 Tenets Duty to take anticipatory action to prevent harm Right to know complete and accurate information – burden is on the proponent to supply it

    14. San Francisco’s 5 Tenets Duty to examine a full range of alternatives, including doing nothing Must consider the full range of costs, including costs outside the initial price

    15. San Francisco’s 5 Tenets Decisions must be transparent, participatory and informed by the best available information

    16. Implementation: Pressure Treated Wood Arsenic is present and is leaching out (CCA) Known human carcinogen Set transparent and science-based criteria for comparison Alternatives assessment revealed less toxic formulations exist and meet performance needs (ACQ, CBA, CA) – No additional cost. CCA: Legal = Yes Safe = ? Necessary = NO

    17. HOWEVER: For saltwater applications Arsenic treated wood is the most environmentally preferable formulation of pressure treated wood

    18. Pest Management Pesticides: Legal = yes Safe = ? Necessary = not always

    19. Selection Criteria: Human Health Acute Chronic Environmental Bio-accumulation Half-life Ground water contaminant Non-Target Effects Wildlife Bees Fish Type of Application Broadcast Spot Treatment Mode of Application Liquid Spray Granules Solid or gel baits Location Hillside Aquatic Turf areas Hard surfaces Indoor

    20. Citywide use of RoundUp

    21. Pest Management Reduced overall pesticide use by 79% Reduced toxicity of those pesticides still in use No additional costs – outside of time for initial training

    22. Implementation: Cleaning Products Toxic Ingredients: Legal = Yes Safe = ? Necessary = NO

    23. Custodial Selection Criteria Acute Toxicity Carcinogens and Reproductive Toxins Eye and Skin Irritation Skin Sensitization Skin Absorption Potential Combustibility VOC Content Aquatic Toxicity Eutrophication Aquatic Biodegradability Concentrate Fragrances Prohibited Ingredients Non aerosol and other packaging Training Cost/Performance

    24. The Precautionary Principle ? Zero risk ? Zero science ? Loss of jobs ? Predetermined outcome (i.e. ban) = Minimize harm = Maximize info./science = Increase innovation = Transparent Process for public decision making

    25. Why should Cities adopt a policy? Offers a decision making process that is explicit about the values of: Preventing harm Right to know / Full Disclosure Public Participation Expands the pool of people asking the question: Is it necessary? Strengthens the foundation of existing precautionary measures.

    26. Re-defining the Central Question for Decision Makers It is NOT sufficient to ask: Is it legal? Is it safe? We also MUST ask: Is it necessary?

    27. San Francisco’s Precautionary Principle Ordinance Chapter One of Environment Code - For complete text see: www.sfenvironment.org Debbie Raphael: debbie.raphael@sfgov.org

    28. San Francisco’s 5 Tenets Duty to take anticipatory action to prevent harm Decisions must be transparent, participatory and informed by the best available information Right to know complete and accurate information

    29. San Francisco’s 5 Tenets Duty to examine a full range of alternatives, including doing nothing Must consider the full range of costs, including costs outside the initial price

    30. The Precautionary Principle ? Zero risk ? Zero science ? Loss of jobs ? Predetermined outcome (i.e. ban) = Minimize harm = Maximize info./science = Increase innovation = Transparent Process for public decision making

    31. Re-defining the Central Question for Decision Makers It is NOT sufficient to ask: Is it legal? Is it safe? We also MUST ask: Is it necessary?

    32. Historical Perspective

    33. Germany 1970’s Vorsorge-prinzip Black Forest die-off of trees German Government suspects acid-rain from coal burning power plants Can’t prove cause and effect Invokes “Vorsorge” (foresight) to regulate emissions

    34. Rio Earth Summit 1992 Principle 15 In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

    35. Wingspread Conference 1998 Where an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public bears the burden of proof. The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed and democratic, and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.

    36. City of San Francisco 2003 Where threats of serious or irreversible damage to people or nature exist, lack of full scientific certainty about cause and effect shall not be viewed as sufficient reason for the City to postpone cost effective measures to prevent the degradation of the environment or protect the public health of its citizens.

    37. Mendocino County – 2006 When it is apparent that an activity is a potential threat to the environment or human health, full scientific certainty is not necessary to initiate precautionary action. Precautionary decision-making is based on a thorough examination of alternatives, transparency, participatory democracy, and prevention of harm.

More Related