Transcript What is the Precautionary Principle?

Whose Knowledge Counts?
How do we Count it?
Rod Dobell, Katherine Barrett and Stuart Lee
University of Victoria
National Policy Research Conference
Ottawa, October, 2002
Brief bios
• Rod Dobell finished a PhD in economics at MIT
and taught mathematical economics at Harvard
and Toronto before beginning a long re-learning
process in social realities, procedural ethics and
sustainability studies, including fieldwork in the
Government of Canada, OECD, IRPP and other
NGOs. He has just learned that ‘retirement’
means that paycheques can cease but research
project interests and responsibilities never die.
Katherine Barrett, PhD
• Katherine Barrett completed BSc and MSc
degrees in microbiology, and a PhD in Botany in
association with the Centre for Applied Ethics at
UBC, examining the use of science in formulating
policies related to GMOs. She has worked for
several years with the Science and Environmental
Health Network and the POLIS project on
Ecological Governance at the University of
Victoria. This paper was completed under the
auspices of the Clayoquot Alliance for Research,
Education and Training, a SSHRC-CURA project.
Stuart Lee, PhD
• Stuart Lee combined BSc and MSc degrees in
molecular biology with studies in the sociology of
science to complete his PhD at the University of
Victoria. Recent research pursues issues of
knowledge and decision making at the interface of
science and civil society, with a particular interest
in cultural integration occurring in the Clayoquot
Sound region of Vancouver Island. Work on this
subject was undertaken for the Clayoquot
Alliance. He has recently been appointed as an
S&T Policy Analyst at Environment Canada.
• Basic theme of this session is the need for
governments, in a complex, uncertain and
rapidly changing world of deep diversity, to
rethink their ideas of evidence-based
decision and results-oriented accountability.
• Entails recognition of many conflicting
perspectives in participatory processes, and
an integration of distinct belief systems in
the negotiation of understandings of
problems and collective responses to them.
• At the heart of decision-making in an uncertain
world is the precautionary principle.
• Not a principle of decision theory, relevant when
risk assessment is complete; rather a general
approach to framing of and response to problems
of social risk.
• Founded in interactive analytical-deliberative
processes—not just ‘inside’ science into policy,
but also ‘outside’ deliberative processes leading
into collective commitments to coherent individual
action.
• Will look here at two facets of the story—
the precautionary principle itself, broadly
understood as a basis for action; and
• The negotiation of understanding and
commitment in synthesis of traditional
ecological knowledge and conventional
science (Scientific Panel for Sustainable
Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound.)
• Katherine Barrett will address the first
issue, and Stuart Lee will follow directly.
What is the
Precautionary Principle?
 An approach to decision-making under
conditions of great uncertainty and
potential harm
 Originating in environmental policies of
the 1970s
Interpreting the
Precautionary Principle
Rio Declaration (1992):
 In order to protect the environment, the
precautionary approach shall be widely
applied by States according to their
capability.
 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.
Interpreting the
Precautionary Principle
Wingspread Statement (1998):
 When an activity raises threats of harm to
human health or the environment,
precautionary measures should be taken
even if some cause and effect
relationships are not fully established
scientifically.
Key Elements of the
Precautionary Principle
 Recognition of potential (serious,
irreversible) harm
 Recognition of uncertainty (and
complexity)
 Recognition that action is warranted
Implementing the
Precautionary Principle
 A Canadian Perspective on the
Precautionary Principle/Approach.
Discussion Document (2001)
 Highlights key controversies and tensions
around implementation
Where Does the
Precautionary Principle Apply?
Steps in Decision-Making Process:





Define the problem
Gather and assess evidence
Develop and select options
Implement decisions
Monitor
Precaution as a
Management Option





Define the problem
Gather and assess evidence
Develop and select options
Implement decisions
Monitor
Precaution as a Comprehensive
Decision-Making Process





Define the problem
Gather and assess evidence
Develop and select options
Implement decisions
Monitor
Precaution as a Comprehensive
Decision-Making Process




Re-frame the problem
Acknowledge the limits of science
Admit broader range of evidence and
expertise
Account for value assumptions
Precaution as a Comprehensive
Decision-Making Process
 “The precautionary approach is unique
within traditional risk management
because of the higher degree of
uncertainty, the parameters that can
establish what constitutes an adequate
scientific basis, and the distinctive
aspects of sound and rigorous judgment.”
 “… empirical, theoretical or … ‘traditional
knowledge’”
 “… a different approach to public
engagement is required.”
 “Public involvement should be structured
into the scientific review and advisory
process as well as the decision-making
process.”
from: A Canadian Perspective (2001)
Broadening the Bounds –
Integrating Traditional Ecological
Knowledge
Case Study:
The Scientific Panel for Sustainable
Forest Practices in Clayoquot
Sound
This talk . . .
• Brief geographical and historical context
• Presentation of key elements that reflect
influence of Traditional Ecological
Knowledge (TEK)
• Closing arguments regarding integration
of new knowledges
Clayoquot Sound
•Two towns
•Five FN villages
•Approximately equal
FN/non-FN pop’n
•Tourism
•Fishing
•Logging
Conflict around Forestry - I
• 1984 First logging blockade in Canadian
history when Macmilan Bloedel (MacBlo)
attempts to log Meares Island
• 1985 First court injunction preventing
logging in BC history - Meares Island
• 1988 More conflict - Sulphur Pass – chief
arrested, with many other local protesters
Conflict around Forestry - II
• 1989-92 “Sustainable community” efforts
amid ongoing strife
• Oct. 1992 “Clayoquot Sound Sustainable
Development Strategy Steering
Committee” disbanded
• April 1993 Cabinet presents Clayoquot
Sound Land Use decision
Conflicts around forestry - III
• 1993 “Clayoquot Summer” largest ever
Canadian act of civil disobedience – 900+
• ENGO-led International boycotts
• International campaigns by Nuu-chahnulth
The Scientific Panel for
Sustainable Forest Practices in
Clayoquot Sound
• “Review the forest management standards
for Clayoquot Sound and make
recommendations for changes and
improvements where required to develop
a set of “world class” forest practices for
Clayoquot Sound.” (BC, Oct 22, 1993)
#1 Panel Constitution
• Western Scientists
– They were not: residents, gov’t or industry
employees, or associated with
environmental groups
• Nuu-chah-nulth elders
– They were: long-time residents, socially
and politically involved
#2 – Panel Process
Mandated Deliverable
Panel Deliverable
• “Initial report of standards • “The Panel has
review and
forged a protocol
recommendations for
[that] reflects.... the
forest harvesting, road
Nuu-chah-nulth
construction and
approach to group
engineering, access,
slope stability and
processes” (CSSP
hydrology” (BC, Oct 22,
1993)
Report 1, p . 5)
#3a. – Panel Terms of Reference
Mandated TOR
1. Review existing forest management
standards
2. Recommend changes to these
standards... based on the best available
scientific information. (BC, Oct 22, 1993)
#3b. – Panel Terms of Reference
Panel TOR
“the Panel’s task [changed] from
reviewing and revising current standards
to creating standards for a different
approach to forest planning in Clayoquot
Sound.” (CSSP Report 2, p. 4)
#4 Nuu-chah-nulth Terminology
• Hishuk ish ts’awalk – “everything is one”
• Iisaak – “respect’
• Halhuulhi – “traditional
governance/resource management”
#5 Challenged Existing
Legal/Industrial agreements
• Panel recommends a planning process that:
– calculates area available for commodity
production
– specifies a harvesting rate
– and identifies the locations where harvesting may
occur
• “These harvest levels functionally replace
the AAC in defining expectations for
harvestable wood” (rep. 5, p.154)
Incorporating “Traditional
Knowledge” also meant:
• Changing Panel selection criteria and
Panel process through influence of
TEK’s different ways of coming to know
• Introducing new languages/concepts
into forestry document
• Changing legislation to allow an entirely
different basis for forestry management
Implementation
• New governance arrangement - increased
community control
• New business arrangements to make
ecosystem-approaches to logging
economically feasible
Taking new knowledge seriously
means taking new knowledge
SYSTEMS seriously
• Different knowledge comes from
different practices, with different
attendant social arrangements to
support them
• When proposing changes to how an
organization gathers/assesses
evidence, be prepared for the change in
other sectors that must follow
Concluding comments
• Extending precautionary approach
upstream, to framing, and downstream, to
implementation and compliance.
• Case study illustrates issues in extending
upstream, to negotiation of understanding
across scientific and other cultures;
• And downstream, to need for new
institutions to accommodated participatory
discussion and shared governance.
• Re-thinking of governance in face of
inherent uncertainty and indeterminacy of
complex systems
• Need to design institutions for ‘safe-fail’
[safe in failure] operation, not ‘fail-safe’
[safe from failure]. Redundancy may help.
• (And need accountability concepts and audit
practices to recognize the difference!)
• Need to move to risk culture acknowledging
indeterminacy, not promote audit culture
premised on certainty and measurement.
• So need adaptive management, institutions,
governance; but also need interactive
deliberative and inclusive processes for
dealing with social risk—need to ground
decisions on collective action within social
institutions that are accepted as legitimate.
• In the end, this means focus on the
responsibility of public servants for
judgments on a broad range of ethical as
well as technical considerations.
The Reflexive Public Servant
• Above argument calls for a public servant willing
to re-examine and challenge her own starting
points, biases and belief systems;
• Willing to give up hiding political agenda behind
mask of expert knowledge;
• Willing to seek reconciliation of exercise of power
with professions of truth;
• Willing to give up appeal to simple concepts like a
uniform social threshold for ‘acceptable risk’.
• The reflexive public servant expects and
anticipates evolution and adaptation in
beliefs, values and norms (‘double-loop’
social learning);
• Recognizes that distributional issues and
ethical dilemmas cannot be resolved or
disguised as technical computations;
• Is willing, once again, to challenge not only
the biases and constructions that other
participants bring to the table, but her own
as well.