In praise of both the precautionary principle and better regulation

by

I support both the precautionary principle and better regulation.

It’s not a popular sentiment to hold on the issues I work on.

In praise of the Precautionary Principle

Personally, I’ve considered taking a cautionary approach sensible.  It is good for public policy and for life.

That mindset saved my life. Having some hard to see micro purple spots on my foot checked got me into hospital soon enough. If I had not taken the precautionary approach, I would be dead.

And, as someone who has worked on fisheries conservation, air pollution, and environmental policy for more than 25 years, it showed me it makes sense to avoid  the problem in the first place.  The costs and challenges of sorting out a fish stock collapse or environmental problem are way worse than stopping the problem happening in the first place.

 

In Praise of Better Regulation

I also have an unhealthy interest in Better Regulation. It’s a deeply unpopular idea amongst most politicians, officials, and most people in Brussels.  I find it helpful. It acts as a curb on taking impulsive action because of the “will of the people”. It is a brave Commissioner to block action because animal spirits have ordained the action popular.

Governments the world over have rushed to take actions that have little or no positive action. Often these actions make the problem they seek to address worse. The good thing for them is that they have usually moved on in their political careers before it is time for someone else to clean up the mess.

Can you serve two gods?

So, I find myself supporting two ideas that many see as contradictory. I see them as united.

My environmental friends see Better Regulation, and cost benefit analysis, as a tool to cut off environmental action. I’ve always backed Cass Sunstein’s view on this. His experience was the Ronald Reagan backed environmental controls on ozone depleting substances after he saw the costs to public health on skin cancers.  When I worked for politicians and in the Commission, the sober cost benefit analysis acted as strong basis for action.

As there are many risks, with associated costs associated to deal with them, I always thought as a dull social democrat, to focus on the biggest risks first and then work your way down. When the risks of harm are low and costs to deal with the issue huge, I’d question whether it makes sense to act. After all, the money could be spent on dealing a long list of really big public policy challenges.

It’s good to realise that there will be trade-offs.  Scarce public funds need to be invested where they will bring the most public good. There is, contrary to most finance ministers’ belief, no magic money tree. Choices need to be made.

Many in industry speak ill of the Precautionary Principle. I don’t know why. As someone who works a lot on substances, I think the Commission’s Communication on the Precautionary Principle, 2 February 2000, deserves re-reading.

It calls for a risk based approach, and rejects the hazard based approach. It states: “Risk assessment consists of four components – namely hazard identification, hazard characterisation, appraisal of exposure and risk characterisation (Annex III). The limits of scientific knowledge may affect each of these components, influencing the overall level of attendant uncertainty and ultimately affecting the foundation for protective or preventive action. An attempt to complete these four steps should be performed before decision to act is taken.”

Now, I know reading beyond a tweet is unpopular these days, but it brings benefits. I’d recommend people read the 2002 Communication and the Better Regulation Guidelines, #Tool 15, on Risk Assessment and Management.  It mirrors the Precautionary Communication when it looks at how to assess risks:

“The following three steps can be identified:

  1.  Identify and characterise the hazard, i.e. identify and characterise the inherent properties of the agent/phenomenon in terms of potential negative effects (on population, environment etc.), establish the causal relationship between the hazard and its effect, describe the negative effect and determine its severity (e.g. occurrence of mutations, changes in the cell structure, etc.). Special attention should be paid to induced or secondary hazards (e.g. contaminated river flood).
  2.  Assess the likelihood of its occurrence, i.e. estimate the likelihood of the hazard
  3. Characterise risk, i.e. on the basis of results from previous steps, determine quantitatively (e.g. death, injury, production loss) and if not possible, qualitatively, the level of risk under given assumptions and uncertainties. Although the level of risk can be difficult to express in monetary terms (e.g. in the case of non-market impacts on environment and health), methods exist that can be
Too often officials, politicians, or anyone want to jump the gun, and ban things before hazard identification through their imagination, or drawing down on animal spirits from the ether.
When they do so, they should at least acknowledge they are at odds with the Commission’s own thinking on the precautionary principle and Better Regulation guidelines.

1 thought on “In praise of both the precautionary principle and better regulation”

Comments are closed.