Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T00:30:02.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Critical Approach of the Use of Economic Models in Precautionary Risk Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Vasco Gonçalves
Vasco Gonçalves*
Affiliation:
Dinâmia-CET, Centre for Socioeconomic and Territorial Studies, Department of Finance, ISCTE Business School, Lisbon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article a synthesis of formal models for the economic interpretation of the precautionary principle is presented, with their virtualities, limitations and measures to overcome them.

The concept of precaution has great relevance in environmental regulation in the European Union. On the one hand, and despite the somewhat vague nature of legislation, the interpretation of the precautionary principle has seen recent progress with the development of some economic models and their application. There is, however, a need for a regulatory framework for the implementation of this principle in environmental decision-making, i.e., to clarify concepts and management procedures that are appropriate to the nature of environmental risks.

It is therefore important to know the most relevant economic approaches and models with the aim of identifying their contribution to the debate on precaution in the context of environmental risk management and discuss their practical relevance in public decision-making.

Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 335 - 345
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Maastricht Treaty, 31 International Legal Materials, American Society of International Law (2004) pp. 247-286.

2 Current Article 191, paragraph 2, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The only explicit reference to the precautionary principle is: ‘European Union policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection, (…). It shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay’. In this article, paragraph 1 states the objectives of the environmental policy of the European Union: ‘preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment; protecting human health; prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources; promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change.’ Paragraph 3 states that ‘In preparing its policy on the environment, the Union shall take account of: available scientific and technical data, environmental conditions in the various regions of the Union, the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action, the economic and social development of the Union as a whole and the balanced development of its regions’.

3 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (1992), Jun 14, 31 ILM 874, 879.

4 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity: text and annexes. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity Montreal, Canada.

5 EC – Communication on the Precautionary Principle, COM (2000) – 1, European Comission (2000), Bruss (UNCED)els.

6 UNCED, supra note 3.

7 Such as the following: Raffensperger, C. and Tickner, J. eds., Protecting Public Health & the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle (Island Press, Washington DC 1999)Google Scholar; Harremoes, P., Gee, D., MacGarvin, M., Stirling, A., Keys, J., Wynne, B. and Vaz, S. eds., The Precautionary Principle in the 20th Century: Late Lessons from Early Warnings (Earthscan Publications, London 2002)Google Scholar; EC, supra note 5; Tickner, J. A. ed., Precaution: Environmental Science and Preventive Public Policy (Washington, DC, Island Press 2003)Google ScholarPubMed; UNESCO, Le Principe de Précaution (Commission mondiale d’éthique des connaissances scientifiques et des technologies, Paris 2005); Myers, N. and Raffensperger, C., Precautionary tools for reshapping environmental policy (Island Press, Washington 2005)Google Scholar; Fisher, E., Jones, J. and von Schomberg, R., R., , The Precautionary Principle and Public Policy Decision Making: a prospective analysis of the role of the Precautionary Principle for emerging science and technology (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar 2006)Google Scholar. The particular case of the EC Communication on the Precautionary Principle must be emphasized. It aims to provide guidance for the application of this principle in the Member- States.

8 V. Gonçalves “O Princípio da Precaução e a Avaliação de Projectos: Uma Interpretação Económica e de Gestão”, PhD thesis in Management (on file at ISCTE-IUL, Lisboa, 2008).

9 CPP (2010), La Décision Publique Face à l'Incertitude Clarifier les Règles, Améliorer les Outils (Comité de la Précaution et de la Prévention, Ministère de l'Ecologie, de l'Energie, du Développement Durable et de la Mer. Mars. Paris 2010).

10 Ewald, F., Aux Risques d’Innover. Les Enterprises Face au Príncipe de Précaution (Editions Autrement, Paris 2009)Google Scholar; SEHN, Advancing the Precautionary Agenda (Science & Environmental Health Network, Feb 2009); Rogers, M. D., “Risk Management and the Record of the Precautionary Principle in EU Case Law”, 14 (4) Journal of Risk Research (Abril 2011), pp. 467–484 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Fisher et al., supra note 7

12 N. Moreau and D. Rivaud-Danset, L’Incertitude dans les Théories Économiques (Repères, La Découverte, Paris 2004).

13 Arrow, K. J. and Fisher, A. C., “Environmental Preservation, Uncertainty and Irreversibility”, 88 Quarterly Journal of Economics (1974), pp. 312–319 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Henry, C., “Investment Decisions Under Uncertainty: the Irreversibility Effect”, 64 (6) American Economic Review (1974), pp. 1006–1012 Google Scholar.

15 Gollier, C., Jullien, L. and Treich, N., “Scientific Progress and Irreversibility: An Economic Interpretation of the Precautionary Principle”, 75 Journal of Public Economics, pp. 229–253 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Gollier, C. and Treich, N., “Decision-Making Under Scientific Uncertainty: the Economics of the Precautionary Principle”, 27 (1) Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, pp. 77–103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O., Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1944)Google Scholar.

18 In these models, scientific uncertainty (or not proven risk), which characterises precautionary situations, differs from risk (proven risk), which characterises prevention situations, mainly due to its possible reduction with time.

19 Gollier et al.,supra note 15

20 Kolstad, C. D., “Fundamental Irreversibilities in Stock Externalities”, 60 Journal of Public Economics (1996), pp. 221–233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Ulph, A. and Ulph, D., “Global Warming, Irreversibility and Learning”, 107 Economic Journal (1997), pp. 636–649 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Fisher, A., Hanemann, M. and Narain, U., “The Temporal Resolution of Uncertainty” (University of California, Berkeley 2004)Google Scholar.

23 In the global warming model, measures should be taken to limit emissions of greenhouse gases, without knowing with certainty the consequences of its accumulation in the atmosphere (see reports of the IPCC-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC, Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change (Cambridge University Press 1996)Google Scholar; IPCC, Climate Change 2001: the Scientific Basis (Cambridge University Press 2001)Google Scholar.

24 Ingham, A. and Ulph, A., “Uncertainty, Irreversibility, Precaution, and the Social Cost of Carbon”, in Helm, D. (ed.), Climate Change and Policy Response (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005)Google Scholar; Peterson, S., “Uncertainty and Economic Analysis of Climate Change: A Survey of Approaches and Findings”, 11 Environmental Modeling and Assessment (2006), pp. 1–17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Allais, M. (1953), “Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque: critique des postulats et axiomes de l'école américaine”. Econometrica 21, 503-546.

26 Ellsberg, D., “Risk, ambiguity and the Savage axioms”, 75 (4) Quarterly Journal of Economics (1961), pp. 643-69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A., A., , “Prospect theory: an Analysis of Decision Under Risk”, 47 (2) Econometrica, (1979), pp. 263–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Quiggin, J., “Risk Perception and Risk Aversion Among Australian Farmers”, 25 Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics (1981), pp. 160-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Quiggin, J., “A Theory of Anticipated Utility”, 3 Journal of Economic Behavior and Organisation (1982), pp. 323-43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schmeidler, D., “Subjective Probability and Expected Utility Without Additivity”. 57 Econometrica (1989), pp. 571–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Another framework is ‘prospect theory’ (Kahneman and Tversky, supra note 27). The two frameworks have been combined in ‘cumulative prospect theory’ ( Tversky, A., Slovic, P. and Kahneman, D., “The Causes of Preference Reversal”, 80 (1) The American Economic Review (1990), pp. 204–217 Google Scholar.

30 Diecidue, E. and Wakker, P., “On the Intuition of Rank-Dependent Utility”, 23 (3) The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty (2001); pp. 281–298 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31 Bargiacci, R., “Climate Change Scenarios and the Precautionary Principle”, in Wesseler, J., Weikard, H.-P. and Weaver, R. (eds.), Risk and Uncertainty in Environmental and Natural Resource Economics (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2004)Google Scholar.

32 Savage, L., The Foundations of Statistics (1954), revised and enlarged edition (1972) Dover, New York Google Scholar.

33 Thus, this model would remove the distinction between uncertainty and risk, and, hence, between precaution and prevention (where the probabilities are objective).

34 Gilboa, I. and Schmeidler, D., “Maximin Expected Utility with a Non Unique Prior”, 18 Journal of Mathematical Economics (1989), pp. 141–153 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Lange, A. and Treich, N., “Uncertainty, Learning and Ambiguity in Economic Models on Climate Policy: Some Classical Results and New Directions”, 89 (1-2)Climatic Change, pp 7–21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Gamboa, G. and Munda, G., “The Problem of Wind-Park Location: a Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation Framework”. 35 (3) Energy Policy (2007), pp. 1564–1583 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Such as of representatives of economic activities and public interest groups, scientists and government consultants.

38 Munda, G., Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation for a Sustainable Economy (Springer-Verlag New York 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Stirling, A. and Mayer, S., “Confronting Risk and Precaution: a Multi-Criteria Mapping of a GM Crop” in Getzner, M. (ed.), Developing Alternatives for Valuing Nature (Routledge, London 2005)Google Scholar.

40 Kast, R., “Calcul Économique et Mise en Pratique du Principe de Précaution”, 21 (2) Économie publique (2007 Google Scholar).

41 Beaumais, O., Économie de l’Environnement: Méthodes et Débats (La Documentation Française, Paris 2002)Google Scholar.

42 Tisdell, C. A., Economics of Environmental Conservation (Edward Elgar 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 Cooney, R., Biodiversity and the Precautionary Principle: Risk and Uncertainty in Conservation and Sustainable Use (Earthscan, London 2005)Google Scholar.

44 ‘Incommensurability of values', i.e., “the absence of a common unit of measure for plural values” as defined by Martinez-Alier et al. ( Martinez-Alier, J., Munda, G. and O’Neill, J., “Weak Comparability of Values as a Foundation for Ecological Economics”, 26 Ecological Economics, pp. 277–286 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Matheu, M., La Décision Publique Face aux Risques (La Documentation française, Paris 2002)Google Scholar.

46 P. Boucard, “Does the Decision Theory in Economics Shed Light on the Application of the Precautionary Principle ?”, presentation held at European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 16th Annual Conference (2008).

47 Godard, O., “Le Principe de Précaution Comme Norme de l’Action Publique, ou la Proportionnalité en Question”, 54 (6) Revue Économique (Nov 2003), pp. 1245–1276 Google Scholar.

48 J.-C. Etienne, “Le Principe de Précaution: Bilan de son Application Quatre Ans Après sa Constitutionnalisation” (Office Parlementaire d'evaluation des choix scientifiques et technologiques, Paris 2009).

49 O. Godard, “Le Principe de Précaution et la Proportionnalité Face à l’Incertitude Scientifique” in Conseil d’État, Rapport public 2005 – Responsabilité et socialisation du risque (La Documentation Française, Paris 2005).

50 J. Quiggin, “The Precautionary Principle and the Theory of Choice under Uncertainty” (Working Paper, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Brisbane, 2009).

51 Quiggin, supra note 50.

52 CPP, supra note 9.

53 Aven, T. and Renn, O., Risk Management and Governance. Concepts, Guidelines and Applications (Heidelberg: Springer, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.