Basic Principles of environmental law

Introduction There are a number of principles that are at the core of most environmental protection systems, whether at the international or national level. Familiarity with these principles can offer insight into the purpose and thrust of the various legal mechanisms that have been built upon them.

Introduction decades of legal developments have led to the emergence of the basic principles of environmental protection that are recognized in international and national laws, which have in turn informed the development of environmental law by giving meaning to concepts not yet contained in formal legal instruments.

Introduction The key environmental principles developed over the past several decades are discussed below. They have been reproduced in domestic laws and thus have provided a foundation for many environmental decisions. They are influential in most legal systems, although they sometimes may be applied differently

1. Prevention Experience and scientific expertise demonstrate that prevention must be the Golden Rule for the environment, for both ecological and economic reasons. In some instances, it can be impossible to remedy environmental injury once it has occurred; the extinction of a species of fauna or flora, erosion, and the dumping of persistent pollutants into the sea create intractable, even irreversible situations. The prevention principle is the fundamental notion behind laws regulating the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste and laws regulating the use of pesticides. The principle was the foundation of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (1989), which sought to minimize the production of hazardous waste and to combat illegal dumping. The prevention principle also was an important element of the EC’s Third Environmental Action Programme, which was adopted in 1983.

1. Prevention Even when harm is remediable, the cost of rehabilitation is often very high. In many instances it is impossible to prevent all risk of harm. In such instances, it may be judged that measures should be taken to make the risk “as small as practically possible ” in order to allow the necessary activities to proceed while protecting the environment and the rights of others.

Mechanisms of prevention a) Prior assessment of environmental harm; b) Licensing or authorizations: that set out the conditions for operation and the remedial consequences for violation of the conditions. C) Emission limits: that limit the amount of pollution that may be emitted d) Product or process standards, e) The use of best available techniques (BAT), and other similar techniques can all be seen as applications of prevention.

2. Precaution environmental law regularly operates in areas complicated by high levels of scientific uncertainty. In the case of many activities that entail some change to the environment, it is impossible to determine precisely what effects the activity will have on the quality of the environment or on human health. It is generally impossible to know, for example, whether a certain level of air pollution will result in an increase in mortality from respiratory disease, whether a certain level of water pollution will reduce a healthy fish population, or whether oil development in an environmentally sensitive area will significantly disturb the native wildlife. This principle is expressed in the Rio Declaration, which stipulates that, 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.” 

2. Precaution Precaution has variously been associated with the ideas that: Scientific uncertainty should not be used as a reason not to take action with respect to a particular environmental concern; Action should affirmatively be taken with respect to a particular environmental concern; Those engaging in a potentially damaging activity should have the burden of establishing the absence of environmental harm; and A State may restrict imports based on a standard involving less than full scientific certainty of environmental harm

3. Polluter Pays Historically, pollution control costs have been borne by the community at large, rather than by those who pollute. Community assumption of the costs can be demonstrated using the example of an industry that discharges pollutants into a river.

3. Polluter Pays Many economists claim that much environmental harm is caused by producers who “externalize” the costs of their activities. the affected community bears the cost of the pollution and of the measures designed to eliminate it or to mitigate its effects. The polluter pays principle avoids this result by obliging the polluter to bear the costs of pollution control, to “internalize” them. In most cases the enterprise will in fact incorporate the costs in the price of the products to some degree and pass them on to the consumer. Producer/consumer rather the whole society . For example, factories that emit unfiltered exhaust into the atmosphere or discharge untreated chemicals into a river pay little to dispose of their waste. Instead, the cost of waste disposal in the form of pollution is borne by the entire community.

3. Polluter Pays There are at least three possible ways for the community to assume the economic costs of the pollution: The river can remain polluted and rendered unsuitable for certain downstream activities, causing the downstream community to suffer an economic loss; The downstream community can build an adequate water treatment plant at its own cost; The polluter may receive public subsidies for controlling the pollution.

Pollution control measures Construction and operation of anti-pollution installations, Investment in anti-pollution equipment and new processes, so that a necessary environmental quality objective is achieved. Other means of ensuring the polluter pays principle are through taxes and charges.

Questions??