From the fire department that responds to emergency calls to the natural resource agency that bars the import of a predatory fish, precautionary action governs many aspects of daily life. It responds to the complexity of health and environmental problems and the often-indeterminate nature of cause-and-effect relationships. The principle was first enunciated as an explicit basis of policy in German water protection law during the 1970s; known as "Vorsorgeprinzip," or the "foresight" principle, it has since guided a wide range of policies, laws, and treaties addressing everything from acid rain to biotechnology.

The inclusion of the principle in the Rio Declaration at the Earth Summit in June 1992 firmly placed precaution on the global stage. More recently, the January 2000 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety reaffirmed several times the precautionary approach and the appropriateness of taking protective action where there is a "lack of scientific certainty due to insufficient relevant scientific information and knowledge regarding the extent of the potential adverse effects…."

The precautionary approach can best be understood as an overarching principle informing each step of the decision-making process. In keeping with the ideals of foresight and careful planning, the principle places great weight on data collection and analysis. The information-gathering process involves multiple sources, including the public, to ensure that all relevant data are considered. The analysis must go well beyond risk assessment. Though a useful tool in certain contexts, risk assessment has the potential to narrow rather than broaden the analysis in at least two respects: by inserting estimates where uncertainty exists; and through its focus on quantifying "acceptable" levels of health or environmental damage. The precautionary principle, by contrast, calls for review of the proposed action in light of all the possible options and alternatives.

The precautionary approach provides an ideal framework under which to address persistent organic pollutants.

1. These chemicals pose threats of serious or irreversible damage.
   From dioxins to DDT to PCBs, the 12 substances being discussed in the POPs negotiations are ranked amongst the most dangerous chemicals known, causing cancers; immune and nervous system effects; altered metabolism; impaired growth and reproduction; and other health outcomes in humans and wildlife. The adverse impacts of POPs are amplified by their physical properties: they resist the normal processes that break down contaminants in the body and the environment; they accumulate in body fat and are not readily excreted; and they can travel long distances on air currents.

2. Some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.
   While there is unequivocal evidence on many aspects of POPs’ toxicity, several questions remain illusive. These include the congruence of health effects in animals and humans; the long-term impacts on higher predators; the low-dose effects; the interactive effects of exposures to multiple substances; and the extent of non-cancer endpoints, from endocrine disruption to immune system impairment.

3. The lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent harm.
   The threat of serious and irreversible damage from POPs, from birth defects to cancers, provides a compelling basis for precautionary action even in the absence of full scientific certainty about the mechanisms and effects. There is no way to isolate or control POPs: they accumulate in the tissue of wildlife and humans and can persist in the environment for decades. Because of their remarkable transport abilities, there is no way to escape their reach.

4. All relevant information and options should be considered.
   To identify the response that best protects wildlife, the environment, and public health, precaution entails a thorough review of all the options, from no action to goal-setting to phase out and elimination. In the context of POPs, this analysis leads to elimination as the only response that provides effective safeguards in light of available POPs-free substances and processes. Many alternatives exist today, while others are within scientific reach.

It is important that the POPs Treaty reflect the precautionary approach in all provisions, including but not limited to those articles referenced below:

Article B – Objectives: The objectives must acknowledge that the serious health and environmental threats from POPs dictate the need for precautionary action even in the absence of full scientific certainty. These chemicals have already damaged the health of wildlife and humans and pose an ongoing danger; that uncertainties exist about some of the cause-and-effect relationships shall not be a rationale for postponing protective action. Elimination, not management, must be the ultimate goal.

Article D – Measures to reduce or eliminate releases: The precautionary approach dictates the phase out and ultimate elimination of the 12 pollutants under consideration. All belong in Annex A because of the threats posed to wildlife, the environment, and human health. To those countries that continue to rely on one or more of the 12 targeted POPs, a country-focused "specific exemption" could be granted, where merited and appropriate.

Article E – National implementation plans (NIPs): NIPs should reflect each Party’s plan to phase out and eliminate POPs consistent with the Treaty and with technical and financial capabilities. The NIPs should incorporate reference to and build upon the precautionary approach.

Article F – Listing of substances in Annexes A, B, and/or C: The precautionary approach applies in at least two instances when considering proposals to list additional substances as UNEP POPs. First, the principle should come into play when determining whether a proposed substance meets the screening criteria. Second, it should be reflected in evaluating whether, on the basis of the risk profile, the proposal should proceed. As examples of such an approach, a log K_ow of four or greater, and a half-life of two months in water, should be chosen as part of the screening criteria.

Further opportunities to incorporate precautionary measures exist throughout the POPs Treaty, from actions to ensure effective public education and information exchange, to provisions on research and monitoring, to the availability of technical and financial assistance. The stakes are high when dealing with hand-me-down POPs poisons: precaution should inform every step of the way, at the remaining two INCs, the signing ceremony, the Conference of Parties, and all future POPs-related activities.

WWF Global Toxic Chemicals Initiative
1250 24^th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037
Tel: 202-778-9625 Fax: 202-530-0743
toxics@wwfus.org www.worldwildlife.org/toxics