A volcano spits ash It closes the sky. A storm noie tens of Vendéens It ordered the destruction of hundreds of houses. A virus kills the Mexico On vaccine the French population. These spectacular decisions are justified by the precautionary principle. When a principle WINS if compelling public policy, it is urgent to question its true meaning.
The meaning of a word or phrase naturally begins with its definition. However, in France, we have the unique chance to have registered the precautionary principle in the Basic Law of the country, specifically in a Charter that has constitutional value, where the weight of each word has weighed the stepping. Article 5 the following: "When the realisation of a damage, although uncertain in the State of scientific knowledge, could affect the environment in a serious and irreversible manner, public authorities shall, by application of the precautionary principle and in their areas of responsibilities, to the implementation of risk assessment procedures and the adoption of provisional and proportionate measures to deal with the realization of the damage."
But the rulers do not act like that. Everything happens as if they had read the text a little quickly in favour of an apparently nearby version and very different reality, which may be stated thus: "When the realisation of a damage, although uncertain in the State of scientific knowledge, could destroy human lives, public authorities shall, by application of the precautionary principle and in their areas of responsibilities, the adoption of measures to address the achievement of the damage."
Consider this shift between the law and practice. First, the risk assessment procedure has disappeared. In the case of the likely sky to be defiled by the Eyjafjöll Icelandic volcano ash, it is patent: it took the stubbornness of the airlines nailed to the ground so we decided to go see what was going on up there, while the authorities decide on the basis of information outputs of outdated computer models. In the case of houses Vendée allegedly threatened by future storms to the Xynthia, the evaluation was to the less carried out with lightness. In the case of the H1N1 virus, it was impossible a priori.
Second disappearance then less systematic: the provisional nature of the measures. It is sometimes the case - temporary blocking of the sky, transitional measures taken at the borders to check the health status of travellers. But not always: destroyed houses will be once and for all.
Third, it is more problematic. It is the adoption of measures "proportionate". How to offer air traffic, vaccination, the demolition of housing There was certainly attempts. Do leave first the U.S., vaccinate the most fragile population, demolishing the dwellings most vulnerable... But radical scientific uncertainty, it is very difficult to graduate the action. And with an absolute risk, it is very difficult to find an answer. It does not die in half. This is the limit of the precautionary principle. A limit so large that it involved up to his existence.
Finally comes the change object. In the text enshrined in the Constitution, is to preserve the environment. And it was logical, as it comes from the Charter of the environment, endorsed by Parliament in 2005. But, in reality, it is any different. Example, the President of the Republic may decide that "the environment, it starts to do well." The precautionary principle emigrated to other areas. A look more closely, it is invoked whenever there is two ingredients. First, a risk of death (modulated by the violence of death). Then, the risk of a release in question the responsibility of public authorities. More than "heat effect", it is rather "jurisprudence Fabius" that grows to act: accused wrongly should not have reacted quite quickly on the case of contaminated blood, former Prime Minister had to wait a decade from power prior to be laundered.
Most often, those who brandish the precautionary principle in reality take precautions without principles. They open an umbrella to protect from possible rainfall of responsibilities, regardless of the damage that can cause the opening of umbrella. And as soon as human life is more involved and visible way, the principle of caution disappears in limbo. The best example is of course finance. In delusions of the past years, there was the risk of "the art of damage", "uncertain in the State of scientific knowledge" achievement but nevertheless likely "affect how serious and irreversible environmental" economic. And yet, the public authorities is not ensured, "by application of the precautionary principle and in their areas of responsibilities, to the implementation of procedures for risk assessment". And they were then adopted measures provisional but disproportionate, so not "deal with the realization of the damage" but to repair the consequences of its implementation. It must be remembered A principle of variable geometry is not a principle.
000 actions training in 2005 see opposite while commands can also be placed by phone or faxThe amount of work to fund is highly variableAnnounced operations strongly reduce the riskUntil then it was the 1992 law that appliedThis subject was submitted on 21 may at the last commission of financeSome were that this communication was a shame4 million it represents only 2 of the totalIt comes at the same time to establish a more innovative spiritBut in the long term the future is darker
