PRACTICING PRECAUTION and ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ...

different departments are governed by the same legislation, such as the Species at Risk Act,differences in internal culture often override any harmonizing effect the statute might have.Cultural differences also affect attitudes towards and applications of science, further influencinghow decisions are made. In addition, participants noted that inadequate resources often precludeprecautionary approaches. This last comment re-emerged as the discussion progressed.ScienceThoughts grouped under this theme built on the earlier observation that departmental attitudesoften influence the application of science to decision-making processes. Attendees noted thatattitudes toward science often become entrenched within government departments, andtraditional approaches to both science and risk assessment can work against legislative initiativesthat embrace precaution. As a counterpoint, one participant suggested that the evolution ofscientific thought and application is gradual and that more precautionary approaches will evolveover time.The quantification of risk, which is integral to the assessment process, is, in certain respects,subjective and therefore affects notions of science and uncertainty incorporated into theprecautionary exercise.This comment that science is not fully objective arose several times. In addition to the influenceof departmental culture, it was noted that departments determine their own mix of variables inexamining risk, without reference to the practices of other departments and agencies.Pragmatism and political expediency have also influenced the definition of the precautionaryprinciple 1 , as government has realized it could not afford to alienate stakeholders.Participants also discussed the role of “soft” science and values in the precautionary exercise,commenting that this type of information should not be excluded from the process. Recentlegislation such as the Pest Control Products Act 2 incorporates language such as “protection ofhuman health and safety and protection of the environment” 3 , suggesting that “softer” variableswill be relied in the precautionary exercise, but this remains to be seen. To some, the fisheriesmanagement process is a model in terms of its inclusiveness: stakeholders are consulted andsocial and economic variables are factored into what is a relatively transparent assessment.The role of science was described as quantifying risk and pointing to options while othervariables influence the ultimate course of action. DFO, for instance, has developed“conservation points”, which attempt to empirically measure risk and which trigger theprecautionary threshold. The conservation points are themselves developed in light ofprecaution.Similarities between scientific and legal approaches to uncertainty were also raised, withparticipants attempting to equate or translate the precautionary threshold into a legal equivalent.It was determined that the threshold approximates the civil standard of the “balance ofprobabilities”. Legal and scientific approaches are also commensurable in that both try to infercausality: the greater the inferential strength, the less the uncertainty. Finally, law and scienceboth are philosophically opposed to attributing fault (harmful effects) to a person (or substance,product) who is not blameworthy. In law, this relates to the presumption of innocence, inAppendix iii. Workshop Summary G-26