scholarly journals Precaution and Innovation in the Context of Wastewater Regulation: An Examination of Financial Innovation under UWWTD Disputes in London and Milan

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (16) ◽  
pp. 9130
Author(s):  
Fritz-Julius Grafe ◽  
Harald A. Mieg
Keyword(s):  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Social Innovation ◽  
Local Governance ◽  
Waste Water Treatment ◽  
Financial Innovation ◽  
Successful Implementation ◽  
Urban Water ◽  
Water Infrastructure ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
Infrastructure Provision

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) under the guidance of the precautionary principle sets out standards to guarantee high quality water services for European citizens. This creates pressure on European cities to update and renew their water infrastructures in accordance with EU Law at great financial cost. Cities within the Union try to bridge this financial gap with a variety of approaches. This paper presents the cases of London and Milan, both of which were subject to legal proceedings for breaching the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. By example of these two cases, this article details how the precautionary principle affects urban water infrastructure provision, and how the regulation of the primary risk of pollution can both trigger innovation and create secondary risks within the highly integrated urban water infrastructure sector. The London case focusses on an individual infrastructure project and shows how its financial framing has compromised the final outcome, while the Milan case presents a longer-view perspective that shows how structural changes in the urban water infrastructure sector have enabled an environment for sustainable financial innovation. The role of transparency and good local governance practices are emphasized for a successful implementation of the precautionary principle requirements in a city’s water sector. Managing this process effectively can result in meaningful social innovation for urban water infrastructure provision.

scholarly journals Application of the precautionary principle during consenting processes in New Zealand: Addressing past errors, obtaining a normative fix and developing a structured and operationalised approach

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Dale Scott
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Management Tool ◽  
Successful Implementation ◽  
Central Feature ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
Substantive Content ◽  
Core Concepts

<p>The precautionary principle is increasingly being adopted as a legal risk management tool in international environmental law and regulation, especially in the marine context. In fact, over the last 35 years it has been included, often as a central feature, in the vast majority of international law instruments relating to protection and management of the environment. This rise to prominence is largely driven by widespread recognition that the ability of environmental law to successfully avert long term and significant harm is very much contingent on the successful implementation and application of the precautionary principle (specifically, the decision-making and planning measures it advocates).  Owing to the above, it is unsurprising that like many other countries New Zealand has incorporated the precautionary principle expressly and implicitly into domestic law and policy over the last 25 years. The most recent and arguably most notable instance of the incorporation of the precautionary principle in New Zealand law is in the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 (“EEZ Act”). Indeed, for reasons explained in this paper, the success of the EEZ Act will in large part depend on the successful application of the precautionary principle contained in the Act.  Unfortunately, New Zealand’s incorporation and application of the precautionary principle to date has been problematic, with confusion and a variety of approaches taken to its core concepts, and arguably outright misapplication of it. For this reason, this paper seeks to take comprehensive stock of the precautionary principle, first to identify what is the likely cause of such confusion and misapplication, and second, to provide a foundational understanding to assist policy makers and the courts with the task of operationalising and applying it during legislative consenting processes. In doing so, this paper focuses on its operation in the marine setting, with a view to assisting with its interpretation and application under the EEZ Act. It argues that in order to secure consistent and proper application of the precautionary principle, significant work needs to be done to clarify definitional ambiguities embedded within the principle. It then argues that further work needs to be done to properly operationalise the New Zealand formulations of the precautionary principle (i.e. unpack the substantive content of the principle and pin down what such content requires of decision-makers in practice) so they can be consistently and correctly applied under New Zealand’s environmental risk management regimes.</p>

scholarly journals Application of the precautionary principle during consenting processes in New Zealand: Addressing past errors, obtaining a normative fix and developing a structured and operationalised approach

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Dale Scott
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Management Tool ◽  
Successful Implementation ◽  
Central Feature ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
Substantive Content ◽  
Core Concepts

<p>The precautionary principle is increasingly being adopted as a legal risk management tool in international environmental law and regulation, especially in the marine context. In fact, over the last 35 years it has been included, often as a central feature, in the vast majority of international law instruments relating to protection and management of the environment. This rise to prominence is largely driven by widespread recognition that the ability of environmental law to successfully avert long term and significant harm is very much contingent on the successful implementation and application of the precautionary principle (specifically, the decision-making and planning measures it advocates).  Owing to the above, it is unsurprising that like many other countries New Zealand has incorporated the precautionary principle expressly and implicitly into domestic law and policy over the last 25 years. The most recent and arguably most notable instance of the incorporation of the precautionary principle in New Zealand law is in the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 (“EEZ Act”). Indeed, for reasons explained in this paper, the success of the EEZ Act will in large part depend on the successful application of the precautionary principle contained in the Act.  Unfortunately, New Zealand’s incorporation and application of the precautionary principle to date has been problematic, with confusion and a variety of approaches taken to its core concepts, and arguably outright misapplication of it. For this reason, this paper seeks to take comprehensive stock of the precautionary principle, first to identify what is the likely cause of such confusion and misapplication, and second, to provide a foundational understanding to assist policy makers and the courts with the task of operationalising and applying it during legislative consenting processes. In doing so, this paper focuses on its operation in the marine setting, with a view to assisting with its interpretation and application under the EEZ Act. It argues that in order to secure consistent and proper application of the precautionary principle, significant work needs to be done to clarify definitional ambiguities embedded within the principle. It then argues that further work needs to be done to properly operationalise the New Zealand formulations of the precautionary principle (i.e. unpack the substantive content of the principle and pin down what such content requires of decision-makers in practice) so they can be consistently and correctly applied under New Zealand’s environmental risk management regimes.</p>

The Controllability Precautionary Principle: Justification of a Climate Policy Goal Under Uncertainty

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugen Pissarskoi
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Climate Policy ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Policy Goal ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
Climate Change Policies

How can we reasonably justify a climate policy goal if we accept that only possible consequences from climate change are known? Precautionary principles seem to offer promising guidelines for reasoning in such epistemic situations. This chapter presents two versions of the precautionary principle (PP) and defends one of them as morally justifiable. However, it argues that current versions of the PP do not allow discrimination between relevant climate change policies. Therefore, the chapter develops a further version of the PP, the Controllability Precautionary Principle (CPP), and defends its moral plausibility. The CPP incorporates the following idea: in a situation when the possible outcomes of the available actions cannot be ranked with regard to their value, the choice between available options for action should rest on the comparison of how well decision makers can control the processes of the implementation of the available strategies.

Insufficient Knowledge in Kunduz: The Precautionary Principle and International Humanitarian Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-79
Author(s):  
Emma J Marchant
Keyword(s):  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
Lack Of Information ◽  
Operational Application ◽  
Federal Court Of Justice ◽  
Insufficient Knowledge

Abstract The targeting protocols applied by forces during armed conflict are some of the most secretive documents held by any military. However, their role in applying principles of international humanitarian law (IHL) means that they are key to understanding their development. This piece is primarily concerned with practical and operational application of the precautionary principle under IHL; how much knowledge is sufficient to carry out an attack lawfully during modern armed conflict. In order to establish if a standard has developed with the increase in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance technology, this piece uses the framework of an investigation into an incident in Kunduz, Afghanistan in 2009. I explore the difficulties of obtaining information post-incident, the differential standards expected by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice), and the manner in which these can be evaluated through the principles of proportionality, distinction and precautions in attack. The piece looks at the interrelated issues raised by the Rules of Engagement and Tactical Directives, as well as the problems surrounding the clarity of intelligence available. I argue that this case is demonstrative of the failings inherent in the application and practical use of the precautionary principle outlined by IHL. The lack of transparency afforded in, and after, incidents of this nature prevents objective analysis and so the development of IHL can be obfuscated. I conclude that the lack of information following incidents of this kind confuses any intelligence standard that exists under IHL.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document