Though a minor point in the context of the debate about the precautionary
principle - it is the responsibility of the local councils to know their
environment, and to set standards (according to the Resource Management Act)
for resource users to work within. It is the responsibility of resource
users to work within these requirements, which can involve monitoring etc.
If I have no steer from the council as to what is acceptable and what is
not, then I cannot do anything. There is no framework for day to day
decision making. It was up to the proponents to provide their environmental
impact assessment (which they did), with the opportunity for objectors to
provide a contrary or conditional view (which they had - and advantage of -
Chicken Littles included). The council appointed commission is arbiter, and
needs to know its environment in order to assess the arguments - otherwise
it has no basis for making a decision. It failed to do this (IMHO) - while
claiming that they were acting "under the precautionary principle". No
proposal would ever go ahead if they used this argument the way they used
it. You could always think of at least one thing you didn't have enough
information on (and couldn't be bothered getting) to use as an excuse to say
"No".
A different context than importing new beasties and biosecurity. Which is
probably why they are covered under separate legislation.
CP
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of michael
Sent: Thursday, 21 September 2000 12:48
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: The precautionary principal. Onus of proof?
At 9:08 AM 00.9.21 +1200, Chris Perley wrote:
>>I recall a few years ago a local council refusing a resource consent
>(close to an election campaign) on the basis that they did not know the
>ambient levels of formaldehyde in the atmosphere...
>The council's claim ... was that they
>could not provide discharge conditions without that knowledge. They
claimed
>to be following the precautionary principle.
>
From
>my reading of it ... the onus is on parties to GET that
>information (which it was clearly the responsibility of the council to do
in
>the case above).
This is an interesting point. Chris argues that it is the Council's
responsibility to find out. I would argue that the onus of proof is on the
applicant. When I worked for the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture, one
of my jobs was to evaluate applications from importers to bring in animal
products that may have adverse effects on the health of our farm animals.
In a worst case scenario this could result in an aoutbreak of foot and
mouth disease which would ruin the New Zealand economy.
Our policy was that it was up to the importer to get information
convincing us that their product was safe. It was not the Ministry's job
to prove that the products are harmful. One of the more unpopular
decisions we had to make was to tell an importer of cheeses from Italy
whose boat was waiting at the dock to be unloaded, that we had refused them
entry and to turn right round and get those potentially virus ridden
cheeses out of our harbour.
As a general principal, the party that has the most to lose by the
wrong decision should have the right to make the other party prove their
case. I think that Pascal made this point in his wager.
Michael Morris
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
