ABSTRACT
Many, outside the immediate areas of planning and environment law, may not yet be familiar with this concept. As a general rule planning lawyers have tended to view it with a fair degree of cynicism whilst environmental lawyers have been rather more enthusiastic. However, since it is becoming increasingly impossible to be a planning lawyer without a knowledge of environmental law even the planners are having to come to terms with the concept. Towards the end of this work which comprises 17 essays on various aspects of the principle the following definition is provided: ‘When an activity raises threats to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public should bear the burden of proof’ (at pp 306-07). This is but one of many attempts to define the principle which have taken place in most developed jurisdictions. It has been adopted by the European Union in their Compendium of Spatial Planning, in the United States (though with some difficulty and not with the degree of particularly of other countries), in every Australian jurisdiction and is reiterated constantly in submissions at international conferences such as the 1992 Declaration of the UN Conference on Environment and Development. For comparison the Queensland Integrated Planning Act (1997) defines the principle as follows: ‘… if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, careful evaluation must be made to avoid wherever practicable serious or irreversible environmental damage including, if appropriate, assessing risk weighted consequences of various option.’
