Power analysis as a reflexive scientific tool for interpretation and implementation of the precautionary principle in the European Union.

Abstract

The diversity of interpretation, the subsequent lack of implementation, and the enforcement of the precautionary principle have been important issues in the European environmental discourse for the past five years. The European Commission published a communication on the Commission's interpretation of the precautionary principle on February 2nd, 2000. However, the distinction between precaution and prevention is absent in the EU Commission's interpretation, resulting in the communication's lacking relevance for the precautionary principle. The important consequence of the precautionary concept in policy and decision-making is that it should not be based on an assumed certainty of the certainty of environmental knowledge--but rather on a certainty of the uncertainty of environmental knowledge. In other words, the regulation should, to a greater extent, be based on the management of uncertainty, and risk assessments should explicitly present and discuss related uncertainty and lack of knowledge. The management of uncertainty should be based on setting the acceptable level of risk of accepting a failure to reject the null hypothesis of no adverse effects (beta). This is done by setting the required power (1-beta) according to a socioeconomic cost-benefit analysis. Moreover, the acceptable ecological effect size (A) could also be set a priori which would have implications for the power of a study. Reversal of the burden of proof could be considered in order to resolve possible legal implications for the risk managers.