Principles underlying environmental policy and regulation: current practice and future improvement

It is assumed by many that environmental policy and regulation are based upon a number of fundamental principles, and that these principles should be applied consistently, inform the decision-maker and offer meaningful and coherent direction. Where it is not possible to satisfy principles simultaneously, a hierarchy to guide compromise and trade-offs would be expected. The hypotheses tested in this research are that, in practice, these principles are rarely explicitly applied, often misunderstood, ambiguous at best, sometimes contradictory, difficult to implement, and that hierarchical treatments are not defined.
To test the hypotheses, the research evaluates the hierarchy of the derivation and application of principles at three levels of governance, international, European and national (United Kingdom). The institutional frameworks within which the principles operate are investigated. The origin and development of the principles are analysed, through hierarchy and chronology, from the principles of the Stockholm and Rio Declarations, through to the UK’s ‘Better Quality of Life’ sustainable development strategy. Special attention is paid to sustainable development, intergenerational equity, the precautionary principle, the polluter pays principle and the issues of international trade and globalisation. A retrospective analysis of ozone layer protection is employed to evaluate the development and effectiveness of the principles examined.
Political commitment to principles is frequently stated but there is little evidence to suggest that this commitment is adhered to with any consistency. The barriers preventing successful implementation of the principles are assessed. If these principles are to form the basis of environmental policy and legislation then it is imperative that they themselves are founded on a sound footing. The most fundamental difficulty associated with the principles is that of definition, and interpretations are widely divergent. When the very meanings of the principles are ambiguous, the foundation that they provide must be considered fragile and unreliable. Without clearly stated meanings or intentions and strict guidance on application, these principles will remain relatively ineffectual. Coherent definitions need to be developed and agreed upon, but may be difficult to achieve as the interpretation of the principles is essentially political.
Disagreement exists over whether the principles are established principles of law, customary or otherwise. International, European and national courts have all displayed a reluctance to rule on the status of the principles, and a preference in favour of the discretion of policy makers. Consequently, uncertainty over the legal status of the principles makes enforcement extremely difficult. Even where the interpretation and legal status of the principles is not a factor, problems still arise when attempting practical applications. The principles do have the potential to be contradictory; however, no examples have been found where such conflicts have been addressed.
Suggestions for future improvement are volunteered, focussing on the elimination of the identified barriers hindering effective implementation of the principles. Substantial and significant advances in improving the effectiveness of the principles may only be achievable on a global level. In the present climate however, there seems to be no political will to achieve this. The research concludes that even though the principles are not yet realising their full potential, they do provide an expression for moral and practical concerns, a focus for identifying the measures needed to achieve solutions for those moral and practical dilemmas, and a political impetus to implementation of identified goals.