Aarthi Sridhar

The decision to act or not act, and further how to act in the face of unknowns or uncertainties is the subject matter of the precautionary principle (PP). It is against this historical backdrop of unknowns in environmental governance that the present study on the precautionary principle was conducted.

The present framework for environmental governance provides a number of areas where precaution can and must be applied. In addition to these areas, the present report is the outcome of a descriptive study that shows the extent to which key elements of the precautionary principle are embedded in the specific case of two environmental laws related to coasts. The study examines key areas of the clearance continuum (law-making, clearance and monitoring) through a single broad question: To what extent is the approach of precaution embedded in decision-making under the CRZ Notification 1991 and the Water Act, 1974?

Sridhar attempted to examine this question on a continuum that examines a) the text of the law, b) the conditions under which projects are cleared or rejected and c) issues related to the monitoring of these conditions. The Asia and Pacific Workshop Report of the Precautionary Principle Project declared that there are both explicit and implicit uses of the precautionary principle. It states that there are some instances where the PP’s application is explicit and unambiguous whereas in other decisions the PP is implicit. They also raise an important point that to actually determine whether a decision was indeed precautionary or not (where it is not explicit) requires an examination of the context and motivations for decisions and management interventions.

  The law pertaining to coastal spaces – the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 1991 specifically decides what people can and cannot do on the coastal stretches of the country.