The precautionary principle is applied where there are perceived to be risks or threats to the environment. This is important in the study of enforcement of environment law in Pakistan.

1. Analysis of the Precautionary Principle - Case Study of Enforcement of Environment Law in Pakistan.
Introduction
The precautionary principle relates to taking protective action to mitigate against a risk before there
is scientific proof the risk exists, essentially the principle advocates taking precautions. In the
context of environmental law, the precautionary principle is applied where there are perceived to be
risks or threats to the environment. The lack of certainty scientifically is not seen as sufficient to
take steps to prevent environmental degradation which could then impact eco-systems and human
life. Internationally, principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992
codified the precautionary principle globally, stating that states should use the precautionary
approach where they perceive ‘threats of serious or irreversible damage’. Nations followed suite
and developed their own precautionary principle laws. Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration states
that states should use the precautionary approach where they perceive threats of damage.
The precautionary principle is now recognized in international law, but its enforcement and
applicability has not been without contention or legal scrutiny. The principle is applied globally at
national and international levels and its scope continues to evolve. The environmental protections
championed by the precautionary principle also affect the human rights of citizens so the principle is
only applicable within the realms of environmental protection.
This principle states that evidence of harm, rather than definitive proof of harm, should prompt
policy action and advocating the common sense. Therefore, precautionary principle embodies the
notion; rather than awaiting scientific certainty that regulators should act in anticipation of
environmental harm to ensure that this harm does not occur.
In Pakistan the Environmental Protection Act 1997 is the primary law which dictates Pakistan’s
application of the precautionary principle. Pakistan agreed to the Rio Declaration and therefore has
taken on the obligations contained therein in relation to the environment protections and the
precautionary approach. This Act provides a framework within which environmental protection and
regulation can be formed and enforced.
Precautionary Principle
Whilst the origins of the precautionary principle can be traced back to the concept of do not harm
proposed by Hippocrates, the legal basis for the principle emerged from the UN Conference on the
Human Environment in 1972 which spoke about sustainability and environmental protection. The
1992 Rio Declaration defined the precautionary principle as an approach whereby where threats of
damage or irreversible damage are present ‘lack of scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason
for postponing cost-effective measures’.
Pakistan is a signatory to various multilateral environmental agreements including the Convention
on Biological Diversity, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. These
multilateral agreements ensure that countries agree to international cooperation on issues including

2. the precautionary principle, and the agreements can form the basis of domestic legislation and
policies.
In terms of the development of its own environment law precedents and policies, one of the most
significant cases for Pakistan was the case of Shehla Zia v WAPDA, 1994. This case identified three
principles which became the foundations of environmental law in Pakistan. The case itself involved
petitioners who protested against the development of electrical grid station in a residential area in
Islamabad. The petitioners argued that the development would be hazardous to their health on the
grounds that the electromagnetic field created by the station would affect their health. The
Supreme Court held that the scientific evidence presented by the respondent was inconclusive, and
applying the precautionary principle from Article 15 of the Rio Declaration they found that the
petitioners were entitled to ask for preventative action.
The Shehla Zia case helped to establish the principles of environmental law in Pakistan by setting out
the following three applicable principles:
1. The meaning of the word ‘life’ in Article 9 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,
1973 (‘the Constitution’) was given a broad meaning and established the constitutional right to
‘clean atmosphere and unpolluted environment’.
2. The precautionary principle was applied to protect the rights mentioned above.
3. The case recognized Pakistan’s obligations under international law and the Rio Declaration.
Judicial Application – cases and legislation
Pakistan, like manty other countries in the world, is suffering from the effects of environmental
damage, and until the last few decades it has been without a substantive and definitive legal
framework for the protection of environmental rights. Legislative policy and case law has helped to
develop the environmental law principles in the country, and the application of the precautionary
principle.
The Shehla Zia cases interpretation of Article 9 of the Constitution developed the backbone of the
environmental law principles in Pakistan by ensuring that the rights under Article 9 not only related
to the right to life, but also to rights to quality of life. The Salt Mines case further strengthened the
notion of the right to the quality of life by affirming that the right to life should include unpolluted
and clean water.
Subsequently, in 1976 the Sindh High Court found in the Nestle case that the government had a
responsibility to the public to ensure resources were adequately protected. The High Court held
that resources should be protected from commercial use and the precautionary principle was duly
applied.
Another example of the Sindh High Court using the precautionary principle approach is in the case of
Rabbiya Associates vs Zong (China Mobile). This case related to the erection of BTS towers on a
building roof, and the court used the precautionary approach by granting an injunction against the
erection of the towers. The precautionary approach was also used in the Pakistan Mobile
Communication vs D.G EPA case which affirmed the precautionary principle and erred on the side of
environmental protections. In the case of Farooq Hamid vs LDA, the court found that where

3. construction projects are being carried out an environmental assessment must be conducted prior
to the construction, and steps must be taken to protect neighbours in the vicinity of the building.
These cases highlight that there is a definite human rights approach taken when it comes to applying
the precautionary principle and environmental protection in Pakistan. The cases mentioned above
discuss human rights and environmental issues within the same context and framework, and this has
led to an establishment, application and implementation of environmental laws within Pakistan.
This human rights approach also means that local, national and international laws and policies are
able to collide and merge within one legal framework.
Pakistan has developed, and continues to develop, its environmental law. The Punjab
Environmental Protection Act 1997 (amended in 2012) (‘PEPA’) facilitates environmental regulation
and compliance. This Act ensures that the judiciary have the power to enforce the precautionary
principle as enshrined in the Rio Declaration which Pakistan agreed to. Furthermore, Section 12 of
PEPA, applying the precautionary principle, states that construction projects with possible adverse
environmental effects must submit an environmental assessment. This assessment is essentially a
study containing data, impact assessments, evaluations and comparisons, compensation measures,
and environmental training programmes. The assessment has to be submitted to the Provincial
Environmental Agency for review before any construction works begin. Subsection 2 of Section 12
gives powers to the Environmental Agency to review and approve the assessment, and make it
conditional if they so require. The Environmental Agency can reject an assessment if it deems it to
be unclear or contrary to environmental considerations.
PEPA has facilitated the enforcement of the precautionary principle by empowering the
Environmental Agencies to take action if they deem it necessary. PEPA also empowers the public as
it encourages public participation and involvement in the environmental assessments by lodging
complaints.
However, there is no doubt that Pakistan needs to do further work on its implementation and
enforcement of the principles of environmental law. The Mid-term Review of the National
Conservation Strategy (NCS) in 2000 found that some provincial Environmental Agencies were not
proving effective when it came to taking enforcement action against pollutants. In addition to this,
the Pakistan Economic Survey, 2009-2010, found that there was sometimes a conflict between
sectoral policies and environment policies. The Survey found that one example of the difference in
policies was the livestock policy of the government which seemed to conflict with the environmental
law enforcement.
The National Environment Policy, 2005, employs the precautionary principle and sets out guidelines
for the enforcement in Pakistan. The Policy was instrumental in asking for more co-ordination and
inter-governmental and ministerial consistency when it comes to preventative and precautionary
measures to be adopted.
What needs to be clarified is the role of the various government bodies in terms of policy-making
and bench-marking. There needs to be a consistency in the approach if a definitive set of
environmental laws and policies are to be fully established. Furthermore, economic and social
policies could be integrated to ensure that human rights and environmental issues which impact
human rights are centred in discussions relating to policy changes.
While the basic premise of precaution has been widely endorsed in environmental treaties since its
inclusion in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, as a legal principle, it has been
framed in such vastly dissimilar ways that it continues to generate significant disagreement over its

4. precise nature, standing and legal effect. Despite the rich and extensive researches aimed at
clarifying its normative content and operation, the ongoing lack of consensus on when the
precautionary principle is applicable and what its application entails points to fundamental
definitional challenges as well as its overall limitations as a regulatory tool.
Thus, this research aims to clarify these definition challenges and figure out if the principle has the
capacity to inform environmental practices systematically as the basis of a regulatory regime — not
merely at the policy level.
Research Methodology
The matter of this research is such that it requires the employment of a variety of means and
strategies in order to sufficiently address the research question. Hence, both primary and secondary
data will be collected. The researcher will ensure anonymity of the respondents in order to maintain
the validity of the primary research. The researcher will also ensure that credible organizations and
representatives are interviewed in order to ensure the validity of the research.
Primary Data
For the primary data the researcher will examine the Environmental Protection Act. In addition, the
decisions of the Supreme Court and High Court in cases related to environmental law will form part
of the primary data.
Secondary Data
For the current thesis project, various academic sources, constitutions, international treaties, and
even non-academic sources will be consulted. As the research phase for the actual thesis starts and
as the writer covers more material, search terms will become narrower to many credible databases
like heinonline, Jstore, Google Scholar, Westlaw, Lexus nexus, scribed and other similar search
engines can also be accessed. In addition, the writer has access to the University of the Punjab
Library. As for the non-academic sources, various credible news outlets are also available. These
include ‘Dawn’, ‘The New York Times’, ‘Al Jazeera’ and many more.
Hypothesis
In this initial research phase, it is quite difficult to argue a specific point, however, the researcher
believes that the principle has the capacity to inform environmental practices systematically as the
basis of a regulatory regime — not merely at the policy level. The researcher also believes that
various changes can be implemented to ensure that the environmental protections with the
legislation of Pakistan can be strengthened to ensure the enforcement of the policies are consistent
and enforced properly.
However, another popular view is that the current regulatory procedures are already precautionary;
for example, the safety factors used in risk assessments insure precautions and secondly the
precautionary principles is not scientifically sound because it advocates making decisions without
adequate scientific justification.
Literature Review
Both primary and secondary sources have been tapped, to secure breadth as well as depth of
knowledge. The literature studied is theoretical and practical. For one, in his doctoral thesis,
“Uncertainty, Risk and the (in) Applicability of the Precautionary Principle: Reassessing the Scope of
Precaution and Prevention in International Environmental Law, Lee Grace Sin Dam cleared some of

5. the vital misconception (Shehla Zia v WAPDA PLD, 1994)s about the precautionary principle and
reassess the precautionary principle in light of the distinction traditionally made in formal scientific
discourse between risk and uncertainty. While this technical distinction is fundamental to defining
the proper scope of the principle’s application, the thesis finds that much of the existing legal
discourse has either overlooked or marginalised the risk/uncertainty dichotomy, which in turn has
blurred the distinction between the principles of precaution and prevention. So ample body of
knowledge will be gathered by this many similar researches. On the other hand useful studies on the
effectiveness of the precautionary principle like “Environmental Protection and the "Precautionary
Principle": A Response to Scientific Uncertainty in Environmental Management”, conducted by
Warwick Gullett of Australian National University will provide insights to the researcher to develop a
better understanding of the principle at hand.
Problem Statement
While the basic premise of precaution has been widely endorsed in environmental treaties since its
inclusion in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, as a legal principle, it has been
framed in such vastly dissimilar ways that it continues to generate significant disagreement over its
precise nature, standing and legal effect. Despite the rich and extensive researches aimed at
clarifying its normative content and operation, the ongoing lack of consensus on when the
precautionary principle is applicable and what its application entails points to fundamental
definitional challenges as well as its overall limitations as a regulatory tool.
Significance/Contribution
This research will provide policy makers a better understanding of the internal dynamics of the
precautionary principle and outline why our knowledge of environmental processes is inadequate
and addresses the rationale and content of the "precautionary principle ", tracing its development
from an uncontroversial espousal of commonsense to its emergence as a potentially forceful
decision-making norm. The research will help policy makers figure out if and how the precautionary
principle has the capacity to effectively inform environmental practices systematically as the basis of
a regulatory regime — not merely at the policy level.
References
1. O’Riordan T, Cameron J, eds. Interpreting the Precautionary Principle. London: Earthscan, 1994.
2. Freestone D, Hey E, eds. The Precautionary Principle and International Law. Boston: Kluwer Law
International, 1996.
3. Raffensperger C, Tickner J, eds. Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the
Precautionary Principle. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1999.
4. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the precautionary Principle,
World Commission on the Ethics of Science Knowledge and Technology (COMEST), March 2005,
UNESCO, Paris.
5. Harremoes O. and al., Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1986-2000,
European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, 2001.
6. OSPAR Commission, Protecting and Conserving the North-East Atlantic and its resources,
http://www.ospar.org/

6. 7. Kriebel, David, Tickner, Joel, Epstein, Paul, Lemons, John, Levins, Richard, Loechler, Edward, Guinn,
Margaret, Rudel, Ruthann, Schettler, Ted, Stoto, Michael, the Precautionary Principle in
Environmental Science; Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 109, Number 9, September
2001.
8. Gardnier, Stephem M., A Core of Precautionary Principle, The Journal of Political Philosophy,
Volume 14, Number 1, 2006.
9. Luttenberger, Axel, Kos, Serdjo, Regulating the Provisions of European Marine Data and
Observation, International Conference IMLA 21, Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial
University of Newfouland, St. John’s, NL, Canada, 2013.
10. Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the Commission on the
precautionary principle, Brussels, 2.2.2000, COM (2000) 1 final.
11. J Charney. “Third State Remedies for Environmental Damage to the World’s Common Spaces” in
F Francioni and T Scovazzi, International Responsibility for Environmental Harm (Graham & Trotman,
London, 1991).
12. A Jordan, “The Precautionary Principle in Contemporary Environmental Politics” (1995) 4
Environmental Values 191.
Bibliography
Farooq Hamid vs LDA. (2008)., (p. SCMR 468).
Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority vs Federation of Pakistan PLD. (1994)., (p. 1279).
Pakistan Mobile Communication vs D.G EPA . (2011)., (p. CLD 1280).
Rabbiya Associates vs Zong (China Mobile) PLD. (2011)., (p. Sindh 132).
(1992). Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development . New York, United Nations.
Salt Miners vs Director, Industries and Mineral Development . (1994)., (p. SMCR 2061).
Shehla Zia v WAPDA PLD. (1994)., (p. SC 693).