Generic and specific goal(s) of environmental protection
(Preliminary inputs)
1. Why environmental protection has evolved
Environmental protection initially was concerned with human health. . This anthropocentric
approach has been traced to the efforts to conquer cholera in Europe through closure of
contaminated wells and later through various measures to improve sanitation (Schwabe et al.
1977). Medicine, both as a scientific discipline and as a profession were influenced greatly
from recognition of the role of microorganisms as disease agents and later from practices that
embraced chemical hygiene. More recently, the field of environmental medicine has
returned to its roots as there is increased consideration humankind, taken as populations of
human beings, through public health efforts supported for example by epidemiology. The
fundamental approach was articulated in the preamble of the World Health Organization
charter (1946, ratified in 1948). The major driver during long periods had been protection of
humans life per se, without any major need to consider the environmentin a broad sense.
Environmental protection is an issue that has much more recently evolved during the 20th
century, essentially due to planetary exponential growth of human population, as initiated
during the 19th century, and its consequences resulting from the associated growth of
industrialisation of various processes, including exploitation of natural resources. The goods
to humankind provided by these developments, in terms of economical development, have
been recognised also to actually have limits and even potential deleterious side effects
requiring consideration in view of ensuring “sustainability” of the processes concerned.
Interestingly, concerns about the environment have not primarily evolved from the harm
observed on the environment itself (air, land, water, biota), but rather from the impairments
of human health it has been recognised to be able to promote. This leads to consideration of
the relationship between environment and human protection as a closed loop within which
man promotes changes in the environment (harmful or not to non-human biota), such
changes in turn being capable of promoting harmful feed-back impacts in humans.
Furthermore, such changes may often prove to be quite indirect, that is delayed in time and
space, puzzling the causative chain between cause and effect.
Perhaps, the first reason that has driven to the wish/need to protect the environment has been
the rarefaction of biological resources (e.g., fish, game, forest) that had been exploited for
centuries as granted for free by nature through numerous generations of harvesters, hunters
and agriculture growers. This has been followed more recently by facing a rarefaction of
species richness (i.e., biological diversity, genetic diversity) which promotes fears in modern
societies with respect to the sustainability of their future generations.
Next, have appeared more or less concomitantly impacts on human health of
anthropogenically accumulated substances in the environment (technogenic substances,
xenobiotics, etc.), which prove to be either direct (promoting toxicological harm), or indirect
(promoting changes of the environment, often on a global scale, which in turn can be
deleterious to humans or their activities (e.g., climate change). These substances can
therefore either have direct toxic effects on humans, animals and plants, or promote
alterations of ecological processes that will indirectly affect animals, plants and also humans,
ultimately. Artificial radionuclides produced within the nuclear cycle of electric power
generation, from atomic weapons testing or for other industrial and medical purposes fall in
this category. This is also the case for the so called “technologically enhanced naturally
occurring (radioactive) materials” (TENORMs) that are resulting from mining and various
mineral/organic resources exploitation (oil and gas).
2. Various objectives of protection (depending on who cares)
The above reasons, when scrutinised in some more details, have prompted a range of
different objectives of environment protection, which are actually driven by the particular
circumstances which led to caring about the environment. This is why various objects of
protection have consequently been identified that are indeed corresponding to each of these
circumstances.
The objects of protection can therefore be:

Biological resources that are exploited for various purposes (fisheries, forestry,
agriculture,…)

Endangered species (with a rationale identical to that of human protection)

Regional landscapes which are assigned important value by society for various reasons
(swamps, humid areas, river basins, coastal areas,…)

Whole ecosystems which are assigned important value by society, such as in view of
maintaining biodiversity, for example (coral reef, tropical forest, tundra,…),

Specific sites with cultural/aesthetical/religious value,

Various resources that are exploited for various purposes (biological resources for
human and animal feeding, mineral resources for mining, geologically stored gas and
oil resources exploited for energy production),

etc…
One can note here that in this context, and at first sight, environmental protection having
much more different kinds of protection objects lies at variance of human protection which
features one single endpoint of consideration, cancer induction (Bréchignac, 2001).
The philosophy within which the objectives of environmental protection are driven can take
two formats: a curative philosophy, that is intended to take counteracting measures to face an
already existing harm (existing contamination of the environment); a philosophy of
prevention, that is anticipating adequate measures to prevent in advance the occurrence of
harm. For example, the protection of endangered species belong to the first curative
philosophy, such species being subject to extinction due to their exposure to stress. It is to be
noted that the need to protect endangered species, a fairly common goal taken into
consideration within current legislation, is somehow a proof of protection failure. Indeed,
protecting endangered species would not be needed if the environment would have already
been afforded an efficient level of protection. The second category, prevention, should be
prioritized as it places emphasis on building a capacity for anticipation of potential hazards,
therefore reducing/avoiding them at the source. Capacity for anticipation in environmental
protection is also an aspect of paramount importance because of resilience phenomena in
ecosystems: harmful effects may not become apparent immediately upon exposure to the
stress, but much later, and with an extent that will require a similar time scale for any
counteraction to become corrective. This is due to ecological processes which often prove to
have slow kinetics, as well as large delays in time and space. With that respect, the
experience gained so far has shown that it is often very late, if not too late, for any reasonable
counteraction to successfully be opposed when harm becomes apparent.
3. Expressed objectives of environmental protection in various contexts
3.1 In general
From a review of existing agreements and legislation that aims at protection of the
environment: the most frequently cited objectives of protection can be assembled within five
categories: 1) the conservation of biological diversity, 2) the protection of species, including
rare and endangered species, 3) the maintenance of ecosystem structure and functioning that
ensure the sustainability of the life support and services provided by ecosystems, 4)
precautionary approach in environmental management, 5) the conservation of resources
(biological, geological,etc…).
3.2 IAEA
The IAEA identified the goals to protect the environment from deleterious radiation effects
according to some core principles. These goals are expressed as follows:
- any radiation exposure should not affect the capability of the environment to support
present and future generations of humans and biota (principle of sustainability);
- any radiation exposure should not have any deleterious effect on any species, habitat, or
geographic feature that is endangered or is under ecological stress or is deemed to be of
particular societal value (principle of conservation);
- any radiation exposure should not affect the maintenance of diversity within each species,
amongst different species, and amongst different types of habitats and ecosystems (principle
of maintaining biodiversity);
- the management of any source of radiation exposure of the environment should aim to
achieve an equitable distribution of the benefits from the source of the radiation exposure and
any harm to the environment resulting from the radiation exposure, or to compensate for any
inequitable damage (principle of environmental justice);
- in decisions on the acceptability and appropriate management of any source of radiation
exposure of the environment, the different ethical and cultural views held by those humans
affected by decisions should be taken into account (principle of respect for human dignity).
3.3 ICRP
The ICRP acknowledges that, in contrast to human radiological protection, the objectives of
environmental protection are both complex and difficult to articulate. There is no simple or
single universal definition of ‘environmental protection’ and the concept differs from country
to country, and from one circumstance to another. Other ways of considering radiation
effects are therefore likely to prove to be more useful for non-human species, such as those
that cause early mortality, or morbidity, or reduced reproductive success. The ICRP has
therefore stated that its aim is that of preventing or reducing the frequency of such radiation
effects to a level where they would have a negligible impact on the maintenance of biological
diversity, the conservation of species, or the health and status of natural habitats,
communities and ecosystems. But in achieving this aim, the ICRP recognises that exposure
to radiation is but one factor to consider and that, indeed, it is often likely to be but a minor
one.
As compared to the more general objectives of environment protection mentioned above, this
apparent limitation for the ICRP proposed radiological protection system stems from a
deliberate restriction, necessary in this initial approach, to focusing upon biota, with no
explicit reference to more ecosystemic considerations that would also resolve for example the
linkages with the abiotic components.
The goals of environmental protection have been recognised and described so far as being
highly variable because they arise from a number of different situations encountered by
various populations with different cultural heritages, and leading to various perceptions of
what is to be protected, what protection means, and even, what is the environment. This
context has been particularly discussed by ICRP (ICRP 91, 2003) which felt “reasonable to
ask: can one identify any common ground for a consensus on such issues?”, but without
proposing any perspective on how to progress towards solving the question. The following
reconsiders therefore this discussion in an attempt to capture a common overarching goal of
environment protection that would help to promote consensus, and therefore better guide
further developments in this field.
4. Various perceptions of the environment
4.1 As led by ethical, philosophical and moral considerations
An expert group that was assembled under the auspices of the IAEA reviewed extensively
the ethical, moral and philosophical aspects of environment protection that could be relevant
to radiation (IAEA-TECDOC-1270, 2002). These experts recognised that a value can be
assigned to all living beings, either on their own (biocentric) or due to their active role in
shaping landscapes including their abiotic components (ecocentric), and not necessarily to
man exclusively (anthropocentric) independently from other living beings. The group also
acknowledged the religious dimensions and the ethics of morals, duties and justice that can
influence the perception over the environment.
This triggered considerable debate between anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric
proponents that usually remained opposed to each other due to lack of understanding on a
common ground. In fact, the biocentric/ecocentric and anthropocentric views can be
reconciled if considering the ecocentric approach as centered on the ecosystem concept:
ecological functions ensured through ecosystem assemblies support all life forms, that of
man as well as that of non-human. Then, environmental protection can be viewed as being
both ecocentric and anthropocentric at the same time, as it aims at ensuring the sustainability
of life in general.
4.2 As led by socio-economic considerations
Beside scientific developments derived from the theory of complex systems which provide a
dynamical understanding of the integrity of ecosystems (Kay, 2000), recent sociological and
economical developments concerning the protection of the environment have also
emphasised the concept of “ecosystem health” that is now spreading (Rapport et al. 1999;
Patil et al., 2001). Thus, the goal consists in developing a set of conservative measures
intended to preserve the integrity of ecosystems recognised as being central in hosting
processes that support life (including that of man) and/or in providing a range of goods and
services to humankind (Costanza et al., 1997; Costanza, 2000; Odum et al., 2000; Heal,
2000). Of particular importance are the estimations of the economical value of such goods
and services, which have been considered so far as being granted for free by nature, in order
to figure out how much it would cost society to replace them would the associated processes
turn out to be significantly impaired. For example, an estimation of the economical value of
world’s ecosystem services has been rated by Costanza and co-workers to be in the range of
US$ 16-54 trillion (1012) per year, which compares to the global gross national product total
(GNP) that is around US$ 18 trillion per year.
These considerations lead to recognise the environment as being primarily made of
ecosystems which ensure services (with an attached economical value), and which form
highly structured and hierarchical assemblies by means of which life is globally supported on
earth (including that of human beings).
A non-exhaustive list of life support and services provided by ecosystems includes the
following:
-
-
Solar energy capture through photosynthesis of primary producers that leads next to the
production of food, of construction materials (wood), and of various combustibles of
biological origin (including fossil)
Waste decomposition (by microbial decomposers)
Nutrients (bio)regeneration (notably nitrogen, fixation)
Water storage, purification and distribution
Agricultural soils generation and maintenance
Pests control (via insectivorous birds, for example)
Genetic ressources for new products development (medicines, food, molecules of various
interests,…) arising from genetic amelioration programmes or bioengineering
Air depuration and cleaning
Climate macro et micro-control
Buffering effects reducing the consequences of natural stresses such as floods, forest
fires, epidemies,…
Pollinisation of agricultural plants
Aesthetic satisfaction
All these goods and services that can be valued by society rely on some ecosystem functions
as illustrated by Costanza et al. (1997) and Curtis (2004) for some of them in Table 1 below.
Table 1: The bundle of value-laden goods and services (attributes) provided by ecosystems
that society might value (Adapted from Constanza et al., 1997; Curtis, 2004).
Goods & services
Ecosystem functions
Examples
Genetic resources
Genes for pathogen resistance, technology
for breeding
The production of timber, fuel, and fodder
Water regulation
Sources of unique and ever-evolving genetic
information
That portion of gross primary production
extractable as raw materials
Regulation of global temperature and
precipitation at global or local levels
Regulation
of
atmospheric
chemical
composition
Regulation of hydrological flows
Pollination
Movement of floral gametes
Biological control
Regulation of human
diseases
Waste treatment
Trophic-dynamic regulations of populations
Ecosystems can change the abundance of
human pathogens
Recovery of mobile nutrients and removal or
breakdown of excess nutrients and compounds
Providing opportunities for recreational
activities
Providing opportunities for non-commercial
uses
Other raw materials
Climate regulation
Gas regulation
Recreation
Heritage
Greenhouse gas regulation, DMS production
affecting cloud formation
The carbon dioxide-oxygen balance and
ozone levels for UVB protection
Provisioning of water for industrial
processes or transportation
Provisioning of pollinators for the
reproduction of plant populations
Predator control of prey species
Cholera and abundance of mosquitoes can be
altered
Waste
treatment,
pollution
control,
detoxification
Eco-tourism, hunting and other recreational
activities
Historical, aesthetic and educational values
5. A possible common overarching goal
As a consequence of the above, it is of great interest to look for a possible unit within the
environment that would capture at the same time most of its various perceptions, that would
be common to landscapes, abiotic components (seas, rivers, lands) or resources (mining),
biotic components (microbes, plants, animals, humans) or resources (logging, agricultural
harvesting, fishing,…), regional biomes (tundra, tropical forest, coral reefs, swamps) etc…,
that is a unit that would encapsulate all the different objects of protection mentioned above.
The ecosystem concept, viewed as forming the basic unit of the environment, best captures
all these perceptions. Taken as such, it reconciles most of the various views, biotic and
abiotic components of the environment, human and non-human related components
interlinked through the provision of life support and services. The concept introduces the
recognition that life is maintained through ecosystem structures and functions in such a way
that no life form can evolve and survive in isolation from other life forms (in other terms,
human and non-human life are not dissociable). Focusing on the ecosystem has another
substantial merit as it allows to define an overarching goal of environment protection:
preserving life sustainability, irrespective of it being human or non-human, as both are
strongly depending on each other (Bréchignac, 2001; Bréchignac and Doi, 2009).
All the present goals of environment protection which are expressed either through the
variety of current legislations, or founding the development of frameworks for ecological risk
assessment, are related to, or contributing to, this overarching goal, which therefore could
serve as a basis for establishing a useful consensus as a starting point.
Possibly, a formulation of this overarching goal for environmental protection, that would
form the baseline policy driving all its aspects including radioprotection, could therefore be
expressed as: preventing ecological disturbance susceptible to impair the long-term
maintenance of life and the sustainability of resources.
Schwabe CW, Riemann HP, Franti E. 1977. Epidemiology in Veterinary Practice. Lee
and Febiger, Philadelphia.
WHO (World Health Organization). 1946. Constitution of the World Health
Organization. http://www.who.int/governance/eb/constitution/en/index.html
[accessed 27 May 2010]
WHO (World Health Organisation). 2010. The Determinants of Health.
http://www.who.int/hia/evidence/doh/en/ [accessed 27 May 2010]