Citation

Crowards TM. Ecol. Econ. 1998; 25(3): 303-314.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1998, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00041-4

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

A 'Safe Minimum Standards' approach to environmental protection represents a supplement to cost-benefit analysis which places greater emphasis on the protection of the environment wherever thresholds of irreversible damage are threatened. It is based on the rationale of minimising maximum possible losses so long as the social costs of doing so are not 'unacceptable'. However, the concept of Safe Minimum Standards has been otherwise interpreted as justifying an abandonment of the need to quantify benefits deriving from preservation of the environment. It is frequently claimed that it is the opportunity costs of preservation,--i.e. the benefits of a proposed development--which represent the social costs of imposing a Safe Minimum Standards decision rule. Such a partial opportunity costs approach is not only contrary to the original concept, but may serve only to justify accepting the largest, and possibly most environmentally damaging, development projects. It is therefore also likely to produce recommendations that are contrary to what most proponents of the Safe Minimum Standards approach would endorse. Instead, it is proposed that SMS should be interpreted as favoring preservation in the face of irreversible environmental damage, unless the social costs of forgone development--defined as the benefits of development net of the expected benefits of environmental preservation that will be lost--are unacceptable. In this way, it can serve to moderate recommendations formulated according to underlying economic efficiency criteria, with respect to other, perhaps conflicting, social priorities.