Sharpshooter

Europe’s botched vaccine roll-out has cast a much-needed spotlight on a legal convention that shooters have been highlighting for years

Has the notorious ‘precautionary principle’ had its cover blown at last? Questions are finally being asked about it in places where it is never normally considered. We have Europe’s botched vaccine roll-out to thank for casting a spotlight on a legal convention that shooters have been highlighting for years.

You see, an excess of caution was cited as the reason why some European governments decided to suspend their use of the Oxford-astrazeneca vaccine. The excuse for that fatal pause was that there wasn’t enough data proving the vaccine was absolutely safe for every person, of every age. This decision — which was soon overturned — illustrated just how flawed the precautionary principle can be, if applied without any common sense.

Wildfowlers have been complaining for years about the way state conservation bodies wield the precautionary principle in processing wildfowling consents. Now mainstream society across Europe has been given a taste of the same legal principle. We always knew an overzealous interpretation of the principle could endanger livelihoods. Now we know that it can endanger lives.

The precautionary principle is a key facet of our environmental law, much of which was designed to enact EU regulations. In wildlife conservation, it means that unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that an activity will not damage a listed species or its habitat, the authorities are entitled to act as though it will. Everyone knows proving a negative is almost impossible.

The precautionary principle reverses the burden of proof in a way that is alien to the rights we have enjoyed since 1215, when the barons forced King John to sign the Magna Carta. It originated in the different legal traditions of continental Europe, where actions tend to be banned unless they are authorised. In effect, it means the onus is on us to prove our innocence. It is grist to the mill of the green blob, which likes to think that imposing ever greater restrictions is the way to help nature.

Then there is mission creep. Take the boundaries of protected sites, such as Sites of Special Scientific Interset (SSSIS). A boundary is supposed to be the demarcation between land where certain conditions apply and other land where they do not. But in recent years, the authorities have extended the regulation to a buffer zone 300m beyond SSSI boundaries.

I discovered this some years ago, when I was building a sewage system for a cottage. The cottage isn’t actually in an SSSI but it is within 300m of one. This meant that all sorts of notifications had to be given. I have been unable to establish

“The green blob likes to think that greater restrictions are the way to help nature”

how and when this automatic extension of the SSSI influence came about.

My own farmhouse sits in an exempt enclave within an SSSI. So do many rural homes. The idea was that residents should not have to apply for consent every time they wanted to carry out ordinary household and garden activities. Yet given that my enclave, like the others I know, is less than 300m across, does the imposition of a buffer zone mean I can no longer plant a fruit tree in my garden without written permission?