Why the polluter pays principle is not a policy panacea for weedy but commercially valuable plant species either

摘要

Accurate assessment and prioritisation of the risks and benefits posed by conflict plant species is needed; these being plants that are both weedy and commercially valuable. When such species are introduced and become invasive, (sensu Richardson et al. 2000), conflict can arise. This conflict often occurs between those who derive benefits or positive impacts from the plant (e.g. commercial producers) and those who pay for the damage these plants cause when their negative impacts are realised (e.g. environmental custodians; in effect, us the tax-payer). Policy actions and outcomes become mired in this conflict.Conflict species policy has traditionally been informed by: legislative/regulatory approaches such as noxious weed laws; and economic analyses/ tools such benefit cost analyses. These approaches are problematic for various reasons. The polluter pays principle has been proposed to overcome these problems. Broadly, the application of this principle to conflict species would mean that the entity responsible for introducing and/or producing the problem would be responsible for paying for the damage done tothe environment/s it invades.This paper discusses the application of the polluter pays principle to plant invasions. Subsequently, it proposes a fundamentally different process or system of evaluation of the risks and benefits posed by conflict species for informing policy and management responses.