IUCN Conference “Biofuels Law and Policy’ – June 9-10, 2011 CONCEPTUAL CO-REGULATORY RISK- MANAGEMENT MODEL FOR MANAGING THE 2 ND GENERATION BIOFUELS WEED RISK Is it a ‘workable’ innovative regulatory pathway towards effective biofuels regulations? Preliminary key findings Elodie Le Gal PhD Candidate

Outline What is the weeds risk? How does the law currently approach it? Could the law approach the problem differently? The biofuels weed pathway Theoretical market-risk based instruments for invasives control Survey content and respondents ‘ profile Survey analysis – some preliminary key findings

What is the problem? The significance of the weed risk The significance of second-generation biofuels crops ‘Perennial prairie grasses like switchgrass grown on land unfit for other crops, could replace up to 13 percent of the world’s oil consumption – if an efficient way to turn cellulosic plant matter into ethanol can be developed.’ (Source: National Geographic, October 2007)

How does the law currently approach the weeds risk? The current model for weeds laws and policies relies extensively on traditional legal and regulatory techniques underpinned by a risk avoidance strategy. What does this mean if this model was to be applied to second-generation biofuels crops? Lost opportunities? Can the law approach the problem differently?

Could the law approach the weeds risk differently? Some key elements in order to achieve a reliable risk management strategy A risk-proportionate intervention with a precautionary balance using science methods ‘Smart’ regulatory targeting strategy + a combination of mechanisms at different points of intervention A collective industry risk management program monitored by governmental authorities (co- regulation) Costs of the biofuels weed risk transferred onto the private sector Our proposed conceptual architecture for a co- regulatory risk management model for biofuels weed control

IUCN Academy of Environmental Law Innovation in risk management arrangements for biofuel weeds Weed pathway Whose decisions?What institutions?Risk themes ? Science institutions Enterprise investors Bio-security agencies Policy agencies Commercial insurers Land-use agencies Economic agencies Property investors Industry organisations Primary industry agencies Standards Certifiers Public media Fuel companies Legal system Consumer organisations Conservation agencies Science institutions Monitoring agencies Field scientist Lab scientist Industry Entrepreneur Risks expert Customs Bureaucrat Commercial Propagator Development agency staff Site investor/owner Land-use approver Plantation entrepreneur Plantation manager Biofuel processor Biofuel investor Biofuel consumer Extension officer Rural NGO activist Plantation neighbour Government weeds manager Regional environmental officer Local weeds manager Weeds officer Field scientists Risk/context scientific evaluation Closing the risk- responsibility/reward cycle Risk-calibrated management options Economic incentive for risk management Informed, harm- accountable investors Risk-control by the industry Risk-informed consumer choices Active harm monitoring Compensation Knowledge for avoidance/control/reme diation Incentives for control/remediation Funds for control and remediation

Theoretical market risk-based mechanisms for invasives control Civil liability Financial responsibility mechanisms –Individual performance bonds/guarantees –Industry pooled risk sinking funds –Environmental risk insurance Invasiveness risk inspection in property transactions Bio-fuel ‘green’ investment standards Eco-certification and eco-labelling (tradable bio-pollution permits)

Survey content and respondents’ profile IUCN Academy of Environmental Law Innovation in risk management arrangements for biofuel weeds A pragmatic methodological approach 16 participants with different backgrounds involved to varying degrees with the weeds risk. Survey content/structure

Survey analysis – some preliminary findings GENERAL RESPONSES TO THE CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE Challenges Risk perception and regulatory outcomes The effectiveness and acceptability of the proposed conceptual architecture is significantly dependent upon the possibility of controlling weeds infestations. (This is challenged by scientific knowledge gaps) the possibility of collecting sufficient financial funds as part of a collective program to cover clean up restoration costs. (This is challenged by the state of the biofuels industry within the Australian context) Identified legal impediments Trust in private market operators Risk instruments communication and understanding Other contextual obstacles Facilitating factors (community participation, cost-sharing and clear allocation of responsibilities) SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO RISK-BASED INSTRUMENTS The identification of policy risks

THANK YOU If you have any comments, please do not hesitate to contact me on my If you know any environmental insurer who would like to participate, please let me know!