REVIEW ARTICLE

 

The regulation of alien species in South Africa

 

 

John R.U.Wilson^{I, II}; Sabrina Kumschick^{I, II}

^ISouth African National Biodiversity Institute, Kirstenbosch Research Centre, Cape Town, South Africa
^IICentre for Invasion Biology, Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch. South Africa

Correspondence

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

A key global change challenge is to significantly reduce the risks of alien taxa causing harmful impacts without compromising the rights of citizens. As part of efforts to address this challenge, South Africa promulgated comprehensive regulations and lists of alien taxa in 2014. In this paper, we review how the lists developed, changed overtime, and how they have been implemented. As of March 2021, 560 taxa were listed under four broad regulatory categories, and between 2014 and 2020, almost 3000 permits were issued to regulate the continued use of listed taxa. The full lists of regulated taxa, permits issued, and corresponding regulations are available in the Supplementary material. A proposed standardised, transparent, and science-informed process to revise the regulatory lists is also presented - as of 30 April 2024, risk analyses have been developed for 140 taxa using the Risk Analysis for Alien Taxa (RAAT) framework and reviewed by an independent scientific body [the Alien Species Risk Analysis Review Panel (ASRARP)] with input from taxon-specific experts. These recommendations are being considered by an interdepartmental governmental decision-making body established in March 2023 [the Risk Analysis Review Committee (RARC)]. Finally, key issues with the listing of alien taxa in South Africa that remain to be resolved are presented. As South Africa's regulatory framework continues to develop, the process of listing and regulating alien taxa will, we believe, become more transparent, consistent, and acceptable to stakeholders, and ultimately facilitate efforts to reduce the harmful impacts of alien taxa.
SIGNIFICANCE:
The regulation of alien species is a major part of how South Africa addresses biological invasions. For this process to be effective, relevant stakeholders need to be engaged and involved. This paper outlines how species have been regulated in the past, provides regulatory lists in accessible formats, and analyses how the lists have changed over time. A transparent, science-informed process to update the regulatory lists is presented and progress to date reviewed. This process aims to engage interested and affected parties in efforts to preserve the benefits of alien species while reducing the harmful impacts of invasions.

Keywords: biological invasions, biosecurity, invasive alien species, global change,, regulatory lists

---

 

 

Introduction

Biological invasions are a leading driver of global change.¹ There is increasing evidence that the scale, scope, and cost of problems caused by invasions will increase in the coming years.²⁴ In response to this threat, regulatory frameworks and management need to focus on the pathways of introduction and spread, the sites that are or might be invaded, and on the taxa that form invasive populations.⁵ In 2010, through the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Aichi Biodiversity Target 9 specified that: "By 2020, invasive alien species...are identified and prioritized, priority species are controlled or eradicated..."⁶. To address this aspect of the target, many countries have developed checklists of alien taxa.⁷ The need for such lists is reinforced in Target 6 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) that was agreed under the CBD in December 2022. The GBF tasks parties with "...preventing the introduction and establishment of priority invasive alien species, reducing the rates of introduction and establishment of other known or potential invasive alien species by at least 50 per cent, by 2030, eradicating or controlling invasive alien species..."⁸. Lists of alien taxa are thus considered fundamental to how biological invasions are managed.^9,10 Moreover, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement of 1995 recognised that restrictions on trade are warranted to ensure food safety and to protect the health of animals and plants. The WTO Agreement recommended that such restrictions "...should be based as far as possible on the analysis and assessment of objective and accurate scientific data"¹¹. The justification for restrictions, as codified in the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, typically takes the form of a risk analysis, which consists of an assessment of the likelihood and consequence of an invasion (risk assessment), an evaluation of what measure can be taken to manage the risk (risk management), and efforts to clearly outline and communicate what the concerns are (risk communication) (Supplementary figure 1).

South Africa, by virtue of its biogeographical and socio-economic history, has been both a global hotspot of biological invasions¹² and a pioneer in the science and management of biological invasions¹³. South Africa's history of regulating alien taxa dates back to the 19th century, with at least 50 pieces of legislation passed since the Xanthium Spinosum Act of 1861.¹⁴ Initially, the impetus behind such legislation was to protect economic interests, but an increasing focus on reducing environmental degradation and limiting harmful impacts on biodiversity emerged in the late 20th century. In particular, the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (CARA) of 1983 included several environmental weeds, guiding the management of invasive plants for over 30 years. South Africa is negatively impacted by invasive plants (and especially invasive trees)¹⁵, but also by invasive microbes, fungi, and animals (especially invasive freshwater fishes¹⁶)¹⁷. The promulgation of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act in 2004 (hereafter the NEM:BA) provided the framework for the first comprehensive regulatory lists of alien taxa - the Alien and Invasive Species Regulations and Lists of 2014 (hereafter the NEM:BA A&iS Regulations and Lists).

The NEM:BA A&IS Regulations and Lists were a milestone in how South Africa addresses biological invasions. However, in the decade since they were promulgated, several issues have emerged. "Legislative and government efforts to manage lAPs [invasive alien plants] have faltered because of the difficulty of engaging private landowners, competition [sic] local viewpoints and limited support for technical interventions by scientists and managers."¹⁸ An evaluation of the overall quality of the current regulatory framework in South Africa, based on the indicators proposed by Wilson et al.¹⁹, categorised South Africa's current regulations as "partial" noting that "...a process to evaluate the scientific evidence underpinning the lists of regulated alien species has been established...," with the overall outlook that the".. .process of listing should become more dynamic and responsive to recommendations"²⁰. It is this process of listing that we review in this paper. Specifically, we: (1) review the development of the NEM:BA A&iS Lists (Figure 1); (2) consolidate information on the lists²¹, the regulations²², and the processes used to develop the lists (Tables 1 and 2; Figures 1 and 3); (3) briefly evaluate the implementation of the lists (Table 2; Figure 2); (4) outline processes to provide scientific evidence to underpin changes to the lists (Figure 4); and (5) identify issues that need to be resolved (Box 1, Table 3).

 

The development of the NEM:BA A&IS Regulations and Lists

The NEM:BA of 2004 envisaged that lists would be produced by 1 April 2007. However, the process took much longer. The then Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) consulted various stakeholders and, based on expert opinion as informed by various global databases and sources, published the first draft lists in September 2007. It is not clear why these lists were considered insufficient (though cf. Supplementary table 1), but, from 2 April 2008 until 27 January 2009, the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), on behalf of the DEAT chaired a task team to revise the lists. Experts in various taxonomie groups were consulted, workshops and meetings were held, and the nomenclature was checked. Revised draft lists published on 3 April 2009 are largely similar to the lists eventually promulgated in 2014. Nonetheless, the process was not finalised and a series of taxon-specific working groups was established with relevant experts. Separate meetings were held on freshwater fishes, mammals, plants, and reptiles, and additional meetings were held specifically to discuss trout invasions. However, the different working groups interpreted the proposed regulatory categories slightly differently (in particular category 3, see Table 1). After further draft lists were published in 2013 and 2014, the first regulations and lists were promulgated on 1 October 2014. Since then, revised lists were published that took effect on 27 September 2016, and revised regulations and lists (without the prohibited list) were published on 18 and 25 September 2020, respectively. Following submissions from stakeholders regarding the listing of two invasive trout taxa, the promulgation of the latter lists was deferred to 1 March 2021, with the trout temporarily removed. In all, between 2007 and 2021,15 documents pertaining to the NEM:BA A&IS Regulations and Lists were published in South Africa's Government Gazette (See Figure 1 and Supplementary table for details, with the documents themselves collated online²²). A major remaining issue, as we discuss later, is that the evidence used to arrive at (and change) the lists was not clearly set out.

 

Categories and exemptions under the NEM:BA A&IS Lists

The two principles that underlie the NEM:BA A&IS Lists are that: (1) all harmful invasive or potentially harmful invasive taxa are to be listed; and (2) provision, where appropriate, can be made to utilise taxa that are both beneficial and harmful. In practice, this means that: (1) taxa that pose a high likelihood of causing significant harmful impacts (based on a risk assessment) are to be listed; and (2) the choice of listing category is based on the most suitable option for regulation (based on an evaluation of risk management options).

In the 2020 NEM:BA A&IS Lists there are four categories of listing (Table 1). Category 1 is for taxa which require management: this category is sub-divided into 1a (nationwide eradication targets) and 1b (requiring compulsory control). Category 2 is for taxa which have benefits and can be allowed under specific permit conditions (outside of which Category 2 listed taxa are treated as Category 1b). Category 3 is similar to Category 1b except that keeping existing individuals is exempt (i.e. allowed without a permit). However, the interpretation of Category 3 varies somewhat across taxonomie groups. Existing Category 3 plants in people's gardens are allowed to remain, but not be replaced (i.e. breeding and trading are restricted); therefore, over time, such taxa are being phased out and will essentially end up being Category 1b. Category 3 birds, by contrast, are often highly abundant and widespread taxa which might be difficult to control due to their sheer numbers.

Notably, Category 1 a taxa are not more invasive than Category 1 b taxa, and Category 1a and 1b taxa are not more invasive than Category 2 or Category 3 taxa [on average, Category 2 plant taxa are the most widespread (see Figure 3 in Henderson and Wilson²⁶)]. Moreover, the NEM:BA A&IS Lists are not comprehensive lists of all invasive taxa in South Africa [there are more invasive plant taxa that are not listed than are listed; 435 vs. 338 plant taxa¹⁵].

Some general exemptions apply to all listed taxa. Dead specimens, plants used as biomass (i.e. firewood), and specimens moved for disposal (e.g. after control) are exempt. Authorised officials do not need a permit to perform their duties in terms of the NEM:BA or the National Environmental Management Act. Unless otherwise listed, species legally imported for agricultural purposes before the NEM:BA came into force (i.e. 2004) are exempt, as well as species legally imported before the NEM:BA A&IS Regulations came into effect (i.e. 2014 or later depending on which version of the regulations was applicable). Alien freshwater fish are also exempted in some situations (including catch and release in artificial dams and catching to eat).

For Category 2 listed taxa, permits can be applied to: import, possess, breed, convey, trade, spread (or allow to spread), release, move freshwater taxa between water bodies, discharge water, catch and release freshwater fishes or freshwater invertebrates, release freshwater fishes or freshwater invertebrate species into discrete water bodies in which they already occur, and introduce a species to an offshore island. Some restrictions, however, remain, e.g. no permits will be issued for Category 2 alien plants within riparian areas. Permits can also be issued for any listed taxa for research (including biological control) by a scientific institution, display by a zoological or botanical institution, and during a state inter-basin water transfer scheme.

Finally, the NEM:BA provide provision for a list of alien taxa that are not present in the country and that should be prevented from entry (termed a prohibited list). Prohibited lists were gazetted in 2014 and 2016, but removed in 2020, arguably as the evidence for the inclusion or exclusion of taxa was not clearly set out (Box 1).

 

The NEM:BA A&IS Lists and changes over time

In the 2020 NEM:BA A&IS Lists, 560 taxa are listed as well as all hybrids between native and alien species of amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles (see Supplementary table 1 for details of how this number was calculated). Of these, 13 taxa are only listed on the Prince Edward Islands. Of the remaining 547 taxa, 1 is an order (Phasmida), 2 are families (Dendrobatidae and Salviniaceae), 15 are genera, 1 taxon is a species aggregation {Rubus fruticosus L. agg.), 506 are species, 12 are listed at the sub-specific level, and 10 at the variety level; and, regardless of the level at which the listing is, hybrids are explicitly mentioned in the listings of 18 taxa.²¹

As part of this paper, the name of each regulated taxon was aligned manually to a national or international database of accepted scientific names (i.e. a taxonomie backbone). Notably, almost half the listed regulated names (255 out of 560) do not correspond exactly to the name found in the relevant taxonomie backbone. In about a hundred cases, this is because the regulatory name includes one or more synonyms (cf. Table 3), and in many other cases it is due to a slight difference in the formatting of species authorities or an update in the nomenclature [e.g. the Global Biodiversity Information Facility refers to the addax as 'Addax nasomaculatus (Blainville, 1816)', but the NEM:BA A&IS Lists of 2020 refers to the addax as 'Addax nasomaculatus (de Blainville, 1816)']. A full list of proposed changes to the nomenclature of the regulatory lists is provided online.²¹

There have been few changes to the regulatory lists over time (Supplementary table 2). Excluding the removal of the prohibited list, the category under which 85 taxa are listed has changed since 2014 [including 20 taxa that are no longer listed and 11 taxa that were at one point not listed that are now listed]. There were also some notable changes between the draft lists and the promulgated lists. In the February 2014 draft lists, the whole family Cactaceae was listed, but, based on evidence of invasiveness in the country, only 37 cactus taxa were on the final promulgated list. Research suggests this decision was proportionate - globally invasive cacti come from only 13 of 130 genera, and crucially from only 5 of 12 cactus growth forms³⁰, i.e. spiny cacti that spread rapidly via clonal fragmentation³¹. Banning the whole family, including Mammillaria spp. that are popular in horticulture and none of which are invasive (as they are globose), is not warranted.³²

 

Permitting

There has been a steady stream of permits issued for restricted activities on listed alien taxa over time, with 2906 permits issued as of December 2022 (Figure 2a).³³ Permits have been issued for 268 different taxa; however, over half of all permits have been issued on five taxa - in decreasing order, Kobus leche subsp. leche (red lechwe), Oreochromis niloticus (tilapia), Ctenopharyngodon idella (grass carp), Dama dama (fallow deer), and Psittacula kramen' (rose-ringed parakeet) - and half of the taxa have only had one permit issued for them (Figure 2b). No permits have been issued for 26 of the 124 taxa (i.e. -20%) that have at some point been listed as Category 2 (Supplementary table 3), which raises the question: If there is no demand for permits should a taxon be listed as Category 2?

There have also been 10-20 permits issued to import taxa each year, around a quarter of which have been for research. Import permits have been issued for three taxa not recorded as legally in the country previously: Acipenser baerii (Siberian sturgeon); Meriones unguiculatus (Mongolian gerbil); and Salmo salar (Atlantic salmon). There have been other requests to import taxa (particularly reptiles), but these were rejected, often as the risk analyses were inconclusive or incomplete (cf. the process outlined in Figure 3). A separate process is in place for importing agricultural commodities and the inspection of plant products.^34,35

 

Proposed improvements to the process

The changes to the 2014 lists made in 2016 and 2020 were based on either a risk assessment or expert opinion, but the basis for specific changes was not made public, likely, in part, as the NEM:BA A&IS Regulations do not require the publication of the rationale for changes made to the lists. To improve transparency and the link to scientific evidence, a new process has been developed (summarised in Figure 3 and discussed in detail in Supplementary material 1 ).³⁶ The new process:

has a clear evidence base - through the use of the Risk Analysis for Alien Taxa (RAAT) framework³⁷;

engages with the scientific community - risk analyses produced using the RAAT framework are peer reviewed and subject to scrutiny by the Alien Species Risk Analysis Review Panel (ASRARP); and

facilitates integrated governance - an inter-governmental Risk Analysis Review Committee (RARC) was established to assist the Minister of the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) with the evaluation of proposals to change the NEM:BA A&IS Lists. The RARC's first meeting was on 1 March 2023.

We discuss the first two of these points below, noting it is too early to review the performance of the RARC.

 

The Risk Analysis for Alien Taxa framework

The RAAT is centred on three questions that address the key aspects required of a risk analysis and that link to a mechanistic understanding of invasions (Supplementary figure 1)³⁹:

What is the likelihood that the taxon will become invasive in South Africa?

What are the likely negative environmental and socio-economic consequences if the taxon were to become invasive?

What options are available to manage the taxon to ensure that any benefits derived can be sustainably retained?

We believe the RAAT framework represents an important advance. Of 14 minimal standards for risk assessments for alien taxa⁴⁰, the RAAT framework fully addresses 12. The framework does not currently assess the effects of future climate change (the intention is for risk analyses to be valid for around a decade or so), and only indirectly considers the status (threatened or protected) of taxa or habitats under threat. In addition to the minimum standards⁴⁰, the RAAT framework also considers environmental and socio-economic benefits of the taxon under assessment and evaluates risk management options (i.e. results in a risk analysis rather than simply a risk assessment, Supplementary figure 1). The process is also transparent. Assessors are required to ensure there is robust evidence that listed taxa are present in the country, and to systematically collate and present evidence of impact or threat to justify listing. This means stakeholders and decision-makers can see how recommendations were influenced by the available evidence. Finally, there is a formal review process to ensure consistency and quality, and to engage with relevant experts (see the section on ASRARP below).

The RAAT framework has not, as yet, been evaluated in terms of the accuracy of its classification of risk into low, medium, and high. This is mostly because analyses have, to date, focussed on invasive and high-risk taxa. We feel the RAAT approach is nonetheless preferable as it sets out the arguments as to why a taxon should be (or does not need to be) listed, and therefore provides a clear basis for which someone can contest a listing.

 

The Alien Species Risk Analysis Review Panel

The ASRARP was initiated by the DFFE and SANBI in 2016 as an independent scientific advisory panel to review documents pertaining to the risk of alien taxa, specifically with reference to potential imports and listings (see Figure 3 for the outline and Supplementary material 1 for more details).⁴¹ ASRARP also assists in reviewing guidelines for risk analyses and changes made to the A&IS Regulations (see Supplementary material 2 for the current terms of reference).

ASRARP (since July 2018) has been composed of ex officio SANBI members and independent members. Independent members are experienced academics, researchers or those involved in relevant industries from across the country, who serve on ASRARP in their personal capacities and can be remunerated for their time. In accordance with the NEM:BA A&IS Regulations on risk assessment practitioners, independent members must be registered as professional scientists with the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (SACNASP).

Panel members handle the review of risk analyses, and for each risk analysis solicit at least two external reviews (including ideally one international review) that focus on errors and omissions. Risk analyses and reviews are then presented in at least one ASRARP meeting, with recommendations passed back to the assessors for revision. Conflicts of interest are declared, and it is understood that ASRARP members are not individually liable for the recommendations if such were made in good faith.

There have been 29 meetings of ASRARP as of April 2024, with the inaugural meeting held on 29 November 2016 (Figure 1). ASRARP has gone through essentially five terms (including the current one) in line with DFFE funding cycles. Prior to 2018, various government and provincial officials attended ASRARP meetings in ex officio capacity, but by the fourth meeting, a decision was taken to clearly separate the scientific advisory panel from decision-makers. The second term was short, Jan 2018-March 2018; the third term ran from 16 July 2018 to 31 March 2020; the fourth term from 18 May 2020 to 31 March 2022; and the current fifth term began on 3 June 2022 and is due to run until 31 March 2025 (the hiatuses between terms were due to delays in finalising funding agreements between DFFE and SANBI and inefficiencies in advertising and reconstituting the panel). Meetings are now held quarterly. Initially, meetings were in person, but since the COVID-19 pandemic they have been online. Since July 2018, 39 people (excluding guests) have attended ASRARP meetings: 29 independent members, 5 as ex officio SANBI staff, and 9 as part of the secretariat, with some people serving in different roles at different times (see Supplementary table 4).

 

Progress to date and issues to resolve

As of 30 April 2024, risk analyses approved by ASRARP have been completed for 140 taxa (Supplementary table 5)-17 on taxa not listed at the time of approval, and 123 on regulated taxa. Almost half of the risk analyses on regulated taxa recommended a substantive change to the listing (54 of 123, cf. Table 2). This is because taxa were prioritised for risk analyses if it was felt a change to the listing was likely warranted or the listing was contentious. As risk analyses are completed on less controversial taxa, there are likely to be fewer cases of the recommendations differing from the current listing.

For example, Sasaella ramosa (dwarf bamboo) is currently listed as Category 3 under the synonym Sasa ramosa. However, the taxon is not formally recorded as present in the country, and the risk of invasion was scored low. The recommendation was to delist. By contrast, Phyllostachys aurea (fishpole bamboo) is not currently listed but is recorded to have naturalised in South Africa, is invasive in other parts of the world, and requires costly management, especially in forested areas. The recommendation was to list Phyllostachys aurea as Category 1b.⁴² Iris pseudacorus (yellow flag iris) was listed as a national eradication target (Category 1a). However, naturalised populations have been recorded at 24 localities across four provinces; plants are present in many people's gardens; and individual populations are very hard to control.⁴³ Therefore, the recommendation was for the species to be listed as Category 1b and options for biological control explored. Kobus ellipsiprymnus subsp. defassa (Defassa Waterhuck) is currently listed as Category 2 (i.e. can be kept under permit). Given the potential for hybridisation with the native K. e. subsp. ellipsiprymnus (common Waterhuck), it was recommended that K. e. subsp. defassa should no longer be kept in South Africa and the taxon relisted as Category 1a.

Importantly, these recommendations are provisional and need to be discussed within government (through the RARC) with interested and affected stakeholders (e.g. the horticultural and game industries), and through wider public consultation (e.g. through publishing the lists for comment).

As with similar processes (e.g. submission of manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals), the review process takes time (Figure 4, Supplementary figure 2). As of 30 April 2024, most submitted risk analyses were reviewed, revised, and approved by ASRARP within 6 months, but -20% took longer than a year. The longest delays were when either the assessor or the ASRARP handling member became unavailable during the process; in such cases, risk analyses needed to be reassigned before they could be finalised.

A risk analysis training course was developed in 2018 to help assessors complete risk analyses. As of 30 April 2024,19 courses have been run, 2 of which were refresher courses developed upon revision of the risk analysis framework to v1.2 in 2020. As of 30 April 2024, 52 course participants have received a course certificate, which requires - in addition to attending the course - that a risk analysis is developed using the RAAT, reviewed and accepted by ASRARP, and ultimately submitted to the DFFE.

During the implementation of the regulatory lists and following discussion at ASRARP several issues have come to light that still need to be resolved. These are summarised in Table 3. One of the most difficult issues is how to draw in all stakeholders. The need for consultation is intended to be integral throughout the development, revision, and implementation of the NEM:BA A&IS Regulations and Lists (cf. Supplementary material 1). A framework to help with such engagement has been developed⁴⁴; however, conflicts often arise⁴⁵, and, in some cases, a formal process to reach an agreement, e.g. a scientific assessment⁴⁶, might be needed.

 

Discussion and conclusions

The regulation of alien taxa in South Africa can be described as a gradual move from focusing on weeds, to broader efforts to limit damage to people and nature caused by alien plants, to a comprehensive and innovative regulatory framework that seeks to limit the harmful impacts of all alien taxa without unduly reducing benefits to South Africans. The current NEM:BA A&IS Lists thus provide a foundation needed for South Africa to meet its commitment to Target 6 of the GBF by 2030. We believe that the proposed process will make the system more proportionate, accountable, consistent, transparent, and targeted.⁷⁰ The process also aims to make the regulation of alien taxa in South Africa credible, legitimate, and acceptable.

Proportionate: the NEM:BA A&IS Regulations and Lists recognise that many alien taxa provide benefits, and exemptions are provided for. There is an attempt to balance a precautionary approach (e.g. on imports where prevention is desirable) against a pragmatic or in some cases ethical one (e.g. phasing taxa out). Provisions allow for research on biological invasions to continue and so ongoing projects have not been jeopardised (cf. Pietrzyk-Kaszynska et al.⁷¹). The cost of the regulation (both to the government and to society) has not, however, been estimated.

Accountable: all lists are subject to review by different government entities and published for public scrutiny before promulgation. With the development of the RAAT framework and use of the risk analyses, the evidence that informs decisions is clear. The permitting, complaints, and appeals processes are set out in the regulations, and the criteria for judging the performance of regulators and enforcers is partly set out (e.g. response times).

Consistent: by working across taxa and realms, the ASRARP helps ensure risk analyses are consistent. Moreover, the RARC is intended to ensure governmental work is 'joined-up'. As the process and timelines for making changes become clearer, affected stakeholders (e.g. the horticultural industry) will have greater certainty as to what might happen and when.

Transparent: the lists are available to all, and, with the development of the RAAT framework, the process to derive the lists will be clearer. The risk analyses also ensure information is in a usable and accessible form, although the DFFE has requested that risk analyses not be placed in the public domain until the RARC has had a chance to consider them. The names of the assessors who completed risk analyses are, however, redacted (in part as the product is the result of the work of both the assessors and ASRARP).

Targeted: the NEM:BA A&IS Regulations and Lists have been modified over time based on experience¹⁷, although more information on monitoring the effectiveness of the regulations appears warranted.

Credible: the original lists were developed with many of the top academics working on biological invasions in the country in consultation with affected stakeholders. The RAAT framework incorporates existing schemes for impact assessment^72,73 - the first of which has been adopted by the UN following COP decision 15/27 on Invasive Alien Species (Annexes I to VI), and the pathway classification used by the CBD⁷⁴. Risk analyses are routinely reviewed by national and international experts as well as working groups at the science-policy-management interface of biological invasions.^75,76

Legitimate: the development of the regulations is mandated in South African legislation, i.e. NEM:BA. More broadly, the regulations address both national imperatives and international obligations on biodiversity conservation (CBD) and trade (WTO). Neither the RAAT framework, ASRARP nor the RARC are explicitly mentioned in the regulations, although they could be in future. Training courses are not yet registered with SACNASP but this is likely to be desirable in future.

Acceptable: measures have been put in place to try to preserve the benefits of alien species while reducing the harmful impacts of invasions. Any regulation of biodiversity is inimical to some ethical perspectives⁷⁷, but a clear distinction should be made between the rationale for regulation and evaluating the ethics of particular management interventions⁷⁵.

In summary, we believe that, while many issues still need to be resolved (Table 3), the regulation of alien species in South Africa has many desirable features. The challenge, as with many conservation issues, will continue to be to equitably balance the rights of the current generation with the rights of future generations. This will, we believe, require continued discussions, partnerships, and collaborations between scientists, policymakers, implementers, and those affected by the regulations.

 

Acknowledgements

The South African Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) is thanked for funding, noting that this publication does not necessarily represent the views or opinions of DFFE or its employees. All past and current members of ASRARP are thanked for their input (see Supplementary table 4), as well as all external reviewers and assessors for assisting with the process. Ashlyn Padayachee, Barney Kgope, Carina Malherbe, Katelyn Faulkner, Khathutshelo Nelukalo, Livhuwani Nnzeru, Marthán Theart, Mlungele Nsikani, Philip Ivey, Tatenda Dalu, and two anonymous reviewers are thanked for comments and constructive discussions on earlier versions of the manuscript. Kim Daniels helped compile the lists of regulations and consolidate risk analysis reports. Pieter Winter assisted with nomenclatural queries. Ingrid Nänni provided valuable input on the history of the development of the lists. Finally, we thank our DFFE colleagues both for input on this manuscript and for being an integral part of developing the processes outlined here. We do not always agree, but it is a pleasure to work with them.

 

Competing interests

Both authors, through their roles with the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), were involved in setting up and running many of the processes outlined in the manuscript, specifically the Alien Species Risk Analysis Review Panel and the Risk Analysis of Alien Taxa framework. J.R.U.W. primarily, and S.K. to a lesser degree, have been involved in the analysis of this process as part of the report 'The status of biological invasions and their management in South Africa in 2022'¹⁷.

 

Authors' contributions

J.R.U.W.: Conceptualisation, methodology, validation, data collection, sample analysis, data analysis, and led the writing. S.K.: Conceptualisation, methodology, validation, assisted with writing.

 

References

1. IPBES. Summary for policymakers of the thematic assessment report on invasive alien species and their control of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. In: Roy HE, Pauchard A, Stoett P, Renard Truong T, Bacher S, Galil BS, et al. editors. Bonn: IPBES Secretariat; 2023. p. 41. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7430692        [ Links ]

2. Seebens H, Blackburn TM, Dyer EE, Genovesi P,Hulme PE, Jeschke JM, et al. No saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide. Nat Commun. 2017;8, Art. #14435. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14435        [ Links ]

3. Diagne C, Leroy B, Gozlan RE, Vaissière Α-C, Assailly C, Nuninger L, et al. High and rising economic costs of biological invasions worldwide. Nature. 2020;7, Art. #277. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-00586-z        [ Links ]

4. Seebens H, Bacher S, Blackburn TM, Capinha C, Dawson W, Dullinger S, et al. Projecting the continental accumulation of alien species through to 2050. Glob Chang Biol. 2021 ;27(5):970-982. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15333        [ Links ]

5. McGeoch MA, Genovesi P,Bellingham PJ, Costello MJ, McGrannachan C_; Sheppard A. Prioritizing species, pathways, and sites to achieve conservation targets for biological invasion. Biol Invasions. 2016:18(2):299-314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-015-1013-1        [ Links ]

6. Convention on Biological Diversity. Aichi biodiversity targets [webpage on the Internet]. c2020 [cited 2024 Apr 09]. Available from: https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/        [ Links ]

7. Pagad S, Genovesi P,Carnevali L, Schigel D, McGeoch MA. Introducing the Global Register of introduced and invasive species. Sci Data. 2018;5, Art. #170202. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.202        [ Links ]

8. Convention on Biological Diversity. C0P15: Final text of Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework [webpage on the Internet]. c2022 [cited 2024 Apr 09]. Available from: https://www.cbd.int/article/cop15-final-text-kunming-montreal-gbf-221222        [ Links ]

9. Essl F, Latombe G, Lenzner B, Pagad S, Seebens H, Smith K, et al. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)'s Post-2020 target on invasive alien species - what should it include and how should it be monitored? In: Wilson JR, Bacher S, Daehler CC, Groom QJ, Kumschick S, Lockwood JL, et al. editors. Frameworks used in invasion science. NeoBiota. 2020;62:99-121. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.62.53972        [ Links ]

10. Garcia-de-Lomas J, Vila M. Lists of harmful alien organisms: Are the national regulations adapted to the global world? Biol Invasions. 2015;17(11):3081-3091. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-015-0939-7        [ Links ]

11. World Trade Organization. Understanding the WTO Agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures [webpage on the Internet]. c1998 [cited 2024 Apr 09]. Available from: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/spsund_e.htm        [ Links ]

12. Van Wilgen BW, Measey J, Richardson DM, Wilson JR, Zengeya TA. Biological invasions in South Africa: An overview. In: Van Wilgen BW, Measey J, Richardson DM, Wilson JR, Zengeya TA, editors. Biological invasions in South Africa. Invading Nature-Springer Series in Invasion Ecology. Vol. 14. Cham: Springer; 2020. p. 3-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_1        [ Links ]

13. Van Wilgen BW, Measey J, Richardson DM, Wilson JR, Zengeya TA. Biological invasions in South Africa. In: Simberloff D, editor. Invading Nature-Springer Series in Invasion Ecology, vol. 14. Cham: Springer; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3        [ Links ]

14. Lukey P,Hall J. Biological invasion policy and legislation development and implementation in South Africa. In: Van Wilgen BW, Measey J, Richardson DM, Wilson JR, Zengeya TA, editors. Biological invasions in South Africa. Invading Nature-Springer Series in Invasion Ecology. Vol. 14. Cham: Springer; 2020. p. 515-551. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_18        [ Links ]

15. Richardson DM, Foxcroft LC, Latombe G, Le Maitre DC, Rouget M, Wilson JR. The biogeography of South African terrestrial plant invasions. In: Van Wilgen BW, Measey J, Richardson DM, Wilson JR, Zengeya TA, editors. Biological invasions in South Africa. Invading Nature-Springer Series in Invasion Ecology. Vol. 14. Cham: Springer; 2020. p. 67-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_3        [ Links ]

16. Weyl OLF, Ellender BR, Wassermann RJ, Truter M, Dalu T, Zengeya TA, et al. Alien freshwater fauna in South Africa. In: Van Wilgen BW, Measey J_; Richardson DM, Wilson JR, Zengeya TA, editors. Biological invasions in South Africa. Invading Nature-Springer Series in Invasion Ecology. Vol. 14. Cham: Springer; 2020. p. 153-183. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_6        [ Links ]

17. Zengeya TA, Wilson JR, editors. The status of biological invasions and their management in South Africa in 2022. Stellenbosch: South African National Biodiversity Institute, Kirstenbosch and DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology; 2023. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8217182        [ Links ]

18. Bennett BM, van Sittert L. Historicising perceptions and the national management framework for invasive alien plants in South Africa. J Environ Manag. 2019;229:174-181. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.07.029        [ Links ]

19. Wilson JRU, Faulkner KT, Rahlao SJ, Richardson DM, Zengeya TA, van Wilgen BW. Indicators for monitoring biological invasions at a national level. J Appl Ecol. 2018;55:2612-2620. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13251        [ Links ]

20. Zengeya TA, Wilson JR. The status of biological invasions and their management in South Africa in 2019. Stellenbosch: South African National Biodiversity Institute, Kirstenbosch and DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology; 2020. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3947613        [ Links ]

21. Wilson JR. A list of taxa currently and historically regulated under South Africa's National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, Alien & Invasive Species Regulations [data set]. Version v1.0(20240331). c2024 [cited 2024 Apr 09]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10809766        [ Links ]

22. South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI). Notices in the South Africa Government Gazette relevant to the NEM:BA A&IS regulations and lists. Version 1.1. 2023 July 18 [cited 2024 Apr 09]. https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8176920        [ Links ]

23. Wilson JRU, Ivey P,Manyama P,Nanni I. A new national unit for invasive species detection, assessment and eradication planning. S Afr J Sci. 2013;109(5/6), Art. #2012-0111. https://doi.org/10.1590/sajs.2013/20120111        [ Links ]

24. Wilson JR, Panetta FD, Lindgren C. Detecting and responding to alien plant incursions. In: Usher MB, editor. Ecology, biodiversity and conservation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2017. p. 286. https://doi.org/10.1017/CB09781316155318        [ Links ]

25. Fernandez Winzer L, Greve Μ, Ie Roux PC, Faulkner KT, Wilson JR. Chapter 6: The status of biological invasions and their management in the Prince Edward Islands. In: Zengeya TA, Wilson JR, editors. The status of biological invasions and their management in South Africa in 2022. Stellenbosch: South African National Biodiversity Institute, Kirstenbosch and DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology; 2023. p. 75-100.         [ Links ]

26. Henderson L, Wilson JRU. Changes in the composition and distribution of alien plants in South Africa: An update from the Southern African Plant Invaders Atlas (SAPIA). Bothalia: Afr Biodivers Conserv. 2017;47. Art. #a2142. https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v47i2.2172        [ Links ]

27. Faulkner KT, Robertson MR Rouget M, Wilson JRU. A simple, rapid methodology for developing invasive species watch lists. Biol Conserv. 2014;179:25-32. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.08.014        [ Links ]

28. Roy HE, Bacher S, Essl F, Adriaens T, Aldridge DC, Bishop JDD, et al. Developing a list of invasive alien species likely to threaten biodiversity and ecosystems in the European Union. Glob Chang Biol. 2019;25(3):1032-1048. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14527        [ Links ]

29. Woodford DJ, Richardson DM, Macisaac HJ, Mandrak NE, van Wilgen BW, Wilson JRU, et al. Confronting the wicked problem of managing biological invasions. NeoBiota. 2016;31:63-86. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.31.10038        [ Links ]

30. Novoa A, Le Roux JJ, Robertson MR Wilson JRU, Richardson DM. Introduced and invasive cactus species - a global review. Aob Plants. 2015;7, Art. #plu078. https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plu078        [ Links ]

31. Novoa A, Richardson DM, Pysek p,Meyerson LA, Bacher S, Canavan S, et al. Invasion syndromes: A systematic approachfor predicting biological invasions and facilitating effective management. Biol Invasions. 2020;22:1801-1820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-020-02220-w        [ Links ]

32. Novoa A, Kaplan H, KumschickS, Wilson JRU, Richardson DM. Soft touch or heavy hand? Legislative approaches for preventing invasions: Insights from Cactaceae in South Africa. Invasive Plant Sci Manag. 2015;8(3):307-316. https://doi.org/10.1614/IPSM-D-14-00073.1        [ Links ]

33. Soouth African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI). Permits issued in respect of South Africa's National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act's alien and invasive species regulations over the period October 2014 -December 2022. Version 20230809. [cited 2024 Apr 09]. https://doi.org/10,5281/zenodo.8229321        [ Links ]

34. Saccaggi DL, Karsten Μ, Robertson MR Kumschick S, Somers MJ, Wilson JRU, et al. Methods and approaches for the management of arthropod border incursions. Biol Invasions. 2016;18(4):1057-1075. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1085-6        [ Links ]

35. Saccaggi DL, Arendse M, Wilson JRU, Terblanche JS. Contaminant organisms recorded on plant product imports to South Africa 1994-2019. Sci Data. 2021:8(83):11. https://doi.Org/10.1038/s41597-021-00869-z        [ Links ]

36. Kumschick S, Foxcroft LC, Wilson JR. Analysing the risks posed by biological invasions to South Africa. In: Van Wilgen BW, Measey J, Richardson DM, Wilson JR, Zengeya TA, editors. Biological invasions in South Africa. Invading Nature-Springer Series in Invasion Ecology. Vol 14. Cham: Springer; 2020. p. 573-595. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_20        [ Links ]

37. Kumschick S, Wilson JRU, Foxcroft LC. A framework to support alien species regulation: The Risk Analysis for Alien Taxa (RAAT). In: Wilson JR_; Bacher S, Daehler CC, Groom QJ, Kumschick S, Lockwood JL, et al. editors. Frameworks used in invasion science.NeoBiota. 2020;62:213-239. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.62.51031        [ Links ]

38. Ivey PJ, Hill MR Zachariades C. Advances in the regulation of weed biological control in South Africa. Afr Entomol. 2021:29(3):1060-1076. https://doi.org/10.4001/003.029.1060        [ Links ]

39. Keller RR Kumschick S. Promise and challenges of risk assessment as an approach for preventing the arrival of harmful alien species. Bothalia: Afr Biodivers Conserv. 2017;47(2), Art. #a2136. https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.V47Í2.2136        [ Links ]

40. Roy HE, Rabitsch W, Scalera R, Stewart A, Gallardo B, Genovesi P,et al. Developing a framework of minimum standards for the risk assessment of alien species. J Appl Ecol. 2018;55(2):526-538. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13025        [ Links ]

41. South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI). The Alien Species Risk Analysis Review Panel (ASRARP) [webpage on the Internet]. No date [cited 2024 Apr 09]. Available from: https://www.sanbi.org/biodiversity/building-knowledge/biodiversity-monitoring-assessment/biological-invasions/the-alien-species-risk-analysis-review-panel-asrarp/        [ Links ]

42. Canavan S, Richardson DM, Le Roux JJ, Kelchner SA, Wilson JRU. The status of alien bamboos in South Africa. S Afr J Bot. 2021 ;138(May):33-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajb.2020.11.027        [ Links ]

43. Jaca T, Mkhize V. Distribution of Iris pseudacorus (Linnaeus, 1753) in South Africa. Bioinvasions Rec. 2015;4(4):249-253. https://doi.org/10.3391/bir.2015.4.4.03        [ Links ]

44. Novoa A, Shackleton R, Canavan S, Cybèle C, Davies SJ, Dehnen-Schmutz K, et al. A framework for engaging stakeholders on the management of alien species. J Environ Manag. 2018;205(1 ):286-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.09.059        [ Links ]

45. Zengeya T, Ivey P,Woodford DJ, Weyl 0, Novoa A, Shackleton R, et al. Managing conflict-generating invasive species in South Africa: Challenges and trade-offs. Bothalia: Afr Biodivers Conserv. 2017;47(2), Art. #a2160. https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v47i2.2160        [ Links ]

46. Scholes RJ, Schreiner GO, Snyman-Van der Walt L. Scientific assessments: Matching the process to the problem. Bothalia: Afr Biodivers Conserv. 2017;47(2), Art. #a2144. https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v47i2.2144        [ Links ]

47. Nelufule T, Robertson MR Wilson JRU, Faulkner KT. An inventory of native-alien populations in South Africa. Sei Data. 2023;10(1), Art. #213. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02119-w        [ Links ]

48. Faulkner KT, Robertson MR Wilson JRU. Stronger regional biosecurity is essential to prevent hundreds of harmful biological invasions. Glob Chang Biol. 2020;26(4):2449-2462. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15006        [ Links ]

49. Mabin CA, Wilson JRU, Robinson TB. The Chilean black urchin, Tetrapygus niger (Molina, 1782) in South Africa: Gone but not forgotten. Bioinvasions Rec. 2015;4(4):261-264. https://doi.org/10.3391/bir.2015.4.4.05        [ Links ]

50. Matthys CK. The development of a protocol for declaring alien species absent from South Africa [M Cons Sci thesis]. Cape Town: Cape Peninsula University of Technology; 2024.         [ Links ]

51. Vimercati G, Kumschick S, Probert AF, Volery L, Bacher S. The importance of assessing positive and beneficial impacts of alien species. In: Wilson JR, Bacher S, Daehler CC, Groom QJ, Kumschick S, Lockwood JL, et al. editors. Frameworks used in invasion science. NeoBiota. 2020;62:525-545. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.62.52793        [ Links ]

52. Vimercati G, Probert AF, Volery L, Bernardo-Madrid R, Bertolino S, Céspedes V et al. The EICAT+ framework enables classification of positive impacts of alien taxa on native biodiversity. PLoS Biol. 2022;20(8), e3001729. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001729        [ Links ]

53. Paterson ID, Breeyen AD, Martin GD, Olckers T. An introduction to the fourth decadal review of biological control of invasive alien plants in South Africa (2011-2020). Afr Entomol. 2021:29(3):685-692. https://doi.org/10.4001/003.029.0685        [ Links ]

54. Faulkner K. Chapter 1: Pathways. In: Zengeya TA, Wilson JR, editors. The status of biological invasions and their management in South Africa in 2022. Stellenbosch: South African National Biodiversity Institute, Kirstenbosch and DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology; 2023. p. 15-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8217182        [ Links ]

55. Datta A, Kumschick S, Geerts S, Wilson JRU. Identifying safe cultivars of invasive plants: Six questions for risk assessment, management, and communication. In: Wilson JR, Bacher S, Daehler CC, Groom QJ, Kumschick S, Lockwood JL, et al. editors. Frameworks used in invasion science. NeoBiota. 2020;62:81-97. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.62.51635        [ Links ]

56. Paap Τ, de Beer ZW, Migliorini D, Nel WJ, Wingfield MJ. The polyphagous shot hole borer (PSHB) and its fungal symbiont Fusarium euwallaceae: A new invasion in South Africa. Australas Plant Pathol. 2018;47(2):231 -237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13313-018-0545-0        [ Links ]

57. Bastos AD, Nair D, Taylor PJ, Brettschneider H, Kirsten F, Mostert E, et al. Genetic monitoring detects an overlooked cryptic species and reveals the diversity and distribution of three invasive Rattus congeners in south Africa. BMC Genet. 2011 ;12(1), Art. #26. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-12-26        [ Links ]

58. Van Helden L, van Helden PD, Meiring C. Pathogens of vertebrate animals as invasive species: Insights from South Africa. In: Van Wilgen BW, Measey J_; Richardson DM, Wilson JR, Zengeya TA, editors. Biological invasions in South Africa. Nature - Springer Series in Invasion Ecology. Vol. 14. Cham: Springer: 2020. p. 249-274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_10        [ Links ]

59. Rambauli M, Antwi A, Mudau F. Investigating the strength of linkages of plant health institutional and legislative framework in South Africa. S Afr J Agric Ext. 2021 ;49(1):13-29. https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3221/2021/v49n1 a10774        [ Links ]

60. Hulme ΡΕ. One Biosecurity: A unified concept to integrate human, animal, plant, and environmental health. Emerg Top Life Sci. 2020;4(5):539-549. https://doi.org/10.1042/ETLS20200067        [ Links ]

61. Prinsloo GL, Uys VM, editors. Insects of cultivated plants and natural pastures in southern Africa. Pretoria: Entomological Society of Southern Africa; 2015.         [ Links ]

62. Zachariades C. A catalogue of natural enemies of invasive alien plants in South Africa: Classical biological control agents considered, released and established, exotic natural enemies present in the field, and bioherbicides. Afr Entomol. 2021 ;29(3):1077-1142. https://doi.org/10.4001/003.029.1077        [ Links ]

63. Wickham H. Tidy Data. J Stat Softw. 2014;59(10):1-23. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v059.i10        [ Links ]

64. South African Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries. National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004) Alien and Invasive Species Lists, 2020. Notice 1003 of 2020, no. 43726,18 September 2020. Pretoria: Government Gazette; 2020. p. 31-77.         [ Links ]

65. Cronin K, Kaplan H, Gaertner M, Irlich U, Hoffman MI Aliens in the nursery: Assessing the attitudes of nursery managers to invasive species regulations. Biol Invasions. 2017;19(3):925-937. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1363-3        [ Links ]

66. Shackleton CM, Shackleton RT. Knowledge, perceptions and willingness to control designated invasive tree species in urban household gardens in South Africa. Biol Invasions. 2016;18(6):1599-1609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1104-7        [ Links ]

67. Keet J-H, Datta A, Foxcroft LC, Kumschick S, Nichols GR, Richardson DM, et al. Assessing the level of compliance with alien plant regulations in a large African protected area. Biol Invasions. 2022;24(12):3831 -3844. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02883-7        [ Links ]

68. Patterson DJ, Cooper J, Kirk PM, Pyle RL, Remsen DP. Names are key to the big new biology. Trends Ecol Evol. 2010;25(12):686-691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.09.004        [ Links ]

69. De Santana CD, CramptonWGR, Dillman CB, Frederico RG, Sabaj MH, Covain R, et al. Unexpected species diversity in electric eels with a description of the strongest living bioelectricity generator. Nat Commun. 2019;10, Art. #4000. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-11690-z        [ Links ]

70. Better Regulation Task Force. Annex Β of Regulation - less is more, reducing burdens, improving outcomes. London: Cabinet Office Publications & Publicity Team; 2005. p. 68.         [ Links ]

71. Pietrzyk-Kaszynska A, Olszanska A, Najberek K, Maciaszek R, Solarz W. What starts with laughter ends in tears: Invasive alien species regulations should not hinder scientific research. Conserv Lett. 2024;1, e12986. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12986        [ Links ]

72. Blackburn TM, Essl F, Evans T, Hulme PE, Jeschke JM, Kühn I, et al. A unified classification of alien species based on the magnitude of their environmental impacts. PLoS Biol. 2014;12(5). e1001850. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001850        [ Links ]

73. Bacher S, Blackburn TM, Essl F, Genovesi R Heikkila J, Jeschke JM, et al. Socio-economic impact classification of alien taxa (SEICAT). Methods Ecol Evol. 2018;9(Jan):159-168. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12844        [ Links ]

74. Harrower CA, Scalera R, Pagad S, Schonrogge K, Roy HE. Guidance for interpretation of CBD categories on introduction pathways. Technical note prepared by IUCN. Brussels: European Commission; 2017. p. 100. https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/9d85/3bc5/d640f059d03acd717602cd76/sbstta-22-inf-09-en.pdf        [ Links ]

75. Davies SJ, Bell JA, Impson D, Mabin C, Meyer M, Rhoda C, et al. Coordinating invasive alien species management in a biodiversity hotspot: The CAPE Invasive Alien Animals Working Group. Bothalia: Afr Biodivers Conserv. 2020;50(1), Art. #a10. https://doi.org/10.38201/btha.abc.v50.i1.10        [ Links ]

76. Foxcroft LC, van Wilgen BW, Abrahams Β, Esler KJ, Wannenburgh A. Knowing-doing continuum or knowing-doing gap? Information flow between researchers and managers of biological invasions in South Africa. In: Van Wilgen BW, Measey J, Richardson DM, Wilson JR, Zengeya TA, editors. Biological invasions in South Africa. Nature - Springer Series in Invasion Ecology. Vol. 14. Cham: Springer; 2020. p. 831-853. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_28        [ Links ]

77. Latombe G, Lenzner B, Schertler A, Dullinger S, Glaser Μ, Jaric I, et al. What is valued in conservation? A framework to compare ethical perspectives. NeoBiota. 2022;72:45-80. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.72.79070        [ Links ]

 

 

Correspondence:
John Wilson
Email: john.wilson2@gmail.com

Received: 07 Nov. 2023
Revised: 26 Mar. 2024
Accepted: 26 Mar. 2024
Published: 28 May 2024

 

 

Editor: Jennifer Fitchett
Funding:South African Department of Forestry Fisheries and the Environment

 

 

Supplementary Data

The supplementary data is available in pdf: [Supplementary data]