were being considered for use in addressing a problem that was not specifically
related to the plant’s impact on agriculture. For example, although the politics and
economics of the early Marijuana industry is beyond the scope of this Chapter, it is
probably safe to say that Cannabis indica was considered to be far more of a social
problem than an agricultural economy problem.
According to Bennett and van Sittert (2018), from 1910 to 1913, the Union
delegated weed control to the provinces through the Financial Relations Act (Act
10 of 1913). Bennett and van Sittert (2018) also note that from 1913 to 1937
provincial administrators were made responsible for controlling weeds through
Part 5 of the Union of South Africa Act of 1909. Although each province still
used their colonial laws to regulate weed control, Bennett and van Sittert (2018)
describe an attempt in 1916 by the South African Farmers Union to get the Minister
of Agriculture to rationalise and harmonise these provincial laws and the Provincial
Administration Commission’s failed suggestion that the Cape’s system be applied
nationally.
During this quiet period the Orange Free State amended its Noxious Weeds Act
(Act 23 of 1909) with its 1920 Noxious Weeds Amendment Ordinance (Ordinance
6 of 1920); principally to replace the word ‘Governor’ with ‘Administrator’. However, an interesting new provision was also slipped into this ‘editorial’ amendment
that empowered the administrator to make grants, or to grant other assistance,
monetary or otherwise, for “the effectual eradication of noxious weeds”.
Further legislation, like Transvaal’s 1928 Local Government (Noxious Weeds)
Amendment (Ordinance 8 of 1928), concentrated largely on administrative amendments with few significant changes in policy or approach.
Apart from starting to include contested species—species that were considered
problematic by some, but beneficial by others—and the potential government
funding of eradication programmes, this period also appears to have introduced
very few changes in policy or legislative approach. Notwithstanding this, it is
possible that this period may have seen the introduction of a new policy-driver
that was distinctly South African, namely, nationalism.
In this regard, the closing years of the nineteenth century saw botanists beginning
to advocate for the recognition and protection of the Western Cape’s unique native
fynbos flora which was under threat from extensive transformations of the landscape
due to farming, forestry, urban sprawl and wild flower-picking (Pooley 2010).
Although this lobby was ignored by a largely indifferent public, Pooley (2010)
believes that this may have changed in the context of post-South African war efforts
to build unity among the English and Afrikaner populations, and where invasive
alien plants presented a physical and symbolic opportunity for the botanist’s advocacy. Indeed, Pooley proposes that the then new discipline of ecology suggested
metaphors of integration (and segregation) that both politicians and natural scientists
“could exploit to their mutual benefit” (Pooley 2010).
Pooley (2010) believes that botany, patriotism and the politics of national unity
were closely bound up and that “floral nativism. . . provided both a sense of identity
for an emerging White settler nationalism and a justification for evicting the
underclass from the commons” (Pooley 2010, citing van Sittert 2003).
526
P. Lukey and J. Hall
related to the plant’s impact on agriculture. For example, although the politics and
economics of the early Marijuana industry is beyond the scope of this Chapter, it is
probably safe to say that Cannabis indica was considered to be far more of a social
problem than an agricultural economy problem.
According to Bennett and van Sittert (2018), from 1910 to 1913, the Union
delegated weed control to the provinces through the Financial Relations Act (Act
10 of 1913). Bennett and van Sittert (2018) also note that from 1913 to 1937
provincial administrators were made responsible for controlling weeds through
Part 5 of the Union of South Africa Act of 1909. Although each province still
used their colonial laws to regulate weed control, Bennett and van Sittert (2018)
describe an attempt in 1916 by the South African Farmers Union to get the Minister
of Agriculture to rationalise and harmonise these provincial laws and the Provincial
Administration Commission’s failed suggestion that the Cape’s system be applied
nationally.
During this quiet period the Orange Free State amended its Noxious Weeds Act
(Act 23 of 1909) with its 1920 Noxious Weeds Amendment Ordinance (Ordinance
6 of 1920); principally to replace the word ‘Governor’ with ‘Administrator’. However, an interesting new provision was also slipped into this ‘editorial’ amendment
that empowered the administrator to make grants, or to grant other assistance,
monetary or otherwise, for “the effectual eradication of noxious weeds”.
Further legislation, like Transvaal’s 1928 Local Government (Noxious Weeds)
Amendment (Ordinance 8 of 1928), concentrated largely on administrative amendments with few significant changes in policy or approach.
Apart from starting to include contested species—species that were considered
problematic by some, but beneficial by others—and the potential government
funding of eradication programmes, this period also appears to have introduced
very few changes in policy or legislative approach. Notwithstanding this, it is
possible that this period may have seen the introduction of a new policy-driver
that was distinctly South African, namely, nationalism.
In this regard, the closing years of the nineteenth century saw botanists beginning
to advocate for the recognition and protection of the Western Cape’s unique native
fynbos flora which was under threat from extensive transformations of the landscape
due to farming, forestry, urban sprawl and wild flower-picking (Pooley 2010).
Although this lobby was ignored by a largely indifferent public, Pooley (2010)
believes that this may have changed in the context of post-South African war efforts
to build unity among the English and Afrikaner populations, and where invasive
alien plants presented a physical and symbolic opportunity for the botanist’s advocacy. Indeed, Pooley proposes that the then new discipline of ecology suggested
metaphors of integration (and segregation) that both politicians and natural scientists
“could exploit to their mutual benefit” (Pooley 2010).
Pooley (2010) believes that botany, patriotism and the politics of national unity
were closely bound up and that “floral nativism. . . provided both a sense of identity
for an emerging White settler nationalism and a justification for evicting the
underclass from the commons” (Pooley 2010, citing van Sittert 2003).
526
P. Lukey and J. Hall