continuance order requiring the occupier or landowner to keep the land clear (section
8). Even when applying the traditional identify and direct approach, the Act therefore also provided for government assistance to the occupier and landowner through,
what could be regarded as, an early form of our South Africa’s current public works
programmes.
Another important development was the inclusion of information and reporting
provisions in terms of which government had to be informed of the presence of
jointed cactus (section 1) and could collect such information (section 2) as it
required.
These two important developments allowed for a more strategic approach to
eradication based on reported or observed infestation data which could be used to
inform government co-ordinated eradication campaigns. According to Bennett and
van Sittert (2018), jointed cactus had become the most serious weed in the country
by the 1920s, and government’s response to the jointed cactus infestation in the
Eastern Cape following the promulgation of the Jointed Cactus Eradication Act
proved to be the one exception to the general rule of weak state enforcement of weed
legislation. Using the powers provided under the Act, officials took a strong interventionist approach using teams of labourers to mechanically clear private farms.
The Department of Agriculture then implemented a program of biological control
using imported cochineal beetles and the moth Cactoblastis cactorum (Bennett and
van Sittert 2018).
Three years after the Jointed Cactus Eradication Act (Act 52 of 1934), the Weeds
Act (Act 42 of 1937) was promulgated. This Act repealed and replaced all of the
existing colonial and post-colonial weeds legislation. Although the Weeds Act was
largely modelled on the Jointed Cactus Eradication Act, it appears to have
de-emphasised and diluted provisions for state-sponsored interventions on private
land, effectively returning to a reliance on the concept of ‘faultless liability’.
18.6 An Expanding Agenda (1935–1993)
The Weeds Act (Act 42 of 1937) remained the principal biological invasion legislation until it was replaced by the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (Act
43 of 1983) (CARA) some 46 years later. From the 1970s onwards, legislation
started reflecting an expanding agenda. As discussed previously, until this time the
main policy driver for passing legislation to manage invasive species was economic
and specifically the economic interests of the agricultural sector. In other words, if
invasive species were identified as having a negative impact on an economic sector
or activity they needed to be controlled. Although this approach continued into the
next phase of legislation, as is illustrated by the example of CARA (see Sect. 18.6.2
below), changes were afoot.
18 Biological Invasion Policy and Legislation Development
529
8). Even when applying the traditional identify and direct approach, the Act therefore also provided for government assistance to the occupier and landowner through,
what could be regarded as, an early form of our South Africa’s current public works
programmes.
Another important development was the inclusion of information and reporting
provisions in terms of which government had to be informed of the presence of
jointed cactus (section 1) and could collect such information (section 2) as it
required.
These two important developments allowed for a more strategic approach to
eradication based on reported or observed infestation data which could be used to
inform government co-ordinated eradication campaigns. According to Bennett and
van Sittert (2018), jointed cactus had become the most serious weed in the country
by the 1920s, and government’s response to the jointed cactus infestation in the
Eastern Cape following the promulgation of the Jointed Cactus Eradication Act
proved to be the one exception to the general rule of weak state enforcement of weed
legislation. Using the powers provided under the Act, officials took a strong interventionist approach using teams of labourers to mechanically clear private farms.
The Department of Agriculture then implemented a program of biological control
using imported cochineal beetles and the moth Cactoblastis cactorum (Bennett and
van Sittert 2018).
Three years after the Jointed Cactus Eradication Act (Act 52 of 1934), the Weeds
Act (Act 42 of 1937) was promulgated. This Act repealed and replaced all of the
existing colonial and post-colonial weeds legislation. Although the Weeds Act was
largely modelled on the Jointed Cactus Eradication Act, it appears to have
de-emphasised and diluted provisions for state-sponsored interventions on private
land, effectively returning to a reliance on the concept of ‘faultless liability’.
18.6 An Expanding Agenda (1935–1993)
The Weeds Act (Act 42 of 1937) remained the principal biological invasion legislation until it was replaced by the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (Act
43 of 1983) (CARA) some 46 years later. From the 1970s onwards, legislation
started reflecting an expanding agenda. As discussed previously, until this time the
main policy driver for passing legislation to manage invasive species was economic
and specifically the economic interests of the agricultural sector. In other words, if
invasive species were identified as having a negative impact on an economic sector
or activity they needed to be controlled. Although this approach continued into the
next phase of legislation, as is illustrated by the example of CARA (see Sect. 18.6.2
below), changes were afoot.
18 Biological Invasion Policy and Legislation Development
529