A third case shows how alien species regulation can be used in private disputes.
Appelgryn N.O. and Another v Jankielsohn and Others ((FS) Case No. 3809/2016),
19 January 2017 involved a dispute about the ownership of a number of Red Lechwe
Antelope. In this instance, the court found that because the antelope are alien species
which are regulated in terms of the Biodiversity Act, the neighbour’s keeping or
allowing the antelope to be on her land was a restricted activity which required a
permit. In the absence of a permit, it held that she was acting illegally and therefore
had no right (locus standi) to defend the application.
18.7.5 The “Working for” Programmes: The Only Coherent
National Programme for Managing Invasive Species?
The discussion on the legislation in previous sections has indicated that, apart from
imposing obligations on the public, a co-ordinated government response is required
to manage invasive species. In 1995, drawing heavily on hydrological and ecological
insights from tree invasions in the Cape, the Working for Water (WfW) Programme
became the first coherent national programme for managing invasive species. The
1997 White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s
Biological Diversity (Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism 1997)
recognised the fledgling WfW Programme as “an RDP (Reconstruction and Development Programme) project . . .to clear invasive alien vegetation as part of a water
conservation campaign and job-creation scheme” and included providing
“. . .ongoing support to existing programmes. . .” as a component of 1 of its 13 interventions aimed at “preventing the introduction of potentially harmful alien species
and controlling and eradicating alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or
species” (the RDP was the South African government’s first socio-economic policy
framework following democracy in 1994). With this, given that another of the draft
policy’s interventions was to “improve capacity amongst implementing agencies to
regulate the introduction, control and eradication of alien organisms that threaten
biodiversity”, it seems clear that the ‘water conservation and job-creation RDP
project’ was never envisaged as being the only ‘coherent national programme for
managing invasive species’.
According to van Wilgen and Wannenburg (2016), in establishing WfW, the
Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry insisted that its projects should be
implemented at a national scale as “the need to create employment was ubiquitous”
and the problem of invasive species was not only confined to the area receiving the
most attention, namely the Cape Floristic Region. This nation-wide approach was
seen as making both political and ecological sense. Since its establishment, WfW has
been expanded into more “Working for” programmes including inter alia Working
for Wetlands, Working for Land and Working on Fire, dealing with wetland and
degraded land rehabilitation and wildfire management respectively.
From a policy perspective, it is important to note the change in emphasis between
this ‘job-provision/ invasion problem’ prioritisation balance of WfW and the
542
P. Lukey and J. Hall
Appelgryn N.O. and Another v Jankielsohn and Others ((FS) Case No. 3809/2016),
19 January 2017 involved a dispute about the ownership of a number of Red Lechwe
Antelope. In this instance, the court found that because the antelope are alien species
which are regulated in terms of the Biodiversity Act, the neighbour’s keeping or
allowing the antelope to be on her land was a restricted activity which required a
permit. In the absence of a permit, it held that she was acting illegally and therefore
had no right (locus standi) to defend the application.
18.7.5 The “Working for” Programmes: The Only Coherent
National Programme for Managing Invasive Species?
The discussion on the legislation in previous sections has indicated that, apart from
imposing obligations on the public, a co-ordinated government response is required
to manage invasive species. In 1995, drawing heavily on hydrological and ecological
insights from tree invasions in the Cape, the Working for Water (WfW) Programme
became the first coherent national programme for managing invasive species. The
1997 White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s
Biological Diversity (Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism 1997)
recognised the fledgling WfW Programme as “an RDP (Reconstruction and Development Programme) project . . .to clear invasive alien vegetation as part of a water
conservation campaign and job-creation scheme” and included providing
“. . .ongoing support to existing programmes. . .” as a component of 1 of its 13 interventions aimed at “preventing the introduction of potentially harmful alien species
and controlling and eradicating alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or
species” (the RDP was the South African government’s first socio-economic policy
framework following democracy in 1994). With this, given that another of the draft
policy’s interventions was to “improve capacity amongst implementing agencies to
regulate the introduction, control and eradication of alien organisms that threaten
biodiversity”, it seems clear that the ‘water conservation and job-creation RDP
project’ was never envisaged as being the only ‘coherent national programme for
managing invasive species’.
According to van Wilgen and Wannenburg (2016), in establishing WfW, the
Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry insisted that its projects should be
implemented at a national scale as “the need to create employment was ubiquitous”
and the problem of invasive species was not only confined to the area receiving the
most attention, namely the Cape Floristic Region. This nation-wide approach was
seen as making both political and ecological sense. Since its establishment, WfW has
been expanded into more “Working for” programmes including inter alia Working
for Wetlands, Working for Land and Working on Fire, dealing with wetland and
degraded land rehabilitation and wildfire management respectively.
From a policy perspective, it is important to note the change in emphasis between
this ‘job-provision/ invasion problem’ prioritisation balance of WfW and the
542
P. Lukey and J. Hall