abandoned draft policy’s third intervention which reads, “Develop control and
eradication programmes, and provide ongoing support to existing programmes,
based on a priority-rating system and in relation to costs and resources. This will
consider threats posed to biodiversity, as well as social, economic, and environmental costs and benefits derived from using and removing identified organisms.
The planning of intensive mechanical clearing operations will take account of job
creation schemes and will provide for regular follow-up.” [Emphasis added].
Van Wilgen and Wannenburg (2016) note that WfW projects are often selected to
meet one or the other goal, “resulting in confusion about how to prioritise projects”
and that the compromises inherent to the ‘job-provision/invasion problem’
prioritisation balance often result in projects that are not optimally selected.
Furthermore, there are also other challenges associated with the “Working for”
programmes being the only coherent national programmes for managing invasive
species, not least of which is the concern that local management capacity may be
being undermined. According to van Wilgen et al. (2016), funds may be being
diverted from organisations that have been established with the express goal of
promoting the collective management of resources locally (for example, conservancies, Fire Protection Associations and Catchment Management Agencies) and conservation management agencies (for example, CapeNature and South African
National Parks) to the detriment of such organisations. These agencies are then
unable to build and maintain the necessary local capacity to efficiently and effectively manage the problem which, according to van Wilgen et al. (2016), essentially
renders these organisations bystanders to the “Working for” programmes.
Despite its shortfalls, WfW is broadly considered, both nationally and internationally, to be a resounding success. However, the “Working for” programmes have
effectively become the only significant national biological invasion response
programme. From a purely biological invasion policy perspective this is not optimal—rather than being the only programme, the “Working for” programmes should
be unashamedly job-provision focussed key components of a broader national
programme that is unambiguously focussed on efficient and effective biological
invasion management as envisaged by the abandoned policy.
18.8 Discussion and Future Directions
The recent report on the status of biological invasions and their management in
South Africa in 2017 (van Wilgen and Wilson 2018) contains a number of “policyrelevant messages”. It makes it clear that although there is a long legislative history
of interventions aimed at controlling biological invasions, the number of problem
species, the extent of invasion and magnitude of negative impacts is still growing.
Although the report does provide a critique of the 2014 Alien & Invasive Regulations and Lists, it does not specifically refer to policy or legislative failures as being a
root cause for the apparent lack of overall success in dealing with biological
invasions. However, the report does make it clear that “the lack of adequate planning
18 Biological Invasion Policy and Legislation Development
543
eradication programmes, and provide ongoing support to existing programmes,
based on a priority-rating system and in relation to costs and resources. This will
consider threats posed to biodiversity, as well as social, economic, and environmental costs and benefits derived from using and removing identified organisms.
The planning of intensive mechanical clearing operations will take account of job
creation schemes and will provide for regular follow-up.” [Emphasis added].
Van Wilgen and Wannenburg (2016) note that WfW projects are often selected to
meet one or the other goal, “resulting in confusion about how to prioritise projects”
and that the compromises inherent to the ‘job-provision/invasion problem’
prioritisation balance often result in projects that are not optimally selected.
Furthermore, there are also other challenges associated with the “Working for”
programmes being the only coherent national programmes for managing invasive
species, not least of which is the concern that local management capacity may be
being undermined. According to van Wilgen et al. (2016), funds may be being
diverted from organisations that have been established with the express goal of
promoting the collective management of resources locally (for example, conservancies, Fire Protection Associations and Catchment Management Agencies) and conservation management agencies (for example, CapeNature and South African
National Parks) to the detriment of such organisations. These agencies are then
unable to build and maintain the necessary local capacity to efficiently and effectively manage the problem which, according to van Wilgen et al. (2016), essentially
renders these organisations bystanders to the “Working for” programmes.
Despite its shortfalls, WfW is broadly considered, both nationally and internationally, to be a resounding success. However, the “Working for” programmes have
effectively become the only significant national biological invasion response
programme. From a purely biological invasion policy perspective this is not optimal—rather than being the only programme, the “Working for” programmes should
be unashamedly job-provision focussed key components of a broader national
programme that is unambiguously focussed on efficient and effective biological
invasion management as envisaged by the abandoned policy.
18.8 Discussion and Future Directions
The recent report on the status of biological invasions and their management in
South Africa in 2017 (van Wilgen and Wilson 2018) contains a number of “policyrelevant messages”. It makes it clear that although there is a long legislative history
of interventions aimed at controlling biological invasions, the number of problem
species, the extent of invasion and magnitude of negative impacts is still growing.
Although the report does provide a critique of the 2014 Alien & Invasive Regulations and Lists, it does not specifically refer to policy or legislative failures as being a
root cause for the apparent lack of overall success in dealing with biological
invasions. However, the report does make it clear that “the lack of adequate planning
18 Biological Invasion Policy and Legislation Development
543