and monitoring of the outcomes of control measures has been identified as a major
weakness in South Africa” (van Wilgen and Wilson 2018).
Bennett and van Sittert’s recent historical review (2018) also concludes that “the
history of invasive alien plant and weed management has been chequered in its
environmental and social outcomes.” They believe governance efforts have faltered
because of the difficulty of engaging private land owners, competition, local viewpoints and limited support for technical interventions by scientists and managers.
Furthermore, differing perceptions of invasive species have meant that “some
regions are better endowed with facilities and awareness than others to tackle the
complex challenges associated with invasion” (Bennett and van Sittert 2018).
Although invasive species, especially trees, are widely recognised as a national
problem by scientists and growing public numbers, there is no broad consensus on
what species cause the most problems.
As discussed below, it is possible that the lack of a dedicated biological invasion
policy lies at the heart of van Wilgen and Wilson’s concerns around inadequate
planning and monitoring as well as the issues highlighted by Bennett and van Sittert
(2018) that are bedevilling good governance and efficient and effective biological
invasion management.
18.8.1 The Policy Vacuum
Despite over 160 years of concern around biological invasions, South Africa still has
no formal national policy on the issue. Without formal policy there is no accepted
government position on questions like—
• What is the overall vision for biological invasion management in South Africa?
• How do South Africans decide which are ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ invasive species and under what circumstances?
• What would South Africans regard as ‘acceptable change’ to the land or landscape brought about by biological invasions and under what circumstances?
• Should some highly-invaded landscapes be ‘sacrificed’ to the invading species
and under what circumstances?
• How should the invasive species legacy be dealt with?
• How should South Africa prioritise biological invasion management
interventions?
• How, and how often, should South Africa review biological invasion management strategies and priorities?
• What types of biological invasion management interventions are accepted, not
accepted or preferred, and under what circumstances?
• Who should implement biological invasion management interventions and under
what circumstances?
• How will we measure the success, or otherwise, of biological invasion management interventions?
544
P. Lukey and J. Hall
weakness in South Africa” (van Wilgen and Wilson 2018).
Bennett and van Sittert’s recent historical review (2018) also concludes that “the
history of invasive alien plant and weed management has been chequered in its
environmental and social outcomes.” They believe governance efforts have faltered
because of the difficulty of engaging private land owners, competition, local viewpoints and limited support for technical interventions by scientists and managers.
Furthermore, differing perceptions of invasive species have meant that “some
regions are better endowed with facilities and awareness than others to tackle the
complex challenges associated with invasion” (Bennett and van Sittert 2018).
Although invasive species, especially trees, are widely recognised as a national
problem by scientists and growing public numbers, there is no broad consensus on
what species cause the most problems.
As discussed below, it is possible that the lack of a dedicated biological invasion
policy lies at the heart of van Wilgen and Wilson’s concerns around inadequate
planning and monitoring as well as the issues highlighted by Bennett and van Sittert
(2018) that are bedevilling good governance and efficient and effective biological
invasion management.
18.8.1 The Policy Vacuum
Despite over 160 years of concern around biological invasions, South Africa still has
no formal national policy on the issue. Without formal policy there is no accepted
government position on questions like—
• What is the overall vision for biological invasion management in South Africa?
• How do South Africans decide which are ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ invasive species and under what circumstances?
• What would South Africans regard as ‘acceptable change’ to the land or landscape brought about by biological invasions and under what circumstances?
• Should some highly-invaded landscapes be ‘sacrificed’ to the invading species
and under what circumstances?
• How should the invasive species legacy be dealt with?
• How should South Africa prioritise biological invasion management
interventions?
• How, and how often, should South Africa review biological invasion management strategies and priorities?
• What types of biological invasion management interventions are accepted, not
accepted or preferred, and under what circumstances?
• Who should implement biological invasion management interventions and under
what circumstances?
• How will we measure the success, or otherwise, of biological invasion management interventions?
544
P. Lukey and J. Hall