the battle (cf. Wilson et al. 2020, Chap. 31). Furthermore, the report also makes it
clear that the battle is becoming harder as the number of species causing major
impacts and the magnitude of the impacts themselves grow, as further species
become invasive, and as others enter a phase of exponential spread. Furthermore,
according to Hellmann et al. (2008) and King et al. (2018), it will take more research
to understand how specific invasive species may behave under an altered climate and
which species will become invasive in the future.
With this, it seems that the current policy vacuum must be addressed as a matter
of urgency in order to establish a national consensus on how we as South Africans
view biological invasions, what our desired future looks like in terms of biological
invasions, and how we intend to realise that desired future. As biological invasions affect all South Africans, this policy development process must be evidencebased and should follow the co-creation approach described by von der Heyden
et al. (2016). In this regard, not only should the policy deal with the questions
listed in Sect. 18.8.1 above, it should also deal with issues like the commercial
exploitation of alien species, and how NEMA’s polluter-pays principle may be
applied in cases where such exploitation results in invasion of neighbouring
land and rivers. Furthermore, a good-practise participatory policy development
process is an excellent way of ventilating and addressing Bennett and van Sittert’s
(2018) issues of private land owner concerns and interests, faultless liability,
conflicting interests and competition, local viewpoints, support for technical
interventions by scientists and managers, differing perceptions of invasive species
and the means of identifying and prioritising what species cause the most
problems.
Perhaps growing concerns around climate change and interest in the global
Sustainable Development Goals may provide the perfect ‘policy-development window’ for the development of formal policy on biological invasion in South Africa.
Acknowledgements We acknowledge the clear direction and support from Professor Brian van
Wilgen of the Centre for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch University, and Ms Marié Theron, Faculty
Librarian: Science, Library and Information Service, Stellenbosch University for the links to the
invaluable historical legislation databases. We would also like to thank SANBI’s Sebataolo Rahlao
for his comments and suggestions, as well as those of the peer reviewers.
Electronic Supplementary Material
A data-set containing all promulgated legislation relevant to biological invasions
in South Africa, compiled as part of this project, is available on https://zenodo.org/
record/3660175#.Xj-zbTEzaUk
548
P. Lukey and J. Hall
clear that the battle is becoming harder as the number of species causing major
impacts and the magnitude of the impacts themselves grow, as further species
become invasive, and as others enter a phase of exponential spread. Furthermore,
according to Hellmann et al. (2008) and King et al. (2018), it will take more research
to understand how specific invasive species may behave under an altered climate and
which species will become invasive in the future.
With this, it seems that the current policy vacuum must be addressed as a matter
of urgency in order to establish a national consensus on how we as South Africans
view biological invasions, what our desired future looks like in terms of biological
invasions, and how we intend to realise that desired future. As biological invasions affect all South Africans, this policy development process must be evidencebased and should follow the co-creation approach described by von der Heyden
et al. (2016). In this regard, not only should the policy deal with the questions
listed in Sect. 18.8.1 above, it should also deal with issues like the commercial
exploitation of alien species, and how NEMA’s polluter-pays principle may be
applied in cases where such exploitation results in invasion of neighbouring
land and rivers. Furthermore, a good-practise participatory policy development
process is an excellent way of ventilating and addressing Bennett and van Sittert’s
(2018) issues of private land owner concerns and interests, faultless liability,
conflicting interests and competition, local viewpoints, support for technical
interventions by scientists and managers, differing perceptions of invasive species
and the means of identifying and prioritising what species cause the most
problems.
Perhaps growing concerns around climate change and interest in the global
Sustainable Development Goals may provide the perfect ‘policy-development window’ for the development of formal policy on biological invasion in South Africa.
Acknowledgements We acknowledge the clear direction and support from Professor Brian van
Wilgen of the Centre for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch University, and Ms Marié Theron, Faculty
Librarian: Science, Library and Information Service, Stellenbosch University for the links to the
invaluable historical legislation databases. We would also like to thank SANBI’s Sebataolo Rahlao
for his comments and suggestions, as well as those of the peer reviewers.
Electronic Supplementary Material
A data-set containing all promulgated legislation relevant to biological invasions
in South Africa, compiled as part of this project, is available on https://zenodo.org/
record/3660175#.Xj-zbTEzaUk
548
P. Lukey and J. Hall