invasion, to distinguish high from low risk areas; and risk management efforts aim
both to reduce the total level of invasion in the area and to limit the potential for all
pathways to bring in new species. Since alien species generally affect a wide variety
of stakeholders and are socially complex rather than clearly defined scientific
problems (Woodford et al. 2016), communication with stakeholders is key throughout the process. Such communication needs to be a two-way process which aims to
inform people about the outcomes of the analysis (risk communication), but also
ensures stakeholders’ knowledge, opinions, and concerns are considered during the
risk assessment and risk management planning.
Besides the assessment of different hazards, risk analyses can also focus on
different stages in the invasion process (Blackburn et al. 2011). One of the most
prominent distinctions is between pre- and post-border analyses. It is often much
more cost-effective to prevent an invasion from happening than to mitigate the harm
or try to eradicate a species once it has established—pre-border risk analyses can
help to make decisions about whether or not to allow the import of a new species,
based on risk to the recipient environment. For species that are already present, we
need ways to assess which to regulate and manage post-border. The main distinctions between pre- and post-border analyses are therefore: (1) the need for pre-border
analyses to include the likelihood of arrival and introduction into the country; and
(2) the need for post-border analyses to include risk management considerations
focussing on reducing the negative impacts of invasions while maintaining benefits,
and reaching agreement between stakeholders that might hold opposing entrenched
positions.
Risk analysis methods ideally have a few key qualities that make them useful for
helping to make management decisions including that they should be transparent,
accurate, realistic, evidence-based, and free of biases as far as possible. Transparency ensures that decisions are traceable and the rationale behind them is clear.
Accuracy is needed so that resources are not wasted on managing benign species, or
so that potentially harmful species can be prevented from becoming problematic.
Risk analysis also requires resources to implement, including financial and human
capital (i.e. skilled practitioners). Given the inherent biases any assessor may have
(e.g. Montibeller and Von Winterfeldt 2015) it is also important that such analyses
are based on sound evidence. Furthermore, group assessments and independent
review panels can minimise biases by a single assessor. Explicit guidance documents
and training of assessors in the principles and methods of risk analysis can further
improve the process and reduce assessor bias rooted in a different understanding of
the questions asked. A group of European scientists developed a minimum set of
14 standards for risk assessment to aid their implementation for the EU Regulation
on invasive alien species (1143/2014) (Roy et al. 2018), many of which overlap with
what is discussed in this paragraph, and a few of which are specific to the requirements of EU regulation (like the assessment of impact on ecosystem services and
effects of future climate change). But these standards are also useful in a
South African context and have largely been followed in what is suggested here.
20 Analysing the Risks Posed by Biological Invasions to South Africa
575
both to reduce the total level of invasion in the area and to limit the potential for all
pathways to bring in new species. Since alien species generally affect a wide variety
of stakeholders and are socially complex rather than clearly defined scientific
problems (Woodford et al. 2016), communication with stakeholders is key throughout the process. Such communication needs to be a two-way process which aims to
inform people about the outcomes of the analysis (risk communication), but also
ensures stakeholders’ knowledge, opinions, and concerns are considered during the
risk assessment and risk management planning.
Besides the assessment of different hazards, risk analyses can also focus on
different stages in the invasion process (Blackburn et al. 2011). One of the most
prominent distinctions is between pre- and post-border analyses. It is often much
more cost-effective to prevent an invasion from happening than to mitigate the harm
or try to eradicate a species once it has established—pre-border risk analyses can
help to make decisions about whether or not to allow the import of a new species,
based on risk to the recipient environment. For species that are already present, we
need ways to assess which to regulate and manage post-border. The main distinctions between pre- and post-border analyses are therefore: (1) the need for pre-border
analyses to include the likelihood of arrival and introduction into the country; and
(2) the need for post-border analyses to include risk management considerations
focussing on reducing the negative impacts of invasions while maintaining benefits,
and reaching agreement between stakeholders that might hold opposing entrenched
positions.
Risk analysis methods ideally have a few key qualities that make them useful for
helping to make management decisions including that they should be transparent,
accurate, realistic, evidence-based, and free of biases as far as possible. Transparency ensures that decisions are traceable and the rationale behind them is clear.
Accuracy is needed so that resources are not wasted on managing benign species, or
so that potentially harmful species can be prevented from becoming problematic.
Risk analysis also requires resources to implement, including financial and human
capital (i.e. skilled practitioners). Given the inherent biases any assessor may have
(e.g. Montibeller and Von Winterfeldt 2015) it is also important that such analyses
are based on sound evidence. Furthermore, group assessments and independent
review panels can minimise biases by a single assessor. Explicit guidance documents
and training of assessors in the principles and methods of risk analysis can further
improve the process and reduce assessor bias rooted in a different understanding of
the questions asked. A group of European scientists developed a minimum set of
14 standards for risk assessment to aid their implementation for the EU Regulation
on invasive alien species (1143/2014) (Roy et al. 2018), many of which overlap with
what is discussed in this paragraph, and a few of which are specific to the requirements of EU regulation (like the assessment of impact on ecosystem services and
effects of future climate change). But these standards are also useful in a
South African context and have largely been followed in what is suggested here.
20 Analysing the Risks Posed by Biological Invasions to South Africa
575