20.2.2 Listing of Alien Species Under National Legislation
There are two broad types of regulatory lists in South Africa, namely the prohibited list,
which consists of species not yet present in the country, and a list of species which are
in the country and need to be managed to reduce their impacts. The latter puts species in
categories based on the benefits and the feasibility of control, namely: Category 1a—
eradication targets; Category 1b—control targets needing a national management plan;
Category 2—species requiring a permit for restricted activities (1b outside of permitted
conditions—see next section for details); Category 3—species which can remain but
need to be phased out (propagation to be prevented). The initial development of the lists
of species regulated under national legislation included workshops with taxonomic
experts to determine which species should be regulated and how (prohibited, or listed
for control). Such workshops that include several experts can be very useful as they can
reduce biases that could arise if a single expert was used (Sutherland and Burgman
2015). The inclusion of various stakeholders in these meetings was aimed at reducing
conflicts and ensuring that stakeholders’ voices are heard. However, in this case,
decisions on which species and taxa to list were not based on a structured or transparent
process, as no consistent framework for risk analysis was available. Each taxon-specific
working group took a slightly different approach to develop recommendations on
which species to regulate and how. The final decisions were, of course, taken by policy
makers, but it is not clear why (and in some cases how) these decisions differed from
the recommendations, as neither process was made publicly available.
Given the lack of transparency of the process leading to the regulation of certain
alien taxa in South Africa, stakeholders have raised queries about the species that are
regulated. As a result, various retrospective assessments and analyses have been
carried out as emergency measures to respond to the criticisms, but none of those
followed a framework specifically developed for South African conditions. A
framework for decision-making related to the regulation of species needs to consider
all aspects of risk and be explicit enough to transparently show the decision-making
process and the evidence underpinning it (Roy et al. 2018). The Risk Analysis for
Alien Taxa Framework—as described in the previous section—has been developed
to this end (Kumschick et al. 2018). Besides the need to assess whether a species is of
high risk, management feasibility and benefits of the species need to be assessed to
underpin decisions regarding the listing category (Fig. 20.2). The benefits of using
such a framework, as opposed to expert opinion alone, are that it leads to more
transparent policy which is evidence-based and therefore more defendable. Furthermore, it provides stakeholders with reasons for management implications which
should prevent queries from being raised.
20.2.3 Permits for Restricted Activities
Restricted activities, as defined in the NEM:BA A&IS Regulations, include,
amongst others, possession, breeding, propagating or trading of listed alien species.
Some alien species can be extremely harmful to the recipient environment, but at the
20 Analysing the Risks Posed by Biological Invasions to South Africa
587
There are two broad types of regulatory lists in South Africa, namely the prohibited list,
which consists of species not yet present in the country, and a list of species which are
in the country and need to be managed to reduce their impacts. The latter puts species in
categories based on the benefits and the feasibility of control, namely: Category 1a—
eradication targets; Category 1b—control targets needing a national management plan;
Category 2—species requiring a permit for restricted activities (1b outside of permitted
conditions—see next section for details); Category 3—species which can remain but
need to be phased out (propagation to be prevented). The initial development of the lists
of species regulated under national legislation included workshops with taxonomic
experts to determine which species should be regulated and how (prohibited, or listed
for control). Such workshops that include several experts can be very useful as they can
reduce biases that could arise if a single expert was used (Sutherland and Burgman
2015). The inclusion of various stakeholders in these meetings was aimed at reducing
conflicts and ensuring that stakeholders’ voices are heard. However, in this case,
decisions on which species and taxa to list were not based on a structured or transparent
process, as no consistent framework for risk analysis was available. Each taxon-specific
working group took a slightly different approach to develop recommendations on
which species to regulate and how. The final decisions were, of course, taken by policy
makers, but it is not clear why (and in some cases how) these decisions differed from
the recommendations, as neither process was made publicly available.
Given the lack of transparency of the process leading to the regulation of certain
alien taxa in South Africa, stakeholders have raised queries about the species that are
regulated. As a result, various retrospective assessments and analyses have been
carried out as emergency measures to respond to the criticisms, but none of those
followed a framework specifically developed for South African conditions. A
framework for decision-making related to the regulation of species needs to consider
all aspects of risk and be explicit enough to transparently show the decision-making
process and the evidence underpinning it (Roy et al. 2018). The Risk Analysis for
Alien Taxa Framework—as described in the previous section—has been developed
to this end (Kumschick et al. 2018). Besides the need to assess whether a species is of
high risk, management feasibility and benefits of the species need to be assessed to
underpin decisions regarding the listing category (Fig. 20.2). The benefits of using
such a framework, as opposed to expert opinion alone, are that it leads to more
transparent policy which is evidence-based and therefore more defendable. Furthermore, it provides stakeholders with reasons for management implications which
should prevent queries from being raised.
20.2.3 Permits for Restricted Activities
Restricted activities, as defined in the NEM:BA A&IS Regulations, include,
amongst others, possession, breeding, propagating or trading of listed alien species.
Some alien species can be extremely harmful to the recipient environment, but at the
20 Analysing the Risks Posed by Biological Invasions to South Africa
587