the funds available, the costs of management, and many other factors that are not
addressed in most risk analyses. Risk analyses are also not equivalent to, and cannot
replace, management plans. While risk analyses compile much useful information
for the management of a species, pathway, or area, additional information is needed
and SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely) goals need
to be set for management. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, desktop-based risk
analyses cannot replace detailed assessments of the feasibility of eradication
(e.g. Kaplan et al. 2012; Jacobs et al. 2014), but they can provide useful information
to aid prioritisation of potential eradication targets. South Africa has historically
taken a pragmatic or reactive approach to the issue, but we believe that the solutions
provided here offer an opportunity for more transparent and evidence-based decision-making.
Acknowledgements We thank Reuben Keller for his work on approaches to risk assessments,
Kim Canavan for advice with biological control risk assessments, and Craig Whittington-Jones for a
report on provincial processes related to import applications. We also thank the reviewers for
helpful comments. The South African Department of Environment, Forestry, and Fisheries (DEFF)
are thanked for funding the South African National Biodiversity Institute noting that this publication does not necessarily represent the views or opinions of DEFF or its employees.
References
Bacher S, Blackburn TM, Essl F et al (2018) Socio-economic impact classification of alien taxa
(SEICAT) with data theft. Methods Ecol Evol 9:159–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.
12844
Blackburn TM, Pyšek P, Bacher S et al (2011) A proposed unified framework for biological
invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 26:333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.03.023
Blackburn TM, Essl F, Evans T et al (2014) A unified classification of alien species based on the
magnitude of their environmental impacts. PLoS Biol 12:e1001850. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pbio.1001850
Branquart E, D’hondt B, Vanderhoeven S et al (2016) From impact studies to management actions:
practicing risk analysis of introduced trees. In: Krumm F, Vitkova L (eds) Introduced tree
species in European forests: opportunities and challenges. European Forest Institute, Joensuu,
pp 114–125
Colautti RI, Grigorovich IA, MacIsaac HJ (2006) Propagule pressure: a null model for biological
invasions. Biol Invasions 8:1023–1037. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-005-3735-y
Convention on Biological Diversity (2002) COP 6 decision VI/23. The 6th conference of the parties
of the convention on biological diversity decision VI/23, The Hague, 7–19 April 2002. https://
www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id¼7197. Accessed 18 May 2018
Copp GH, Garthwaite R, Gozlan RE (2005) Risk identification and assessment of non-native
freshwater fishes: concepts and perspectives on protocols for the UK. Cefas Science Technical
Report No. 129. Cefas, Lowestoft. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2005.00692.x
D’hondt B, Vanderhoeven S, Roelandt S et al (2015) Harmonia+ and Pandora+: risk screening tools
for potentially invasive plants, animals, and their pathogens. Biol Invasions 17:1869–1883.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-015-0843-1
Department of Environmental Affairs (2014) National Environmental Management: Biodiversity
Act 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004) Alien and Invasive Species Regulations, 2014. Government
Gazette 590(37885)
592
S. Kumschick et al.
addressed in most risk analyses. Risk analyses are also not equivalent to, and cannot
replace, management plans. While risk analyses compile much useful information
for the management of a species, pathway, or area, additional information is needed
and SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely) goals need
to be set for management. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, desktop-based risk
analyses cannot replace detailed assessments of the feasibility of eradication
(e.g. Kaplan et al. 2012; Jacobs et al. 2014), but they can provide useful information
to aid prioritisation of potential eradication targets. South Africa has historically
taken a pragmatic or reactive approach to the issue, but we believe that the solutions
provided here offer an opportunity for more transparent and evidence-based decision-making.
Acknowledgements We thank Reuben Keller for his work on approaches to risk assessments,
Kim Canavan for advice with biological control risk assessments, and Craig Whittington-Jones for a
report on provincial processes related to import applications. We also thank the reviewers for
helpful comments. The South African Department of Environment, Forestry, and Fisheries (DEFF)
are thanked for funding the South African National Biodiversity Institute noting that this publication does not necessarily represent the views or opinions of DEFF or its employees.
References
Bacher S, Blackburn TM, Essl F et al (2018) Socio-economic impact classification of alien taxa
(SEICAT) with data theft. Methods Ecol Evol 9:159–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.
12844
Blackburn TM, Pyšek P, Bacher S et al (2011) A proposed unified framework for biological
invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 26:333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.03.023
Blackburn TM, Essl F, Evans T et al (2014) A unified classification of alien species based on the
magnitude of their environmental impacts. PLoS Biol 12:e1001850. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pbio.1001850
Branquart E, D’hondt B, Vanderhoeven S et al (2016) From impact studies to management actions:
practicing risk analysis of introduced trees. In: Krumm F, Vitkova L (eds) Introduced tree
species in European forests: opportunities and challenges. European Forest Institute, Joensuu,
pp 114–125
Colautti RI, Grigorovich IA, MacIsaac HJ (2006) Propagule pressure: a null model for biological
invasions. Biol Invasions 8:1023–1037. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-005-3735-y
Convention on Biological Diversity (2002) COP 6 decision VI/23. The 6th conference of the parties
of the convention on biological diversity decision VI/23, The Hague, 7–19 April 2002. https://
www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id¼7197. Accessed 18 May 2018
Copp GH, Garthwaite R, Gozlan RE (2005) Risk identification and assessment of non-native
freshwater fishes: concepts and perspectives on protocols for the UK. Cefas Science Technical
Report No. 129. Cefas, Lowestoft. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2005.00692.x
D’hondt B, Vanderhoeven S, Roelandt S et al (2015) Harmonia+ and Pandora+: risk screening tools
for potentially invasive plants, animals, and their pathogens. Biol Invasions 17:1869–1883.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-015-0843-1
Department of Environmental Affairs (2014) National Environmental Management: Biodiversity
Act 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004) Alien and Invasive Species Regulations, 2014. Government
Gazette 590(37885)
592
S. Kumschick et al.