Content uploaded by John Measey
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John Measey on Aug 25, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
BOTHALIA – African Biodiversity & Conservation
ISSN: (Online) 2311-9284, (Print) 0006-8241
| Open access
http://abcjournal.org |
| Original research
Page 1 of 24
Background: The effectiveness of invasive alien species man-
agement in South Africa, and elsewhere, can be improved by
ensuring there are strong links and feedbacks between science
and management. The CAPE Invasive Alien Animals Working
Group (CAPE IAAWG) was established in 2008 to enhance co-
operation among stakeholders such as implementing agencies
and researchers, and thereby improve the management of inva-
sive animals in the Greater Cape Floristic Region.
Objectives: In this article we highlight where and how the
working group has advanced our understanding of research and
the implementation of management objectives and consider
the working group’s successes and failures.
Methods: We analyse the attendance of meetings by different
stakeholders and the frequency of discussion topics on meeting
agendas throughout the sequence of meetings from 2008 to
2019. We document insights based on published accounts or
the experiences of the authors from eight different management
projects.
Results: Meetings are attended by stakeholders from NGOs,
universities, and local, provincial and national government agen-
cies as well as private individuals. Topics of discussion ranged
from details of specific alien animal invasions (e.g. the House
Crow in Cape Town), to considering the risks posed by broad
groups (e.g. earthworms), to specific management techniques
(e.g. guidelines for trapping invasive alien birds). Through the
eight projects described here the CAPE IAAWG has: (i) con-
tributed to capacity building through funding and advising on
post-graduate research projects; (ii) provided ad hoc support
to staff of agencies that implement invasive alien animal con-
trol; (iii) acted as a focal point for a community of practice that
is supportive of decision making and policy development; and
(iv) played a vital role in linking research, management and pol-
icy in a manner accessible to a broader range of stakeholders.
The projects undertaken by the group reveal several lessons
for managing invasive animals: (i) the importance of logistics
and contract efficiency, (ii) the need for effective stakeholder
engagement by the project team, (iii) the need to effectively
address conflicts between role players, and (iv) the importance
of including ethical and animal rights considerations in the de-
cision making processes.
Conclusion: The CAPE IAAWG has been a valuable forum to
improve management effectiveness and support implemen-
tation decisions. Due to its small cost and time footprint, the
Authors
Sarah J. Davies1
Jonathan A. Bell1,2
Dean Impson3
Clova Mabin1,4
Marco Meyer5
Chandre Rhoda5
Louise Stafford5,6
Kirstin Stephens1,7
Mfundo Tafeni5
Andrew A. Turner5,8
Nicola J. van Wilgen1,9
John R.U. Wilson1,7
Julia Wood5
John Measey1
Aliations
1 Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Botany and
Zoology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South
Africa.
2 NCC Environmental Services, Cape Town, South Africa.
3 CapeNature Biodiversity Capabilities Directorate, Cape
Town, South Africa.
4 Save Our Seas Foundation Shark Education Centre, Kalk
Bay, South Africa.
5 Biodiversity Management, Environmental Management
Department, City of Cape Town.
6 The Nature Conservancy, Cape Town, South Africa.
7 South African National Biodiversity Institute,
Kirstenbosch Research Centre, Newlands, South
Africa.
8 Department of Biodiversity and Conservation Biology,
University of the Western Cape, Bellville, South Africa.
9 SANParks Cape Research Centre, P.O. Box 216,
Steenberg, 7947.
Corresponding Author
Sarah J. Davies,
sdavies@sun.ac.za
Dates:
Submitted: 29 November 2019
Accepted: 20 May 2020
Published: 19 August 2020
How to cite this article:
Davies, S.J., Bell, J.A., Impson, D., Mabin, C., Meyer, M.,
Rhoda, C., Stafford, L., Stephens, K., Tafeni, M., Turner,
A.A., van Wilgen, N.J., Wilson, J.R.U., Wood, J. &
Measey, J., 2020, ‘Coordinating invasive alien species
management in a biodiversity hotspot: The CAPE
Invasive Alien Animals Working Group’, Bothalia 50(1),
a10. http://dx.doi.org/10.38201/btha.abc.v50.i1.10
Coordinating invasive alien species
management in a biodiversity hotspot: The
CAPE Invasive Alien Animals Working Group
| Original research
| Open access
http://abcjournal.org |
Page 2 of 24
Introduction
The gaps between scientific research, development of
policy and implementation of management measures
are often significant, and can negatively affect conser-
vation outcomes (Knight et al. 2008; Catalano et al.
2019). This issue has been analysed specifically in terms
of how society responds to biological invasions (Esler et
al. 2010; Foxcroft et al. 2020). Weak links and feed-
back loops between research and implementation are a
major factor reducing the effectiveness of invasive alien
species management in South Africa (van Wilgen & Wil-
son 2018). Various mechanisms and frameworks have
been proposed to strengthen such links [also termed
‘translational ecology’ (Schlesinger 2010; Enquist et al.
2017)]. Different approaches to linking research, policy
and implementation have several features in common;
of particular interest in this work is the need to ensure
that stakeholders are engaged and work together to
co-produce knowledge that is meaningful and accessi-
ble to a broad range of stakeholders.
One approach to achieve the co-production of knowl-
edge is to establish multi-stakeholder working groups
that deal with specific or cross-cutting issues – these
become communities of practice in which different
role players interact intentionally to produce integrat-
ed environmental solutions that take ecological, social
and political contexts into account. However, there is
a consistent knowing–doing gap regarding such work-
ing groups (Esler et al. 2010; Foxcroft et al. 2020), and
reducing this disjunction requires the analysis and doc-
umentation of the structure, functioning and outputs
of existing groups to provide insights and ensure the
continuation of working knowledge and communities
of practice.
In this article, we provide a case study of the forma-
tion and continuation through more than ten years of
a working group established to provide science- and
evidence-based decision making support to the man-
agement of invasive alien animals in the Cape region.
Specifically, we review the history of the Cape Action
for People and the Environment Invasive Alien Animals
Working Group (hereafter CAPE IAAWG or the work-
ing group), and consider its successes and failures. We
outline a number of projects tackled by the working
group, the key decisions made and the progress of each
project to date, with the goal of highlighting where and
how the working group has advanced our understand-
ing of research and the implementation of manage-
ment objectives.
Since its establishment in 2008, the members of the
working group have engaged in collective identifica-
tion of priority invasive animal species in the Greater
Cape Floristic Region (GCFR), devised species-specific
strategies for managing populations, and provided a
platform for collaborative management. By integrating
new and existing research findings, the working group
has advanced its understanding of invasive alien spe-
cies management through applied research and adap-
tive management and the sharing of these lessons with
the working group. We argue that the working group
model has been successful in facilitating work on inva-
sive alien animals in the GCFR, and aim to document
not only project successes, but also challenges and fail-
ures that provide direction for future alien animal con-
trol projects.
Methods of analysis
The authors analysed the agendas and minutes of all
meetings of the working group since 2008. Attendees
of meetings were classified by their host organisations,
and organisations were clustered into sectors (local,
provincial or national government agencies, non-
government organisations (NGOs), private sector (e.g.
a consultancy company) or research (e.g. university or
research council). We used content analysis to analyse
the frequency of discussion of taxonomic and select-
ed other topics at full working group meetings and
sub-group meetings. All analyses were conducted in
R (R Core Team 2018) and plots produced using the
tidyverse and ggplot packages (Wickham et al. 2019).
Insights from management projects were based on pub-
lished accounts or the experiences of the authors.
Background to the
working group
The Greater Cape Floristic Region (GCFR) (Born et al.
2007) is a region of extraordinary floral diversity and
endemism defined broadly by the winter rainfall ar-
eas of the southwestern Cape, which mostly overlaps
with the Western Cape Province, South Africa (Figure
1). High levels of endemism are also present in sev-
eral faunal groups [e.g. aquatic invertebrates (Colville
et al. 2014)], making much of this region a UNESCO
Natural World Heritage Site (https://whc.unesco.org/
en/list/1007). Communities of practice have been
working group has remained viable and retained a core
of committed members, ensuring ongoing institution-
al buy-in. The working group will remain successful so
long as the group is supported by its members and their
organisations.
Keywords: Status reporting; invasive alien species
management; invasive alien species control; commu-
nity of practice.
| Original research
| Open access
http://abcjournal.org |
Page 3 of 24
integral to the conservation of the GCFR for over 40
years (Gelderblom & Wood 2018). Starting in 2000,
the Cape Action Plan for the Environment (CAPE, later
renamed Cape Action for People and the Environment)
produced a 20-year plan to conserve the biomes of the
GCFR. The planning process involved more than 100
organisations and individuals who worked together to
draft a plan to ensure the conservation of the ecosys-
tems of the Cape Floristic Region by integrating and
coordinating the management of the landscapes and
biodiversity in the long term. Since 2000, the CAPE
plan has provided context, justification, funding and
material resources for many conservation actions in the
region. One of the major aims has been to integrate the
work of organisations involved in conservation and bio-
diversity research in the GCFR and management of the
GCFR, ensuring that they do not duplicate each other’s
work. In this paper, we argue that the CAPE IAAWG is
a good example of the kind of impact the programme
has had, and provides lessons of local, regional and in-
ternational relevance.
In 2003, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) ap-
proved a grant to CAPE to develop a strategy for inva-
sive alien species management in the GCFR. The strat-
egy was developed under the auspices of CapeNature,
by the CAPE Invasive Alien Species Task Team leader
employed at CapeNature, who then joined the City of
Cape Town in 2007 and continued to coordinate the
development of the strategy. The overall goals of the
strategy were to: (i) conserve ecosystems through col-
laborative efforts in combating the damaging impacts
of invasive alien species in the region; (ii) develop early
detection and rapid response capability; and (iii) in-
crease awareness and understanding, by organisations
and the public of the potential negative impacts of in-
vasive organisms (see Appendix 1 for details). The CAPE
Invasive Alien Species Strategy was finalised in 2008
with the vision that ‘by 2020, the GCFR’s economic,
environmental and social assets are secure from the
negative impacts of invasive alien species’.
The CAPE IAAWG was established by the CAPE Inva-
sive Alien Species Task Team leader early in 2008. The
group meets two to four times a year on average (Figure
2) for approximately four hours. In parallel, the CAPE In-
vasive Alien Plants Working Group was established (also
in 2008), but that forum was dissolved after a few years
due to overlap with other fora such as the Department of
Environmental Affairs Working for Water Programme im-
plementation fora. In contrast, the CAPE IAAWG brought
together a range of animal taxon experts and institutions
that did not otherwise interact closely and were enthu-
siastic about the potential for collaboration. The working
group rapidly developed a novel and productive way of
working, and the participants put in considerable effort
to maintain their involvement (Adelle 2019).
The working group does not replace or duplicate activ-
ities under existing institutional arrangements or man-
dates, but is intended to address coordination of knowl-
edge sharing; research, monitoring and evaluation;
awareness, institutional arrangements and capacity-
building; prevention, early detection and rapid re-
sponse; policy and best practice (Appendix 2).
Composition
The CAPE IAAWG is composed of representatives of (i)
national, provincial and local government agencies that
have mandates related to invasive alien species control
and management; (ii) private sector consultancies that
take on contracts for invasive alien species control and
management; (iii) tertiary education institutions and
Figure 1. Boundaries of the Greater
Cape Floristic Region, in which
the CAPE Invasive Alien Animals
Working Group functions.
| Original research
| Open access
http://abcjournal.org |
Page 4 of 24
science councils that conduct research on alien and
invasive animals; and (iv) NGOs with a regulatory or
advocacy interest in alien and invasive animals (Figure
2; Appendix 3). The individual members have a diver-
sity of roles in their home organisations, including local
authority and provincial officials, national parks staff
and environmental ministry officials, nature conserva-
tion scientists, university academic staff, post-doctoral
researchers, post-graduate students, NGO staff, animal
welfare officers and private consultants. The working
group has a core of organisational representatives (Fig-
ure 2; Appendix 3) and other members are co-opted
as and when required to represent specific interests or
provide input on a particular subject or taxon. There-
fore, the structure at a particular time reflects the work-
flow of specific projects and any issues being addressed
by the working group. However, this structure also en-
sures a high level of continuity, with the group develop-
ing a common understanding and shared experience.
The co-option of additional participants means that
the core of member organisations and individuals has
grown substantially over the years due to strong interest
in the work of the group and the increase in number
and complexity of the projects addressed by the group
(Figures 2, 3). Permanent members sign the TOR on
behalf of their organisations, which commit to imple-
menting the recommendations of the CAPE IAAWG
(Appendix 2). In turn, members are responsible for dis-
seminating information from the working group to their
structures or stakeholders.
The working group is formally located within the CAPE
Programme, and its links to that programme are main-
tained through the co-chairperson of the working
group who is employed by City of Cape Town and is a
member of CAPE’s Executive Committee. This linkage
through the co-chair position ensures that the work of
the group is integrated with other activities in the CAPE
conservation programme. The CAPE IAAWG was orig-
inally chaired by the City of Cape Town Invasive Spe-
cies Coordinator, but since 2017 it has been chaired
jointly by senior staff at CapeNature and City of Cape
Town’s Biodiversity Management branch. The secretar-
iat is supported by the City of Cape Town. This means
that two of the largest implementers of invasive animal
control projects in the GCFR have a shared official role
in the working group.
Figure 2. Time-line and turnover of sector participants in the CAPE Invasive Alien Animals Working Group. Since 2008 there have been
24 meetings, with between one and four meetings a year except for a hiatus in 2016. The number of participants has fluctuated
between 8 and 30 people per meeting, and includes 102 unique individuals over time. The relative representation from six main
sectors is shown here.
| Original research
| Open access
http://abcjournal.org |
Page 5 of 24
Membership of the working group spans the Western
and Eastern Cape provinces of South Africa, as both are
host to significant areas of the GCFR (a small portion
also enters the Northern Cape, but there have been no
representatives from that province).
Expert sub-groups, such as the Guttural Toad Working
Group, were formed when members felt it necessary
to discuss issues in more depth than the broader group
would be interested in or have time for, in particular
to address particular problems or technical issues on a
particular invasive alien species management project.
These sub-groups meet separately when necessary and
report back to the working group on their discussion
and decisions.
Funding
The working group requires limited funding for its activ-
ities, as partner organisations cover the personnel and
meeting costs. Although this has not been quantified, the
continuity and regular attendance of the CAPE IAAWG
indicates that member organisations experience ben-
efits of participation (e.g. knowledge sharing, advice
and information on best practice) that offset the costs
of participation. The costs of the projects discussed at
CAPE IAAWG meetings are, however, often substantial
(Table 1). These projects have generally been funded by
the South African government through its Department
of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF; formerly
the Department of Environmental Affairs).
Links to legislation
When the CAPE IAAWG was inaugurated, there was no
legislative framework that dealt with specific invasive
alien animals and their control. Control projects carried
out at the time were based on general commitments in
high-level documents regarding a duty of care and the
need to protect the environment for future generations
(National Environmental Management Act, 1998 and
the Constitution of South Africa, 1996); the legislative
requirement to manage biological invasions (National
Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:
BA), 2004; and provincial conservation ordinances).
The need to actively control specific invasive animals
was codified with the promulgation of the NEM: BA
Alien & Invasive Species Regulations, 2014 and the
accompanying Alien and Invasive Species Lists, which
provide explicit requirements to control listed invasive
Figure 3. Taxa and topics discussed over time at the CAPE Invasive Alien Animals Working Group meetings. The bars span the period over
which a species appeared on the agenda for discussion. Ticks on the X-axis represent the dates that meetings took place.
| Original research
| Open access
http://abcjournal.org |
Page 6 of 24
Table 1. The status of invasive alien animal management projects in the Greater Cape Floristic Region, where input was made by the CAPE IAAWG. Column names are based on the names used in the
second national status report on biological invasions (Zengeya & Wilson in press) as per the indicators developed by Wilson et al. (2018), and where possible and indicated in alignment with the
Darwin Core list of terms (Groom et al. 2019). The values are from the case studies or from the National Status Report on Biological Invasions (van Wilgen & Wilson 2018).
Taxon
(dwc:venacularName)
Native
range
Introduction and
pathways
(pathway)
Status
1
(dwc:degreeOf
Establishment)
Extent
(RangeFreeText)
Abundance
(dwc:organism
Quantity and
dwc:organism
QuantityType)
Impact
2
(impact EICAT
or impact
SEICATGlobal)
Money
spent
3
Treatment and
effectiveness
Role of CAPE IAAWG Legislative category
4
and management
goal
Key
references
House Crow
(Corvus splendens)
Indian sub-
continent
Probably as stowaways
on ships, in Durban
1972, Cape Town
1979
(TransportStowaway:
HitchhikersOnShip
Boat)
Naturalised (C3) Localised;
several suburbs
within the City
boundary
High of 10 000
but down
to ~310 by
October 2018
Aggressive to people
native biota, damage
crops, spread
disease. Scored as
MO globally
ZAR
8 500 000
Multiple, focus on
chemical bating and
trapping, but House
Crows can learn
quickly. Different
approaches will
be needed at low
densities
Review of methods
and project progress.
Support with ethical
clearance
Category 1a.
Nation-wide
eradication
Oatley 1973;
Berruti 1997
Guttural toad
(Sclerophrys gutturalis)
Eastern
Africa from
Ethiopia
to Eastern
Cape, South
Africa
First noted 2000
possibly deliberately
as a pet.
(Escape:Pet)
Invasive in a
restricted area
(D2), though
native to wetter
regions with
summer rainfall
Largely
confined to one
suburb of Cape
Town
Numbers of
adults likely
to be in the
10 000s
Scored MO in
Western Indian
Islands due to
predation
ZAR
1 800 000
Spread slowed,
population numbers
reduced.
Review methods
and project progress.
Support with historical
data. Initiated
control operations.
Formulated research
project (PhD thesis)
to inform control
strategies
Listed as
Amietophrynus
gutturalis (now
Sclerophrys gutturalis)
as Category 1b in
Western Cape, not
listed elsewhere.
Containment
Measey et al.
2017; Telford
et al. 2019
Mallard Duck
(Anas platyrhynchos)
North
America and
Eurasia
1940s possibly as a
pet or for food.
(Escape:Agriculture|
Escape:Pet)
Invasive (E) All provinces
in SA; largely
in human
modified
landscapes
including
peri-urban and
agricultural
areas
Population
highly mobile
into Fynbos
Biome from
other regions
of South Africa.
Resident
population
likely to be low
1000s
Hybridisation with
native species
(globally MR)
ZAR
1 024 000
Effective step-wise
methodology, though
conflicts with local
people who feed the
ducks (see text)
Recommendations
on effective and
ethical methods;
a research Masters
thesis addressed
the evidence of
hybridisation for the
programme
Category 2
A Mallard Strategy
for South Africa was
drafted.
Local extirpation
Stafford
2010,
Stephens
et al. 2020;
SANBI
unpublished
Feral pigs
(Sus scrofa)
Eurasia 1920s–1930s for
forestry pest control
(Release:Biological
Control)
Invasive (E) Unknown but
particular foci
in Swartland/
Boland.
Unknown but
likely to in
100s.
Many recorded
impacts, including
predation on the
Critically Endangered
geometric tortoise
Psammobates
geometricus.
Globally EICAT MV
& SEICAT MO
Unknown Hunting and
trapping. Effective
for control. Local
eradication requires
sustained effort
Evaluation of progress.
Discussion of new
methods of control
Category 1b, not
listed when not feral.
Prevention of spread
into protected areas
and threatened
species habitat.
Skead et
al. 2011;
Hofmeyr &
Baard 2018
Invasive freshwater
fishes
5
Mostly North
America
Many – see Weyl et
al. 2020
20 species
established
(Weyl et al.
2014), of which
15 species
are invasive
(excludes
translocated
species)
All large river
systems are
invaded by
multiple
species.
Depends on
inland water,
but generally
invasive fishes
dominate
ichthyofauna
assemblages
in invaded
systems
Predation,
competition and
habitat degradation
(carp Cyprinus
carpio)
ZAR
3 000 000
for
Rondegat
project
Rotenone used
successfully in
discrete areas where
natural dispersal of
invader species can
be controlled due
to barriers. Manual
control where
feasible and cost
effective
Discussion of methods
and priority areas.
Continuous reporting
on progress
Various
Limit spread
to uninvaded
waterways, prioritise a
few stretches of water
where extirpation is
feasible, cost effective
and desirable
Impson et al.
2013, Weyl
et al. 2014,
Ellender et
al. 2017
| Original research
| Open access
http://abcjournal.org |
Page 7 of 24
Taxon
(dwc:venacularName)
Native
range
Introduction and
pathways
(pathway)
Status
1
(dwc:degreeOf
Establishment)
Extent
(RangeFreeText)
Abundance
(dwc:organism
Quantity and
dwc:organism
QuantityType)
Impact
2
(impact EICAT
or impact
SEICATGlobal)
Money
spent
3
Treatment and
effectiveness
Role of CAPE IAAWG Legislative category
4
and management
goal
Key
references
European shore crab
(Carcinus maenas)
Europe Not known, possibly
through fouling or
ballast water discharge
(TransportStowaway:
ShipBoatHullFouling
| TransportStowaway:
ShipBoatBallastWater).
First detected in 1983
in Table Bay Harbour
Invasive (E),
though currently
restricted to
transformed
harbours
Table Bay
and Hout Bay
harbour and
occasionally in
intertidal area
of the Cape
Peninsula
Management
in Hout Bay
Harbour
caught close
to 40 000
individuals.
Given the
populations
in Cape Town
Harbour is at
least an order
of magnitude
greater,
the total
population
may be close
to a million
Significant impacts
elsewhere in the
world, but negligible
in South Africa to
date
~ZAR
1 000 000
Crabs were caught
in baited traps,
although this might
miss smaller and
breeding crabs.
Control using divers,
traps for small
individuals, and
larval traps were
trialled but were
either too expensive
or ineffective
Advice and support
in getting approval
for the method of
euthanasia. Support
for disposal of
carcasses. Feedback
to management and
recommendations
Category 1b
The trial management
found nation-
wide eradication
is not feasible. In
the absence of
significant impacts
and spread outside
of the harbours, the
recommendation
is not to manage
populations further.
This would be
reconsidered if
spread is found
during general marine
invasions monitoring
Mabin et al.
2017, 2020
European paper wasp
(Polistes dominula)
Europe,
North
Africa and
temperate
Asia as
far east as
China.
Unknown (In Cape
Town since 2008)
Invasive (E) Common
throughout the
City of Cape
Town and the
Boland
Unknown Impacts on human
health; other (e.g.
biodiversity) impacts
have not been
established
ZAR
1 500 000
for both
vespid
species
combined
Nest removal with
pesticide fogging
Advice and support
for teams; attempt to
find other sources of
support (e.g. Dept. of
Health)
Category 1b
Impact reduction
Benadé et
al. 2014;
Van Zyl et al.
2018
German wasp
(Vespula germanica)
Europe,
North
Africa and
temperate
Asia as far
east as China
Unknown (In Cape
Town since 1974)
Invasive (E) Most commonly
found in the
Southern region
of the City of
Cape Town and
in Stellenbosch,
Paarl,
Banhoek and
Franschhoek
Unknown Impacts on human
health; other (e.g.
biodiversity) impacts
have not been
established
ZAR
1 500 000
for both
vespid
species
combined
Physical nest removal Advice and support
for teams; attempt to
find other sources of
support (e.g. Dept. of
Health)
Category 1b.
Impact reduction
SANBI 2019
Earthworms Various Various, probably in
contaminated soil, and
perhaps as deliberate
introductions for
vermiculture.
It is not clear
if there has
been significant
spread beyond
cultivated areas
(so B2–B3)
Widespread
in transformed
or previously
transformed
sites
Not known Alien earthworms
have caused
profound ecosystem
level changes (e.g.
to forest dynamics)
in areas where
earthworms were
previously absent
(e.g. post-glaciation
or islands like New
Zealand)
No money
spent on
control
NA Development of
recommendations,
support for research
None are listed.
Research the risks and
limit use in natural
areas as a precaution
Plisko 2001;
Plisko &
Nxele et
al. 2015;
-Janion-
Scheepers et
al. 2016.
1Status as per Blackburn et al. (2011).
2Impact category is aligned to the IUCN’s Environmental Impact Classification of Alien Taxa, Hawkins et al. (2015).
3Money spent is in South African Rand (ZAR) based on 2018 values.
4Legislative category is as per the NEM: BA A&IS Regulations (Department of Environmental Affairs 2014, 2016).
5Twenty species of invasive freshwater fishes established, with the most severe impacts caused by smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), spotted bass (M. punctulatus) and largemouth bass (M. sal-
moides) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss).
| Original research
| Open access
http://abcjournal.org |
species. Category 1a and 1b species are prohibited from
use and must be controlled [Category 1a species re-
quire compulsory control, which has been interpreted
to mean that the goal is nation-wide eradication (Wil-
son et al. 2013)]; permits can be issued to use Category
2 species, although outside of the specified permits or
conditions these are regarded as Category 1b; Category
3 species can be kept without the need for a permit
under certain conditions, but further breeding is pro-
hibited, and outside of captivity or cultivation they are
also regarded as Category 1b. Proposed revisions to the
regulations and lists were published in 2018 for public
comment, but as of July 2020 these had not been pro-
mulgated, and so throughout this paper we focus on
the lists and regulations as last amended in 2016.
Overview of
projects tackled
This section describes eight projects established under
the auspices of CAPE IAAWG, identifying key decisions
and factors affecting the success of the project. Further
details of the projects undertaken are shown in Table 1.
House Crows
A decision was made in 2003 to extirpate the expand-
ing population in Cape Town, and a pilot project was
initiated. The project soon stopped due to lack of fund-
ing, then restarted with a three-year grant from the
United National Development Programme and then
halted a second time due to concerns raised by the So-
ciety for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA)
and the need to register the control agent DRC1339
(Starlicide) for use in South Africa (Yeld 2010). Two
years of stakeholder engagement ensued before stake-
holders could agree to attempt to extirpate the House
Crows, and during this period (2009–2010) the popu-
lation grew from an estimated 2 600 to 10 000 birds.
However, the hiatus also proved to be a useful trial
period for testing DRC1339 (Starlicide) and gathering
the data necessary for the registration of this corvicide
in South Africa. Support was also mobilised through
media campaigns, petitions and complaints from res-
idents in Nyanga, the high density residential area of
Cape Town where House Crows were concentrated
(see Measey et al. 2020). In 2011, the City Council ap-
proved ZAR200 000 to control House Crows and sent
the project manager to Dar es Salaam, Tanzania for
training on trapping techniques.
The ongoing campaign has significantly reduced the
House Crow population with an estimated 310 crows
remaining in October 2019. Implementation has cost
over ZAR8 500 000, as the House Crows have proved
to be very difficult to control; a number of approaches
(mass baiting at roosting sites, spot baiting at feeding
areas, trapping in pre-selected areas) yielded initial
success, followed by diminished returns as populations
shrank and House Crows learned to avoid each control
approach. Alternative methods such as nest removal,
egg collection and shooting have not yet been used due
to high costs and security risks in the areas where the
House Crows are found. At a CAPE IAAWG meeting in
2018, the group decided that additional funds should
be sourced to increase the effort to reduce the House
Crow population and investigate new techniques such
as egg collection, egg substitution and falconry. On this
basis, the City of Cape Town applied for and was grant-
ed additional funds from the National Resource Man-
agement Programme (NRMP) of the DEFF.
Guttural toads
The CAPE IAAWG was first made aware of the rapid
expansion of the guttural toad population in Constan-
tia, Cape Town, at a meeting in 2008. A mapping effort
showed toads were present along a 3 km stretch of the
suburban green belt in Constantia. The working group
then made a decision to attempt eradication, in part as
it was thought that guttural toads may pose a threat to
indigenous Endangered western leopard toads (Sclero-
phrys pantherina) through competition or hybridisation
(Measey et al. 2014, 2017, 2020). The eradication pro-
gramme was coordinated by the City of Cape Town
Invasive Species Unit. The first service provider was ap-
pointed by the City for the 2009/2010 breeding season,
however, sustained control efforts only commenced in
the 2011 breeding season. Initial efforts at awareness
raising and control were met with both resistance and
enthusiasm from residents who resented nightly calls
as an invasion of privacy, or appreciated the help to
remove noisy invaders, respectively (see Novoa et al.
2017). Access to residential properties was a major is-
sue that required persistent efforts by service providers
to win over property owners.
In 2014, the working group members initiated a
post-graduate research project and various investiga-
tions in support of the guttural toad control project took
place between 2014 and 2018. Population modelling
by Vimercati et al. (2017a) showed that the extirpa-
tion of this population from Cape Town would require
access to over 99% of residential properties. Between
2010 and 2019, guttural toad control teams in Cape
Town were only able to access a fifth of the low-density
residential properties located in Constantia and Bishop-
scourt (783 out of 3 935). At the time the toads were
detected, there was no legal basis on which to access
properties and remove toads if the owners were reluc-
tant to allow or refused access. The NEM: BA Alien and
Invasive Species Regulations of 2014 provides the legal
basis to compel access to identified properties, but this
Page 8 of 24
| Original research
| Open access
http://abcjournal.org |
facility has not been used yet and legal precedent still
needs to be established. In all cases due process will
need to be followed before access can be obtained and
this increases the difficulty for the service providers.
Concern has been expressed that access to properties
will continue to limit the guttural toad control pro-
gramme. While the need to access private property has
been problematic in several other control campaigns
[notably Mallard Ducks, Anas platyrhynchos, and House
Crows] it has not formed as significant a barrier to oper-
ations as found in the guttural toad project (Vimercati et
al. 2017a). The CAPE IAAWG has recognised the need
for ongoing communication with initial stakeholders if
eradication programmes are to succeed in the future.
Another important finding of the guttural toad research
was that, in modelled populations, the removal of eggs
and tadpoles had minimal impact on population num-
bers, and that it was more effective to remove juve-
nile and adult toads (Vimercati et al. 2017b). Thus, as a
result of the research, project personnel have stopped
removing eggs and tadpoles and focussed their efforts
entirely on removal of juveniles and adults.
On 13 June 2018, the CAPE IAAWG acknowledged
that extirpation of this population is currently unlike-
ly, given the restricted access to private properties and
insufficient removal rates. The CAPE IAAWG took the
view, however, that containing the invasive population
(i.e. focussing on monitoring and control at the known
edge of the population) was worthwhile. Control mea-
sures during the breeding season are ongoing with
some 10 517 adult toads having been removed to date
(2010–2019) from 783 properties. City of Cape Town is
committed to either containing or extirpating this pop-
ulation and received ZAR1 800 000 from DEFF: NRMP
for this purpose in 2019.
Mallard Ducks
Mallard Ducks have been observed to mate with native
Yellow-billed Ducks (A. undulata), and are considered
a potential threat to the genetic integrity of this spe-
cies (Dean 2000; Owen et al. 2006; Stafford 2010).
The City of Cape Town and CapeNature for many years
have recognised the importance of controlling Mallard
Ducks. The Mallard Strategy for South Africa was draft-
ed and a formal control campaign was started by the
City of Cape Town following a decision at the CAPE
IAAWG in November 2008. The campaign received
a lot of public opposition from residents who enjoyed
feeding the Mallard Ducks and considered them as
pets. There was a lack of public awareness of the threat
that Mallard Ducks pose to native birds (Stafford 2010)
until the ‘Save our indigenous water fowl’ initiative
was developed by the working group. This public ed-
ucation campaign shifted the focus of controlling Mal-
lard Ducks to saving our indigenous duck species and
thereby increased public understanding of the project’s
aims. The control project has experienced several de-
lays in control efforts as a result of funding delays due
to supply chain issues; for example, attempts to appoint
a particular consultant as a sole provider of a specialist
service in which they are very experienced often chal-
lenges financial rules and leads to extensive delays in
project continuity. These disruptions allow population
numbers to increase, reducing the efficiency of the
control project. To date over 474 birds have been re-
moved, and an estimated 200 remain in the target ar-
eas of Cape Town. The finally agreed method used to
remove Mallard Ducks from residential areas involves
the following step-wise methodology:
•Systematically traversing the target water bodies by
rowboat and surrounding open natural space on foot
to count all Mallard Ducks observed.
•Mapping and recording densities and distribution of
Mallard Ducks observed per location in and around
the target water bodies and surrounding open natu-
ral space.
•Habituating the ducks through prior baiting with
bread.
•Hand-feeding the ducks with bread dosed with a
sedative (Alphachloralose).
•Collecting the ducks once they had been sufficiently
sedated (O’Hare et al. 2007); and
•Taking the ducks to an offsite location for euthanasia
by a veterinarian (American Veterinary Medical As-
sociation 2013).
This process is monitored by the SPCA to ensure ethical
treatment.
Samples from these Mallard Ducks were used to exam-
ine the degree and direction of genetic introgression
with Yellow-billed Ducks (Stephens et al. 2020), which
was shown to be primarily from Yellow-billed Ducks
into Mallard Ducks, but is likely to lead to a hybrid pop-
ulation that is able to disperse widely.
Feral pigs
The potential control of the feral pig populations in the
Western Cape was presented to CAPE IAAWG at its sec-
ond meeting in November 2008 (Figure 3). Several pop-
ulations of boars and hybrids between boars and feral
domestic pigs are present in the province and those in
the Kasteelberg and Porseleinberg districts of the Bo-
land region are of most concern since they overlap the
distribution of the geometric tortoise. CapeNature, the
provincial conservation authority, produced a Feral Pig
Management Strategy in 2011 with funding from DEFF:
NRMP. The strategy covered effective control measures,
monitoring the effects of control, and prevention of
Page 9 of 24
| Original research
| Open access
http://abcjournal.org |
reintroduction, and presented a comprehensive commu-
nication strategy to raise awareness of the presence and
negative impacts of feral pig populations. In 2014 feral
pigs were listed as Category 1b invaders under NEM: BA.
Starting in 2014, CapeNature, with support and ad-
vice from the CAPE IAAWG, conducted a pilot trial of
feral pig control by using baited traps and Judas pigs
(collared sows that establish contact with and attract
other pigs for trapping or hunting – McIlroy & Gifford
1997). This programme resulted in the removal of over
1 200 feral pigs from two populations in Kasteelberg
and Porseleinberg, in addition to the feral pigs removed
by land owners. The working group provided expert in-
put and advice to the project manager during the plan-
ning and pilot project stages, and monitored project
achievements during the operational phase. The over-
sight and involvement from the CAPE IAAWG resulted
in additional funding being secured from DEFF: NRMP.
Invasive freshwater shes
South Africa is one of six global invasive fish hotspots
(Leprieur et al. 2008) and invasive fishes are the great-
est threat to the native fishes of the Cape Fold Aquatic
Ecoregion of South Africa, a conservation hotspot for
freshwater fishes in southern Africa (Tweddle et al.
2009; Ellender et al. 2017; Weyl et al. 2020). The in-
vasive alien species with the most severe impacts have
been predatory species, especially three black bass
species [smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), spot-
ted bass (M. punctulatus) and largemouth bass (M. sal-
moides) (Weyl et al. 2014)], and rainbow trout (Onco-
rhynchus mykiss) in several headwater streams (Shelton
et al. 2015). All four are native to North America, were
imported into the Western Cape for angling purposes
and are popular with the recreational angling sector
and, hence, of significant socio-economic value (Ellen-
der et al. 2014; see Weyl et al. 2020).
The river rehabilitation project, with its Rondegat River
pilot project, was discussed at the first meeting of the
CAPE IAAWG in 2008, and thereafter remained on the
agenda as the project developed into a programme and
gained further momentum after the successful treat-
ment of the Rondegat River with rotenone in 2012 and
2013 (Impson et al. 2013). The project was the subject
of an environmental impact assessment in 2007/8 and
during this phase there was considerable controversy
regarding the control of invasive fishes and the use of
rotenone (Marr et al. 2012) including a number of crit-
ical articles in magazines, newspapers and blogs. Most
criticism came from fly fishermen targeting O. mykiss,
as one of the other four priority rivers had this species.
The support of this project by the CAPE IAAWG has
played a major role in allowing it to proceed and
achieve its goals, which included removal of the
M. dolomieu from the treatment area followed by rap-
id recovery of the threatened native fish and aquatic
invertebrate communities (Weyl et al. 2014; Bellingan
et al. 2019). Due to the success of this initial project,
CapeNature has since undertaken further invasive fish
control projects and more are planned in the near fu-
ture. The cost of the project, including co-funding and
monitoring the ecological outcomes was estimated at
ZAR3 300 000 (Impson et al. 2013). It is now consid-
ered a flagship restoration project in South Africa (Ellen-
der et al. 2017; Zengeya & Wilson in press).
Marine invasions, including
European shore crabs
The European shore crab (Carcinus maenas) was first
discussed at the CAPE IAAWG in October 2014. In June
2014, a pilot management programme targeting the
crab was initiated in Hout Bay harbour. Management
ran until July 2015 and then the population was moni-
tored for a further six months. The population was not
extirpated, as there were several logistical challenges
experienced during management including a hiatus in
control efforts due to work contracts and research per-
mits lapsing during the intervention, and because a mo-
lecular study (Mabin et al. 2020) showed the size of the
population to be much larger than initially expected.
By providing links both to animal welfare organisations
and to facilities for the disposal of carcasses run by the
City of Cape Town, the CAPE IAAWG supported the
project. However, with the formation of a National Ma-
rine Alien and Invasive Species Working Group, it is
anticipated that the CAPE IAAWG will not have a major
role in marine projects in future other than to note that
research and implementation are continuing, and pro-
vide advice and support as appropriate.
Social wasps
The European paper wasp (Polistes dominula) and the
German wasp (Vespula germanica) both have wide na-
tive distributions including Europe, North Africa and
temperate Asia as far east as China. Records of V. ger-
manica from Cape Town date back to 1974 when it was
first recorded in the suburb of Newlands. Both wasp
species were first discussed at a meeting of the CAPE
IAAWG in May 2013, and thereafter both the City of
Cape Town and Stellenbosch Municipality initiated a
nest removal programme as a service to homeowners
who were experiencing a problem with invasive wasps.
By March 2019, a total of 12 375 P. dominula nests
and 57 V. germanica nests had been removed. German
wasps build nests in sites with more greenery, more
readily available food and a more reliable water source,
which are scarce within the urban boundaries. Thus,
the bulk of German wasp removals have been in the
Page 10 of 24
| Original research
| Open access
http://abcjournal.org |
south of the City; nests removed from the central urban
areas have been much smaller as the resources in the
area cannot support large nests. European paper wasps
are less selective with regard to nest sites and thousands
of nests have been reported and removed from the
City. European paper wasps therefore pose a significant
threat to human safety and have affected agricultural
production and tourism by making some areas unsafe
for humans. The CAPE IAAWG decided in 2017 that as
the wasps cause more of a problem to human health
than to the natural environment they should be man-
aged by the Department of Health, in the same way
that vermin control is carried out in the City. However,
despite efforts to contact Department of Health repre-
sentatives, and suggestions of initiatives, no resolution
has been reached, and the problem continues to be
managed by the City of Cape Town’s Environmental
Management Department. The CAPE IAAWG has sup-
ported applications for funding to the Departments of
Agricultural and Health of the Western Cape, though as
yet most funding is still either ultimately from the DEFF:
NRMP and private landowners.
Currently, it is not feasible to eradicate P. dominula or
V. germanica unless breakthrough technology such as
gene drive mechanisms (currently being investigated in
New Zealand) are developed into a viable control tech-
nique (Lester & Beggs 2019). The working group has
suggested that there is reason to continue monitoring
both species on the fringes of their invasive distribu-
tions to prevent further spread into other urban and
rural areas.
Earthworms
Around 7.7% of global earthworm diversity is found in
South Africa (Janion-Scheepers et al. 2016), but only
alien species are used commercially in South Africa for
waste recycling (i.e. vermi-composting), as bait for fish-
ing, or for soil remediation. Several queries were raised
with committee members as to the invasion risk posed
by using alien earthworms for composting, particular-
ly given the desire of many stakeholders to use worms
as an ‘environmentally acceptable’ option for fertiliser
production and waste disposal. The issue was discussed
at consecutive meetings from late 2009 to 2012 and
from 2015 to 2017, and a presentation was hosted on
research on earthworms. The working group concluded
that the spread of alien earthworms from vermi-compos-
iting is not currently a major concern in the GCFR as
most of the earthworms that are used for vermi-compos-
iting thrive only in very wet, humic soils that are quite
different from the nutrient poor, acid sands of the GCFR
(except perhaps for the Afromontane Forest patches in
some riverine areas). However, the working group not-
ed that there is not enough information to adequately
quantify the risk and recommended that, as a precau-
tionary measure, alien earthworms should not be used
in protected areas in the GCFR until such time as there is
clear evidence that the risks of invasions are acceptable.
The requests for information from the CAPE IAAWG
provided impetus for ongoing research on earthworms
in South Africa. An earthworm sub-group was set up as
a result of discussions at the CAPE IAAWG and SERG
(Soil Ecosystem Research Group: SERG; http://sergsa.
org/), which led to the development of standardised
sampling protocols (e.g. Nxele et al. 2015), and now
forms part of a larger collaboration on soil health. Earth-
worms continue to be discussed by the working group
from time to time.
Other taxa
During the meetings of the CAPE IAAWG, many other
taxa have been discussed (see Figure 3). Some discus-
sions did not progress to action because the taxa were
native (e.g. striped skink, Trachylepis striata), and/or
had increased their ranges through anthropogenic hab-
itat modification – see Essl et al. (2019) (e.g. Hadeda
Ibis, Bostrychia hagedash, painted reed frog, Hypero-
lius marmoratus and Egyptian Goose, Alopochen ae-
gyptiaca). Other discussions have not been followed up
because the group decided that the benefit of control
would be outweighed by opposition or a lack of sup-
port from the general public (e.g. Rock Dove, Colum-
ba livia and eastern grey squirrel, Sciurus carolinensis).
Over time, changes in public opinion or the Regula-
tions might mean there will be more support for con-
trol of such invasive animals in future. In future, novel
techniques (like gene-drives) might change decisions by
presenting inexpensive and effective management op-
tions. Based on the impacts that such species have, the
CAPE IAAWG might then have a role to play (e.g. see
Novoa et al. 2018).
Discussion and
learning points
Logistical and contract diculties
Local and provincial level implementing organisations
(e.g. municipalities, provincial nature conservation
agencies) have experienced challenges with imple-
menting invasive alien species control projects due to
limited funding availability and constraints due to fund-
ing cycles, as well as delays in procurement arising from
internal supply chain management procedures. These
issues have adversely affected the House Crow, guttural
toad, invasive fishes and European shore crab projects
(see above). Funds not being available at the beginning
of the financial year when needed by the projects have,
on several occasions, delayed control efforts. Flexibility
Page 11 of 24
| Original research
| Open access
http://abcjournal.org |
and understanding from the working group and con-
tractors have often ensured that the projects do not lose
impetus, but the solution to such issues is essentially
outside the scope of the working group. This situation is
not unique to South Africa: Dana et al. (2019) analysed
the factors that contributed to unsuccessful control op-
erations conducted in Andalusia (southern Spain) from
2004 to 2018. The top factor determining project fail-
ure was the absence of funding at a crucial time for
operational purposes, which occurred in 82% of cases
analysed. Combined with other factors that frequently
crop up in invasive species control operations (e.g. li-
cencing of new control drugs), the unpredictability of
funding renewals frequently leads to decreased oper-
ational efficiency. The question of whether funding is
available at the time it is needed or whether contractors
comply with supply chain management processes can
halt the progress of a project during the onset of the
breeding season when the animal is most detectable
and demographically vulnerable. Clearly, a better align-
ment between the activities of the working group and
relevant procurement policies is required. To give a spe-
cific example from the CAPE IAAWG projects, in 2011
and 2012, the lack of a signed contract or available
funding at the beginning of the guttural toad breeding
season between August and October, led to the loss of
productive time (i.e. person days on the control oper-
ation), with concomitant feedbacks to operational ef-
ficiency. This could lead to the loss of skilled staff and
to increased resources spent on training new operators
and overall lengthened duration of the project.
Another area of concern is that the funding of projects
is somewhat haphazard, more limited by bureaucrat-
ic processes than strategic prioritisation based on risk
and impact. The National Invasive Alien Animals Forum
was established in 2013 to assist DEFF with such issues.
While the forum developed detailed recommendations
for a funding allocation process (Jackson et al. 2015),
these have not been implemented and the forum
ceased activities in 2015.
Stakeholder engagement
Stakeholder engagement is a very important issue in
the management of invasive alien animals. The CAPE
IAAWG has applied the latest research to communica-
tion campaigns, checking that the message is scientifi-
cally defensible. The working group benefitted from the
appointment of a communications expert who regular-
ly attended meetings to ensure that projects were ef-
fectively communicated to stakeholders, including the
media. The working group attempts to identify all im-
portant stakeholders for each project and involve them
to decide on project feasibility or improve the opera-
tions of the project. In this way, a representative sample
of local stakeholders is consulted early in the process to
assess issues of concern and information regarding the
history and nature of the particular biological invasion
being investigated.
Stakeholder engagement is frequently perceived as
too difficult to implement, too costly or too slow for
management timeframes (Caceres-Escobar et al. 2019).
However, systematic engagement processes have now
been documented and have been employed with
some success (Novoa et al. 2018). The initial phase of
stakeholder identification does not replace the formal
engagement process that occurs as part of most of the
invasive species control projects. Formal engagement
through focused meetings and invitations to partici-
pate in working group meetings has been exception-
ally successful and has ensured that conflicts between
stakeholders are resolved early on in the project life
cycle. For example, regular participation of SPCA staff
in the working group has improved project design and
brought credibility to the programmes undertaken.
Cape of Good Hope SPCA staff were present at the
early Mallard Duck and House Crow control operations
to ensure that the agreed upon procedures were imple-
mented, and the ongoing interaction at working group
meetings maintains an effective working relationship
between the SPCA and the implementing agents.
Conict between stakeholders
Conflict between stakeholders is a theme that has re-
curred with many of the invasions, and while some
conflicts are commonplace and predictable, they have
often surprised the working group members in their di-
versity (Shackleton et al. 2020; Gaertner et al. 2016).
For example, conflicts have occurred around control
options for invasive freshwater fish (smallmouth bass,
rainbow trout); ownership of carcasses that result from
a control programme (feral pigs); rights to own invasive
alien species as domestic stock or pets (Mallard Ducks,
guttural toads); the right to stock, hunt and fish alien
species on private land (invasive freshwater fish, feral
pigs); and the environmental benefits of invasive alien
species (e.g. alien earthworms).
Input to regulations
The working group has not, to date, been formally in-
volved in the identification and engagement of stake-
holders, as such processes are the prerogative of indi-
vidual organisations and projects. However, the working
group offers a safe space to discuss issues and strategies,
and by connecting multiple institutions it provides a
route for communication in the initial stages of stake-
holder engagement (Davies et al. 2020). We note that
stakeholder engagement can shift not just opinions but
the power of different stakeholders. In the case of the
House Crow, it became clear through extension work
that the crows were having significant negative impacts
Page 12 of 24
| Original research
| Open access
http://abcjournal.org |
on less affluent communities in Cape Town, and this
fact was used to counter-balance arguments that con-
trol of House Crows was ethically unacceptable (cf. Fig-
ure 7.3 in Wilson et al. 2017).
The control of invasive alien animals can be highly con-
troversial and emotive, to the extent that project work-
ers are physically threatened both when carrying out
their jobs and in their private lives. The CAPE IAAWG
cannot, of course, resolve this, but does offer a space
to learn from previous experiences in the region and
globally as to how to limit conflicts arising and diffuse
them as necessary.
Ethics and animal rights
The control of animal species often relies on euthanis-
ing individual animals, although alternatives exist. For
example, sterilisation and relocation can be an option,
particularly for larger mammals. However, such options
need to be weighed against the costs, and the difficulty
and distress caused by trapping individuals, the cost of
a veterinarian to conduct the procedure, and the sub-
sequent logistical difficulty of relocating and rehabili-
tating animals in a way that ensures a continuing life of
sufficient quality.
Many potentially effective campaigns have been ham-
pered by concerns over ethical issues and the difficulty
of reaching agreement on the correct method of eu-
thanasia to be used. Appreciation that the health and
welfare of individual animals are often compromised in
the alien range raises the question whether these pop-
ulations should be allowed to persist any longer. In the
case of House Crows, ethical issues resulted in exten-
sive delays (1–2 years) during which the population was
exposed to the ongoing stresses of their novel environ-
ment, as well as the stress of the eventual control pro-
gramme. In addition, the impacts of the crows on native
birds via competition were extended in time. These two
aspects demonstrate the increase in net harms (Fraser
& MacRae 2011; Allen et al. 2019) attributable to proj-
ect delays. Whether such debates can be reduced to an
equation is a broad philosophical matter for society, but
environmental management and conservation staff have
to make hard decisions about how to act (or not act) to
achieve environmental goals in the context of how dif-
ferent actions will affect both native and alien animals.
The representation of the national SPCA body on the
CAPE IAAWG has significantly improved the appreci-
ation of ethical methods that exist around the control
of animals. The need to be alerted to these early on
in the planning of any control operation is imperative,
as is the rapid establishment of consensus on control
options. When control methods e.g. drugs or pesti-
cides that are not commonly used in the country are
chosen, there can be considerable delay in registering
and obtaining them (e.g. Starlicide; tricaine methane-
sulfonate [TMS]). Such issues could be avoided by a
nationally agreed document describing best practice on
how to euthanise different categories of animals. Such
documents exist in other countries, and could easily be
adapted for South Africa by the national environmental
authority (i.e. DEFF).
The CAPE IAAWG has, to date, not been directly in-
volved in determining which species should be listed
and regulated under the NEM: BA A&IS Regulations.
It did, however, provide written comments to DEFF on
the proposed 2018 changes to the regulations and lists,
as it is important for the CAPE IAAWG to speak for the
particular community of practice that it represents. As
the process for developing recommendations for listing
is becoming clearer and more transparent [in particular
through the Alien Species Risk Analysis Review Pan-
el and the development of a risk analysis framework
(Kumschick et al. 2018, 2020)], the CAPE IAAWG will
in future play a more direct role in providing scientif-
ic advice to underpin whether and how invasive alien
animal species should be controlled. Risk analyses that
provide supporting evidence for the listing of several
species have been discussed by the working group af-
ter approval by the Alien Species Risk Analysis Review
Panel (e.g. the Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas, and the
Rose-ringed Parakeet, Psittacula krameri), and several
risk analyses have been tabled at meetings before these
were submitted and approved by the Alien Species Risk
Analysis Review Panel (e.g. coypu, Myocastor coypus,
Mallard Duck (SANBI, unpublished) and Red-vented
Bulbul, Pycnonotus cafer). It is envisaged that such
documents will in future be routinely tabled at CAPE
IAAWG before recommendations are submitted to the
decision making body (DEFF).
The CAPE IAAWG has also not, as yet, been substan-
tially involved in the discussion of the implementation
and enforcement of the Regulations. There is an op-
portunity for the CAPE IAAWG to assist in trying to find
the appropriate balance between incentive-based and
penalty-based approaches. The proposed White Paper
on Biological Invasions in South Africa will hopefully
provide an opportunity for the CAPE IAAWG to influ-
ence the vision of how the control of alien animal pop-
ulations is conducted in the future (Lukey & Hall 2020).
Success stories
The Mallard Strategy for South Africa was formulated
by the working group’s founder in 2008 and was sub-
sequently adopted by Birdlife SA. Today this strategy
guides the Mallard Duck project in the City of Cape
Town and lays the foundation for similar projects as
prescribed by national legislation (Mallard Ducks are
listed as Category 2 in NEM: BA, though cf. SANBI
unpublished).
Page 13 of 24
| Original research
| Open access
http://abcjournal.org |
The successful implementation of the Invasive Fish Proj-
ect, including scientific credibility through a range of
peer reviewed publications, culminated in two Water
Research Commission reports that provided national
guidelines for monitoring such projects and their eco-
logical outcomes (Weyl et al. 2014; Marr et al. 2019).
The working group’s discussions and interactions with
stakeholders resulted in increased funding for invasive
animal projects through the Natural Resources Man-
agement Programme of the DEFF (formerly Working
for Water of the former Department of Environmen-
tal Affairs). To date four projects have been funded by
DEFF: NRMP.
The working group was approached by the Wildlife
and Environment Society of South Africa in 2009 to as-
sist with a policy on earthworm cultivation using alien
earthworms. In view of the scarcity of information on
earthworm taxonomy and distributions in South Afri-
ca, the popularity of earthworm cultivation for com-
post, and accidental introductions through trade in
soil and soil products, the group took a precautionary
approach and declined to provide support to this en-
terprise. These discussions led to: (i) group members
conducting an intensive sampling and mapping project
of earthworm distributions in the Western Cape and
KwaZulu-Natal; (ii) the formation of the Soil Ecosystem
Research Group, a distributed network of South Afri-
can researchers working on soil ecosystem and health;
and (iii) the commissioning of a post-graduate research
project on the threats, opportunities, costs and benefits
of earthworm cultivation in South Africa. Unfortunate-
ly most of the research questions remain unanswered,
and there is still a pressing need for foundational work
to be conducted on alien earthworms in South Africa.
A vibrant, productive
community of practice
It is important to note that many of the questions posed
to the CAPE IAAWG needed to be answered through
original research, for example by post-graduate stu-
dents as part of their degree projects. In some cases
the time taken to complete these projects is perceived
as slowing down control operations, but it also ensures
that the approaches that are finally used are fully tested
and documented before they are implemented. This
was a critical factor in the Invasive Fish Project, as the
high output of scientific research projects confirmed
that the Rondegat River rehabilitation project had been
a conservation success, not a conservation disaster as
some project critics feared it would be.
The diversity of perspectives in the working group pro-
vides those working in implementing agencies with
the chance to solicit feedback on operational issues
and discuss and consider bigger picture issues beyond
their day-to-day concerns. In some cases, the feedback
from working group members confirms that decision
makers were already making appropriate and valued
decisions, which is a very important, though hard to
measure, component of building an effective commu-
nity of practice. Pivotal to this was the development
of trust between group members, and how this led to
respect of the pressures and challenges of their different
roles, facilitated by the person-to-person meetings of
the group.
For researchers in the working group, the discussions
provide valuable material for identifying research proj-
ects and anchoring them in real-world needs and prior-
ities. When students working on invasive alien animal
projects attend CAPE IAAWG meetings in person, they
receive input, feedback and suggestions on the ap-
plied aspects of their work, as well as exposure to real
world issues and insight into policy and management.
Students also realise the importance of practical issues
that need to be considered when research results are
implemented. Their perspective on their work is broad-
ened to include issues that many researchers do not be-
come aware of until much later in their careers. Three
post-graduate student research projects [Mallard Duck
hybridisation with the native Yellow-billed Duck in
Cape Town (Stephens et al. 2020); spread and adapta-
tions of the guttural toad in the Western Cape (Vimerca-
ti et al. 2017a; 2017b; 2018; 2019); and the feasibility
of marine eradications in South Africa with European
shore crabs as a case study (Mabin et al. 2015; 2017;
2020)] have arisen from the working group. These proj-
ects were supervised by working group members and
the students participated in the working group for the
duration of their projects.
According to Dana et al. (2019), unsuccessful invasive
alien animal control projects showed five character-
istics: (i) the absence of funding during the necessary
time to achieve the goals; (ii) the risk of reinvasion; (iii)
an insufficient removal rate to achieve the specific ob-
jective; (iv) the absence of evidence reporting that the
methodology applied is effective; and (v) the lack of
adaptation of methodology to the expected population
changes. The activities of the CAPE IAAWG helped to
mitigate items (iii), (iv) and (v), but items (i) and (ii) are
more challenging and lie partly beyond its remit. Bios-
ecurity personnel working at a provincial and national
level are increasingly involved in the working group,
and this will ultimately help to address new invasions
and the risk of re-invasion. Funding levels remain a seri-
ous challenge, as do the procedures required to release
funds continuously and/or at short notice.
Support to implementers
The working group plays an important role in pro-
viding knowledge-based and logistical support to
Page 14 of 24
| Original research
| Open access
http://abcjournal.org |
implementing agents (CapeNature, City of Cape Town,
SANParks). For example, several of the control projects
mentioned above (e.g. guttural toad control) were un-
dertaken by private consultants, who, though skilled, do
not always have an in-depth knowledge of the species
being tackled at the commencement of a project. Con-
tact with researchers and students who work on the tar-
get species provides a network of contacts that the im-
plementers can draw on through the project life cycle.
In turn, the information gathered by implementers has
been valuable for later research on the species, which
in turn improved outcomes. The CAPE IAAWG has also
been involved with prioritisation of work programmes,
helping implementers to identify the best approaches.
Having the backing of an evidence-base is invaluable to
decision makers. Personnel who have worked on this
suite of projects are piloting the new techniques for the
control of invasive alien populations of House Crow,
guttural toads and Mallard Ducks. The City of Cape
Town is planning to appoint a permanent professional
officer to manage the House Crow and other invasive
animal species projects, such as the guttural toad and
mallard projects. This step aims to ensure the long-term
sustainability of project activities, including monitoring
invasion pathways and detecting new invasions.
Conclusion
The CAPE IAAWG has played a key role in facilitating
the control of a variety of invasive alien animal species,
and its members feel it has played a vital role in linking
research, management, and policy in a manner acces-
sible to both researchers and implementers. The CAPE
IAAWG is not unique in South Africa, and there are a
variety of working groups that link research, policy and
management at national and regional levels (Davies et
al. 2020). For example, the Marine Alien and Invasive
Species Working Group, the KwaZulu-Natal Invasive
Alien Species Forum, and the Eastern Cape Invasive
Alien Species Forum have specific taxon or geograph-
ic mandates, and a variety of working groups focus on
specific plant taxa such as invasive grasses, Australian
trees and shrubs, and Cactaceae at national levels (Ka-
plan et al. 2017; Visser et al. 2017). The Fynbos Forum
(Gelderblom & Wood 2018) is a GCFR community of
practice with a much broader mandate that includes
natural scientists, researchers, planners, land managers,
landowners and stakeholders and ‘meets annually to
discuss the collaborative production of knowledge that
underpins regional conservation efforts in the fynbos
biome, South Africa’ (https://fynbosforum. org. za/).
Each working group is designed around its particular
context and working arrangements.
While formal quantification of value of the CAPE
IAAWG is presently difficult to achieve, several broadly
applicable lessons are evident:
1. Funding delays can have serious and long-term
consequences for projects that are time-bound;
to some extent the delay between the decision to
control and implementation of a project is normal
as there are inevitable processes that need to be
followed, e.g. to prepare funding applications, to
register drugs or obtain ethical and public approv-
al. However, excessive delays during implementa-
tion are often detrimental.
2. Stakeholder identification and engagement
should be conducted as early as possible and
should have a broad reach to ensure that proj-
ects are correctly designed and employ the most
suitable methods. This is closely linked to point
1 because unnecessary delays during the project
need to be avoided.
3. Ethical and animal welfare are important factors
that should be taken seriously and collaboratively
in the design phase of projects (see points 1 and
2 above).
4. Stability of working group membership both in
terms of organisations and individuals is a key at-
tribute of a successful working group. Each project
needs successful drivers or champions that need
support at difficult times. The model of a stable
core with a larger rotating periphery, who partici-
pate as needed, has worked well for this working
group.
A successful community of practice for inter-disciplinary
work such as invasive species control and management
must have benefits for all parties involved—govern-
ment agencies, NGOs, university researchers and stu-
dents. Specifically, this working group has played an
important role in research becoming translational, in
policy development and implementation and has im-
proved the efficiency and effectiveness of invasive alien
species control projects in the Cape Floral Region. If a
working group is perceived as only serving or contribut-
ing to one institution’s mandate it will quickly dissolve.
Similarly, if there is substantial overlap with other work-
ing groups or forums, it will not be valued. The CAPE
IAAWG fills an important gap between the generation
and application of knowledge as shown by the con-
tinued participation and enthusiasm of members and
support from their employer organisations to do so.
Based on the experiences as outlined in this paper,
working groups like the CAPE IAAWG can help to less-
en the gap between the production of science, the
development of policy, and the implementation of
adaptive management (learning and doing; Knight et
al. 2008), and so have a vital positive impact on con-
servation outcomes. The accumulated insights will be
useful for establishing, building, and maintaining more
such communities of practice.
Page 15 of 24
| Original research
| Open access
http://abcjournal.org |
Acknowledgements
The authors thank all the members of the CAPE Inva-
sive Alien Animals Working Group; Christopher Wilke,
Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural
Development and Sabelo Madlala, Robben Island Mu-
seum. Appreciation is due to the City of Cape Town,
CapeNature and SANParks for hosting the meetings
and to the Natural Resources Management Programme
of the Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (formerly
Working for Water) for funding several of the projects
that yielded success stories and learning points, noting
that this publication does not necessarily represent the
views or opinions of DEFF or its employees.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
All authors conceived the idea of the paper; all authors
edited the manuscript and contributed to written sec-
tions; SJD wrote the article; NJVW, JM and SJD drew
the figures.
Funding
Funding for CAPE IAAWG was supplied by City of Cape
Town, CapeNature and SANParks (hosting meetings),
City of Cape Town (hosting the secretariat) and the DSI-
NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology (research
funding through NRF Grant no. 41313).
Data availability statement
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new
data were created or analysed in this study.
References
Adelle, C., 2019, ‘Creating knowledge democracy in South
Africa: The role of communities of practice’, South African
Journal of Science 115, Art. #5888, 3 pages. https://doi.
org/10.17159/sajs.2019/5888.
Allen, B.L., Allen, L.R., Ballard, G., Drouilly, M., Fleming , P.J.S.,
Hampton, J.O., Hayward, M.W., Kerley, G.I.H., Meek,
P.D., Minniel, L., O’Riain, M.J., Parker, D.M. & Somers
M.J., 2019, ‘Animal welfare considerations for using large
carnivores and guardian dogs as vertebrate biocontrol
tools against other animals’, Biological Conservation 232:
258–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.02.019.
American Veterinary Medical Association, 2013, ‘AVMA
Guidelines for the euthanasia of animals’, 2013 edn. Avail-
able at: https://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Documents/eu-
thanasia.pdf.
Bellingan, T.A., Hugo, S., Woodford, D.J., Gouws, J., Villet,
M.H. & Weyl, O.L.F., 2019, ‘Rapid recovery of macroinver-
tebrates in a South African stream treated with rotenone’,
Hydrobiologia, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-019-3885-z.
Benadé, P.C., Veldtman, R., Samways, M.J. & Roets, F., 2014,
‘Rapid range expansion of the invasive wasp Polistes do-
minula (Hymenoptera: Vespidae: Polistinae) and first re-
cord of parasitoids on this species and the native Polistes
marginalis in the Western Cape Province of South Af-
rica’, African Entomology 22: 220–225, https://doi.
org/10.4001/003.022.0104.
Berruti, A., 1997, House crow, in J.A. Harrison, D.G. Allan,
I.G. Underhill, M. Herremans, A.J. Tree, V. Parker & C.J.
Brown, (eds.), The Atlas of Southern African Birds Vol 2, p.
108, Bird Life South Africa, Johannesburg.
Born, J., Linder, H.P. & Desmet, P., 2007, ‘The Greater Cape
Floristic Region’, Journal of Biogeography 34: 147–162,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2006 01595.x.
Botha, S.A., 1989, ‘Feral Pigs in the Western Cape Province:
Failure of a potentially invasive species’, South African For-
estry Journal 151: 17–25, https://doi.org/10.1080/003821
67.1989.9630500
Caceres-Escobar, H., Kark, S., Atkinson, S.C., Possingham,
H.P. & Davis, K.J., 2019, ‘Integrating local knowledge to
prioritise invasive species management’, People and Na-
ture, https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.27
Carlton, J.T. & Cohen, A.N., 2003, ‘Episodic global disper-
sal in shallow water marine organisms: the case history of
the European shore crabs Carcinus maenas and C. aestu-
arii’, Journal of Biogeography 30: 1809–1820, https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2003.00962.x.
Catalano, A.S., Lyons-White, J., Mills, M.M. & Knight, A.T.,
2019, ‘Learning from published project failures in conser-
vation’, Biological Conservation 238: 108223, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108223.
Colville, J.C., Potts, A.J., Bradshaw, P.L., Measey, G.J., Snijman,
D., Picker, M.D., Procheş, S., Bowie, R.C.K. & Manning,
J.C., 2014, ‘Floristic and faunal Cape biochoria: do they
exist?’ in N. Allsopp, J.F. Colville, G.A. Verboom (eds.), Fyn-
bos: ecology, evolution, and conservation of a megadiverse
region, pp. 73–93, Oxford University Press, UK
Cooper, J.E., 1996, ‘Health studies on the Indian House Crow
(Corvus splendens)’, Avian Pathology 25: 381–386.
Dana, E.D., García-de-Lomas, J., Verloove, F. & Vilà, M. 2019,
‘Common deficiencies of actions for managing invasive
alien species: a decision-support checklist’, NeoBiota 48:
97–112, https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.48.35118.
Davies, S.J., Jordaan, M.S., Karsten, M., Terblanche, J.S.,
Turner, A.A., van Wilgen, N.J., Veldtman, R., Zengeya, T.
& Measey, J., 2020, ‘Experience and lessons from alien
and invasive animal control projects carried out in South
Africa’, in B.W. van Wilgen, J. Measey, D.M. Richardson,
J.R. Wilson, & T. Zengeya (eds.), Biological Invasions in
South Africa, pp. 629–664, Springer, Berlin, https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_22.
Page 16 of 24
| Original research
| Open access
http://abcjournal.org |
De Moor, F.C. & Day, J.A., 2013, ‘Aquatic biodiversity in the
Mediterranean region of South Africa’, Hydrobiologia
2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-013-1488-7.
De Moor, I.J. & Bruton, M.N., 1988, Atlas of alien and translo-
cated indigenous aquatic animals of southern Africa. South
African National Scientific Programmes Report 144, 310
pp.
De Villiers, A., 2006, ‘Bufo gutturalis Power, 1927. Introduced
population’, African Herp News 40: 28–30.
Dean, W.R.J. 2000, ‘Alien birds in southern Africa: what fac-
tors determine success?’ South African Journal of Science
96: 9–14
Ellender, B.R., Wasserman, R.J., Chakona, A., Skelton, P.H. &
Weyl, O.L.F., 2017, ‘A review of the biology and status of
Cape Fold Ecoregion freshwater fishes’, Aquatic Conserva-
tion, https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2730.
Ellender, B.R., Woodford, D.J., Weyl, O.L.F. & Cowx, I.G.,
2014, ‘Managing conflicts arising from fisheries en-
hancements based on non-native fishes in southern Af-
rica’, Journal of Fish Biology 85: 1890–1906, https://doi.
org/10.1111/jfb.12512.
Enquist, C.A., Jackson, S.T., Garfin, G.M., Davis, F.W., Gerber,
L.R., Littell, J.A., Tank, J.L., Terando, A.J., Wall, T.U., Halp-
ern, B., Hiers, J.K., Morelli, T.L., McNie, E., Stephenson,
N.L., Williamson, M.A., Woodhouse, C.A., Yung, L., Brun-
son, M.W., Hall, K.R., Hallet, L.M., Lawson, D.M., Moritz,
M.A., Nydick, K., Pairis, A., Ray, A.J., Regan, C., Safford,
H.D., Schwartz, M.W. & Shaw, M.R., 2017, ‘Foundations
of translational ecology’, Frontiers in Ecology and the Envi-
ronment 15: 541–550, https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1733.
Esler, K.J., Prozesky, H., Sharma, G.P. & McGeoch, M., 2010,
‘How wide is the “knowing–doing” gap in invasion biol-
ogy?’, Biological Invasions 12: 4065–4075, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10530-010-9812-x.
Essl, F., Dullinger, S., Genovesi, P., Hulme, P.E., Jeschke, J.M.,
Katsanevakis, S., Kühn, I., Lenzner, B., Pauchard, A.,
Pyšek, P., Rabitsch, W., Richardson, D.M., Seebens, H.,
Van Kleunen, M., Van der Putten, W.H., Vilà M. & Bacher
S., 2019, ‘A conceptual framework for range-expanding
species that track human-induced environmental change’,
BioScience biz101, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz101.
Evans, T., Kumschick, S. & Blackburn, T.M., 2016, ‘Applica-
tion of the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien
Taxa (EICAT) to a global assessment of alien bird impacts’,
Diversity and Distributions 22: 919–931, https://doi.
org/10.1111/ddi.12464.
Finlayson, B., Schnick, R., Skaar, D., Anderson, J., DeMong,
L., Duffield, D., Horton, W. & Steinkjer, J., 2010, Planning
and standard operating procedures for the use of rotenone
in fish management, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,
Maryland
Fowler, A.C., Eadie, J.M. & Engilis, A., 2009, ‘Identification of
endangered Hawaiian ducks (Anas wyvilliana), introduced
North American mallards (A. platyrhynchos) and their hy-
brids using multilocus genotypes’, Conservation Genetics
10: 1747–1758, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-008-
9778-8.
Foxcroft, L.C., van Wilgen, B.W., Abrahams, B., Esler, K.J.
& Wannenburgh, A., 2020, ‘Knowing–doing continuum
or knowing–doing gap? Information flow between re-
searchers and managers of biological invasions in South
Africa’, in B.W. van Wilgen, J. Measey, D.M. Richardson,
J.R. Wilson, & T. Zengeya (eds.), Biological Invasions in
South Africa, pp. 831–854, Springer, Berlin, https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_28.
Fraser, D. & MacRae, A.M., 2011, ‘Four types of activities that
affect animals: implications for animal welfare science and
animal ethics philosophy’, Animal Welfare 20: 581–590.
Gaertner, M., Larson, B.M., Irlich, U.M., Holmes, P.M., Staf-
ford, L., van Wilgen, B.W. & Richardson, D.M., 2016,
‘Managing invasive species in cities: A framework from
Cape Town, South Africa’, Landscape and Urban Planning
151: 1–9.
Gelderblom, C. & Wood, J. 2018, The Fynbos Forum: Its Im-
pacts and history. The Fynbos Forum, Cape Town. 226 pp.
ISBN: 978-0-620-80362-5
Groom, Q., Desmet, P., Reyserhove, L., Adriaens, T., Old-
oni, D., Vanderhoeven, S., Baskauf, S.J., Chapman, A.,
McGeoch, M., Walls, R., Wieczorek, J., Wilson, J.R.U.,
Zermoglio, P.F.F. & Simpson, A., 2019, ‘Improving Darwin
Core for research and management of alien species’, Bio-
diversity Information Science and Standards 3, e38084.
Hagen, B.L. & Kumschick, S., 2018, ‘The relevance of us-
ing various scoring schemes revealed by an impact assess-
ment of feral mammals’, NeoBiota 38: 37–75. https://doi.
org/10.3897/neobiota.38.23509.
Hawkins, C.L., Bacher, S., Essl, F., Hulme, P.E., Jeschke, J.M.,
Kühn, I., Kumschick, S., Nentwig, W., Pergl, J., Pyšek, P.,
Rabitsch, W., Richardson, D.M., Vilà, M., Wilson, J.R.U.,
Genovesi, P. & Blackburn, T.M., 2015, ‘Framework and
guidelines for implementing the proposed IUCN Environ-
mental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT)’, Diver-
sity and Distributions 21: 1360–1363.
Hofmeyr, M.D. & Baard, E.H.W. 2018, ‘Psammobates geo-
metricus’, The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species:
e. T18398A111553007 https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.
UK.2018-2.RLTS.T18398A111553007.en. Downloaded
on 8 November 2019
Impson, N.D., van Wilgen, B.W. & Weyl, O.L.F., 2013,
‘Co-ordinated approaches to rehabilitating a river ecosys-
tem invaded by alien plants and fish’, South African Journal
of Science 109: 3–6, https://doi.org/10.1590/sajs.2013/
a0041.
Jackson, L., Wilson, J. & Kumschick, S., 2015, ‘The priori-
tisation of invasive alien animal projects by the National
Invasive Animal Forum: Recommendations’. p. 16, De-
partment of Environmental Affairs, South Africa.
Janion-Scheepers, C., Measey, J., Braschler, B., Chown, S.L.,
Coetzee, L., Colville, J.F., Dames, J., Davies, A.B., Davies,
S.J., Davis, A., Dippenaar-Schoeman, A.S., Duffy, G.A.,
Fourie, D., Griffiths, C., Haddad, C.R., Hamer, M., Her-
bert, D., Hugo-Coetzee, E.A., Jacobs, A., Jacobs, K., Jansen
van Rensburg, C., Lamani, S., Lotz, L.N., Louw, S.v.d.M.,
Lyle, R., Malan, A.P., Marais, M., Neethling, J.-A., Nxele,
T., Plisko, D., Prendini, L., Rink, A.N., Swart, A., Theron, P.,
Truter, M., Ueckermann, E., Uys, V.M., Villet, M.H., Wil-
lows-Munro, S. & Wilson, J.R., 2016, ‘Soil biota in a mega-
diverse country: current knowledge and future research
directions in South Africa’. Pedobiologia 59: 129–174,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedobi.2016.03.004.
Joska, M.A. & Branch, G.M. 1986, ‘The European shore crab
– another invader?’, African Wildlife 40: 63–64.
Kaplan, H., Wilson, J.R.U., Klein, H., Henderson, L., Zimmer-
mann, H.G., Manyama, P., Ivey, P., Richardson, D.M. &
Page 17 of 24
| Original research
| Open access
http://abcjournal.org |
Novoa, A., 2017, ‘A proposed national strategic framework
for the management of Cactaceae in South Africa’, Bo-
thalia – African Biodiversity and Conservation 47, a2149.
https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v47i2.2149.
Knight, A.T., Cowling, R.M., Rouget, M., Balmford, A., Lom-
bard, A.T. & Campbell, B.M., 2008, ‘Knowing but not do-
ing: Selecting priority conservation areas and the research–
implementation gap’, Conservation Biology 22: 610–617,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00914.x.
Kumschick, S., Foxcroft, L.C. & Wilson, J.R., 2020, ‘Analysing
the risks posed by biological invasions to South Africa’, in
B.W. van Wilgen, J. Measey, D.M. Richardson, J.R. Wilson,
& T. Zengeya (eds.), Biological Invasions in South Africa, pp.
573–596, Springer, Berlin, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
030-32394-3_20.
Kumschick, S., Vimercati, G., de Villiers, F.A., Mokhatla,
M.M., Davies, S.J., Thorp, C.J., Rebelo, A.D. & Measey,
G.J., 2017, ‘Impact assessment with different scoring
tools: How well do alien amphibian assessments match?’,
NeoBiota 33: 53–66, https://doi.org/10.3897/neobio-
ta.33.10736.
Kumschick, S., Wilson, J.R. & Foxcroft, L.C., 2018, ‘Frame-
work and guidelines for conducting risk analyses for
alien species’, Preprints, https://doi.org/10.20944/pre-
prints201811.200551.v201811.
Leprieur, F., Beauchard, O., Blanchet, S., Oberdorff, T. &
Brosse, S., 2008, ‘Fish invasions in the world’s river sys-
tems: when natural processes are blurred by human activ-
ities’, PLoS Biology 6, e28, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pbio.0060028.
Lester, P.J. & Beggs, J.R., 2019, ‘Invasion success and man-
agement strategies for social Vespula wasps’, Annual Re-
view of Entomology 64: 51–71, https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev-ento-011118-111812.
Liversidge, R. 1985, ‘Alien bird species introduced into south-
ern Africa’, in L.J. Bunning (ed.), Birds and Man Sympo-
sium, Johannesburg 1983, Witwatersrand Bird Club, Jo-
hannesburg
Long, J.L., 1981, Introduced birds of the world: the world-
wide history, distribution and influence of birds introduced
to new environments, London: David and Charles.
Lukey, P. & Hall, J., 2020, ‘Biological invasion policy and
legislation development and implementation in South
Africa’, in B.W. van Wilgen, J. Measey, D.M. Richardson,
J.R. Wilson, & T. Zengeya (eds.), Biological Invasions in
South Africa, pp. 515–552, Springer, Berlin, https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_18.
Mabin, C.A., Wilson, J.R.U. & Robinson, T.B., 2015, ‘The
Chilean black urchin, Tetrapygus niger (Molina, 1782) in
South Africa: gone but not forgotten’, BioInvasions Re-
cords, 4: 261–264.
Mabin, C.A., Wilson, J.R.U., Le Roux, J.J. & Robinson, T.B.,
2017, ‘Reassessing the invasion of South African waters by
the European shore-crab Carcinus maenas’, African Journal
of Marine Science 39: 259–267, https://doi.org/10.2989/1
814232X.2017.1363818.
Mabin, C.A., Wilson, J.R.U., Le Roux, J.J., Majiedt, P. & Rob-
inson, T.B., 2020, ‘The first management of a marine in-
vader in Africa: The importance of trials prior to setting
long-term management goals’, Journal of Environmental
Management 261: 110213, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen-
vman.2020.110213.
Marr, S.M., Bellingan, T., Dalu, T., Impson, D., Jordaan, M.,
Slabbert, E., Gouws, G., Hugo, S., Mofu, L., Khosa, D &
Weyl, O., 2019, ‘Rotenone policy support and capacity
development. Part 1: Impact and recovery of biota in one
river and two dams following alien fish removals using rote-
none’, Water Research Commission Report, TT 780/1/18.
Marr, S.M., Impson, N.D. & Tweddle, D., 2012, ‘An assess-
ment of a proposal to eradicate non-native fish from prior-
ity rivers in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa’, African
Journal of Aquatic Science 37: 131–142, https://doi.org/10
.2989/16085914.2012.666654.
McIlroy, J.C. & Gifford, E.J., 1997, ‘The Judas pig technique:
a method that could enhance control programmes against
feral pigs, Sus scrofa’, Wildlife Research 2: 483–491.
Measey, J., Annecke, W., Davies, S., Dorse, C., Stafford, L.,
Tolley, K. & Turner, A., 2014, ‘Cape collaborations for am-
phibian solutions’, FrogLog 109: 46–47.
Measey, J., Davies, S.J., Vimercati, G., Rebelo, A., Schmidt,
W. & Turner, A., 2017, ‘Invasive amphibians in southern
Africa: A review of invasion pathways’, Bothalia – Afri-
can Biodiversity and Conservation 47, a2117. https://doi.
org/10.4102/abc.v47i2.2117.
Measey, J., Hui, C. & Somers, M. 2020, ‘Terrestrial vertebrate
invasions in South Africa’, in B.W. van Wilgen, J. Measey,
D.M. Richardson, J.R. Wilson, & T. Zengeya (eds.), Bio-
logical Invasions in South Africa, pp. 787–830, Springer,
Berlin, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_27.
National Environmental Management Act (Act No. 107
of 1998), 1998, Government Gazette of South Africa
401(19519), 1-72. Available at: https://www.environment.
gov.za/sites/default/files/legislations/nema_amendment_
act107_0.pdf.
National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act
No. 10 of 2004), 2004, Government Gazette of South Af-
rica 467(26436), 2-84. Available at: https://www.environ-
ment.gov.za/sites/default/files/legislations/nema_amend-
ment_act10_0.pdf.
National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, Alien
and Invasive Species Regulations, 2014, Government
Gazette of South Africa 590(37885), 1–32. Available at:
https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/legisla-
tions/nemba10of2004_alienandinvasive_speciesregula-
tions_0.pdf.
National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act,
Alien and Invasive Species Lists 2016, Government Ga-
zette of South Africa 613(40166), 31-104. Available at:
https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/ga-
zetted_notices/nemba10of2004_alienandinvasive_spe-
cieslists2016_0.pdf
Novoa, A., Dehnen-Schmutz, K., Fried, J. & Vimercati, G.,
2017, ‘Does public awareness increase support for inva-
sive species management? Promising evidence across taxa
and landscape types’, Biological invasions 19: 3691–3705,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1592-0.
Novoa, A., Shackleton, R., Canavan, S., Cybèle, C., Davies,
S.J., Dehnen-Schmutz, K., Fried, J., Gaertner, M., Geerts,
S., Griffiths, C.L., Kaplan, H., Kumschick, S., Le Maitre,
D.C., Measey, G.J., Nunes, A.L., Richardson, D.M., Rob-
inson, T.B., Touza, J. & Wilson, J.R.U., 2018, ‘A framework
for engaging stakeholders on the management of alien
species’, Journal of Environmental Management 205: 286–
297, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.09.059.
Page 18 of 24
| Original research
| Open access
http://abcjournal.org |
Nyári, A., Ryall, C. & Peterson, P. 2006, ‘Global invasive
potential of the house crow Corvus splendens based on
ecological niche modelling’, Journal of Avian Biology 37:
306–311.
Nxele, T.C., Lamani, S., Measey, G.J., Armstrong, A.J., Plisko,
J.D., Willows-Munro, S., Janion-Scheepers, C. & Wilson,
J.R.U., 2015, ‘Studying earthworms (Annelida: Oligochae-
ta) in South Africa’, African Invertebrates 56: 779–806,
https://doi.org/10.5733/afin.056.0319.
Oatley, T.B., 1973, ‘Indian house crow – first SA sightings’,
Bokmakierie 25: 41–42.
O’Hare, J.R., Eisemann, J.D., Fagerstone, K.A., Koch, L.L. &
Seamans, T.W., 2007, ‘Use of alpha-chloralose by USDA
Wildlife Services to immobilize birds’, USDA National
Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications 769: 1–11.
Owen, M., Callaghan, D. & Kirby, J., 2006, Guidelines on
avoidance of introductions of non-native waterbird species,
Bonn: UNEP/AEWA Secretariat.
Plisko, J.D. & Nxele, T.C., 2015, An annotated key separat-
ing foreign earthworm species from the indigenous South
African taxa (Oligochaeta: Acanthodrilidae, Eudrilidae,
Glossoscolecidae, Lumbricidae, Megascolecidae, Micro-
chaetidae, Ocnerodrilidae and Tritogeniidae), African In-
vertebrates 56: 663–708.
Plisko, J.D., 2001, ‘Notes on the occurrence of the intro-
duced earthworm Pontoscolex corethrurus (Müller, 1857)
in South Africa (Oligochaeta: Glossoscolecidae)’, African
Invertebrates 42: 323–334.
R Core Team, 2018, ‘R: A language and environment for sta-
tistical computing’, R Foundation for Statistical Comput-
ing, Vienna, Austria, URL https://www.R-project.org/.
Rhymer, J.M., Williams, M.J. & Braun, M.J., 1994, ‘Mitochon-
drial analysis of gene flow between New Zealand mallards
(Anas platyrhynchos) and grey ducks (A. superciliosa)’, The
Auk 111, 970–978, https://doi.org/10.2307/4088829.
Ryall, C., 2016, ‘Further records and updates of range ex-
pansion in House Crow Corvus splendens’, Bulletin of the
British Ornithologists’ Club 136: 39–45.
Robinson, T.B., Peters, K. & Brooker, B., 2020, ‘Coastal inva-
sions: The South African context’, in B.W. van Wilgen, J.
Measey, D.M. Richardson, J.R. Wilson, & T. Zengeya (eds.),
Biological Invasions in South Africa, pp. 229–248, Springer,
Berlin, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_9.
SANBI, 2019, ‘Risk analysis of Vespula germanica (Fabricius,
1973) for South Africa’, Approved by the South African
Alien Species Risk Analysis Review Panel on 30 April 2019,
19 pages.
SANBI, unpublished, ‘Risk analysis of Anas platyrhynchos
(Linnaeus, 1758) for South Africa as per the risk analysis
of alien taxa framework v1.1’, approved by the South Afri-
can Alien Species Risk Analysis Review Panel on 19 March
2020, pp 23. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3716165.
Schlesinger, W.H., 2010, ‘Translational ecology’, Science 329:
609–609, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1195624.
Shackleton, R.T., Novoa, A., Shackleton, C.M. & Kull, C.A.,
2020, ‘The social dimensions of biological invasions in
South Africa’, in B.W. van Wilgen, J. Measey, D.M. Richard-
son, J.R. Wilson, & T. Zengeya (eds.), Biological Invasions
in South Africa, pp. 701–732, Springer, Berlin, https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_24.
Shelton, J.M., Samways, M.J. & Day, J.A., 2015, ‘Predatory
impact of non-native rainbow trout on endemic fish pop-
ulations in headwater streams of the Cape Floristic Region
of South Africa’, Biological Invasions 37: 365–379, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10530-014-0735-9.
Skead, C.J., Boshoff, A., Kerley, G.I.H. & Lloyd, P., 2011,’ In-
troduced (non-indigenous) species: A growing threat to
biodiversity’, in C.J. Skead, A. Boshoff, G.I.H. Kerley & P.
Lloyd (eds.), Volume 1: Historical Incidence of the Larg-
er Land Mammals in the Broader Northern and Western
Cape, pp. 468–487, Centre for African Conservation Ecol-
ogy, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port Eliza-
beth, South Africa
South African Bird Atlas Project 2, 2019, ‘Duck, Mallard
(Anas platyrhynchos)’, Available from: http://sabap2.adu.
org.za/species/1016#pgcontent.
Spear, D. & Chown, S.L., 2009, ‘Non-indigenous ungulates
as a threat to biodiversity’, Journal of Zoology 279, 1–17,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2009.00604.x.
Stafford, L., 2010, ‘Mallard Strategy for South Africa’, Avail-
able online: http://www.wingshooters.co.za/pdf/National-
MallardStrategy-May10.pdf.
Stephens, K., Measey, J., Reynolds, C. & Le Roux, J.J., 2020,
‘Occurrence and extent of hybridization between the
invasive Mallard Duck and native Yellow-billed Duck in
South Africa’, Biological Invasions 22, 693–707, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10530-019-02122-6.
Telford, N., Channing, A. & Measey, J., 2019, ‘Origin of inva-
sive populations of the guttural toad Sclerophrys guttura-
lis’, Herpetological Conservation & Biology 14: 380–392.
Tweddle, D., Bills, R., Swartz, E., Coetzer, W., Da Costa, L.,
Engelbrecht, J., Cambray, J., Marshall, B., Impson, D., Skel-
ton, P., Darwall, W. & Smith, K., 2009, ‘The status and dis-
tribution of freshwater fishes’, in W. Darwall, K. Smith, D.
Tweddle & P. Skelton (eds.), The Status and Distribution of
Freshwater Biodiversity in Southern Africa. IUCN Red List
of Threatened Species, Regional Assessment, pp. 21–37.
Van Wilgen, B.W. & Wilson, J.R. (eds.), 2018, The status of
biological invasions and their management in South Afri-
ca in 2017, South African National Biodiversity Institute,
Kirstenbosch and DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for In-
vasion Biology, Stellenbosch, ISBN: 978-1-928224-18-1.
420 pp.
Van Zyl, C., Addison, P. & Veldtman, R., 2018, ‘The invasive
Vespidae in South Africa: potential management strate-
gies and current status’, African Entomology 26: 267–285,
https://doi.org/10.4001/003.026.0267.
Veldtman, R., Addison, P. & Tribe, G.D., 2012, ‘Current status
and potential future impact of invasive vespid wasps (Ves-
pula germanica and Polistes dominulus) in South Africa’,
IOBC/wprs Bulletin 75, 217–21.
Vimercati, G., Davies, S.J., Hui, C. & Measey, G.J., 2017a,
‘Does restricted access limit management of invasive ur-
ban frogs?’, Biological Invasions https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10530-017-1599-6.
Vimercati, G., Hui, C., Davies, S.J. & Measey, G.J. 2017b,
‘Integrating age structured and landscape resistance mod-
els to disentangle invasion dynamics of a pond-breeding
anuran’, Ecological Modelling 356, 104–116. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2017.03.017
Vimercati, G., Davies, S.J. & Measey, J., 2018, ‘Rapid adaptive
response to a mediterranean environment reduces pheno-
typic mismatch in a recent amphibian invader’, Journal of
Experimental Biology https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.174797.
Page 19 of 24
| Original research
| Open access
http://abcjournal.org |
Vimercati, G., Davies, S.J. & Measey, J., 2019, ‘Invasive toads
adopt marked capital breeding when introduced to a cool-
er, more seasonal environment’, Biological Journal of the
Linnean Society https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blz119.
Visser, V., Wilson, J.R.U., Canavan, K., Canavan, S., Fish, L., Le
Maitre, D., Nänni, I., Mashau, C., O’Connor, T.G., Ivey, P.,
Kumschick, S. & Richardson, D.M., 2017, ‘Grasses as inva-
sive plants in South Africa revisited: patterns, pathways and
management’, Bothalia – African Biodiversity and Conser-
vation 47, a2169. https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v47i2.2169.
Weyl, O.L.F., Finlayson, B., Impson, N.D., Woodford, D.J. &
Steinkjer, J., 2014, ‘Threatened endemic fishes in South
Africa’s Cape Floristic Region: a new beginning for the
Rondegat River’, Fisheries 39: 270–279, https://doi.org/1
0.1080/03632415.2014.914924.
Weyl, O.L.F., Ellender, B.R., Woodford, D.J. & Jordaan, M.S.,
2013, ‘Fish distributions in the Rondegat River, Cape Flo-
ristic Region, South Africa, and the immediate impact of
rotenone treatment in an invaded reach’, African Journal
of Aquatic Science 28: 201–209, https://doi.org/10.2989/
16085914.2012.753401.
Weyl, O.L.F., Finlayson, B., Impson, N.D., Woodford, D.J. &
Steinkjer, J., 2014, ‘Threatened endemic fishes in South
Africa’s Cape Floristic Region: a new beginning for the
Rondegat River’, Fisheries 39: 270–279, https://doi.org/1
0.1080/03632415.2014.914924.
Weyl, O.L.F., Ellender, B.R., Wassermann, R.J., Truter, M.,
Dalu, T., Zengeya, T.A. & Smit, N.J., 2020, ‘Alien freshwa-
ter fauna in South Africa’, in B.W. van Wilgen, J. Measey,
D.M. Richardson, J.R. Wilson, & T. Zengeya (eds.), Bio-
logical Invasions in South Africa, pp. 153–184, Springer,
Berlin, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_6.
Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., McGowan,
L.D., François, R., Grolemund, G., Hayes, A., Henry, L.,
Hester, J., Kuhn, M., Pedersen, T.L., Miller, E., Bache, S.M.,
Müller, K., Ooms, J., Robinson, D., Seidel, D.P., Spinu, V.,
Takahashi, K., Vaughan, D., Wilke, C., Woo, K. & Yutani, H.,
2019, ‘Welcome to the tidyverse’, Journal of Open Source
Software 4, 1686, https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686.
Wilson J.R., Panetta F.D. & Lindgren C., 2017, Detecting
and responding to alien plant incursions, Cambridge
University Press, UK, 265 pp., https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9781316155318.
Wilson, J.R.U., Faulkner, K.T., Rahlao, S.J., Richardson, D.M.,
Zengeya, T.A. & van Wilgen, B.W., 2018, ‘Indicators
for monitoring biological invasions at a national level’,
Journal of Applied Ecology 55: 2612–2620, https://doi.
org/10.1111/1365-2664. 13251.
Wilson, J.R.U., Ivey, P., Manyama, P. & Nänni, I., 2013, ‘A new
national unit for invasive species detection, assessment
and eradication planning’, South African Journal of Science
109, Art. #0111, 13 pages, http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/
sajs.2013/20120111.
Woodford, D.J., Impson, N.D., Day, J.A. & Bills, I.R., 2005,
‘The predatory impact of invasive alien Smallmouth Bass,
Micropterus dolomieu (Teleostei: Centrarchidae), on in-
digenous fishes in a Cape Floristic Kingdom mountain
stream’, African Journal of Aquatic Science 30: 167–173,
https://doi.org/10.2989/16085910509503852.
Yeld, J., 2010, ‘City declares war on house crows . . . again.
Cash awaited for project to eliminate “pests”’, Cape Argus
2010 August 19.
Zengeya, T.A. & Wilson, J.R. (Eds.), 2020, 'The status of bi-
ological invasions and their management in South Africa
in 2019'. South African National Biodiversity Institute,
Kirstenbosch and DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Inva-
sion Biology, Stellenbosch, https://doi.org/10.5281/zeno-
do.3947613
Page 20 of 24
| Original research
| Open access
http://abcjournal.org |
Supplementary material
Appendix 1: Goals and objectives of the CAPE invasive species strategy
Goal 1: Invasive Alien Species in the Great-
er CFR managed within appropriate policy
and legislative frameworks.
Objective: Ensure that the management of invasive species in the
Greater CFR is consistent with the relevant legislation.
Goal 2: Actions of all role-players harmon-
ised through strategic planning.
Objective: Provide a framework for a coherent regional action plan
through the prioritisation of invasive species management at appro-
priate scales.
Goal 3: Appropriate awareness raising,
institutional arrangements and capacity
building implemented.
Objective: Raise awareness and increase buy-in to combat the in-
vasive species problem; improve institutional arrangements for in-
vasive species management in the Greater CFR; build institutional
capacity in the Greater CFR to address invasive species problems
and improve invasive species management.
Goal 4: Introduction and establishment of
new invasive species prevented through
early detection and rapid response.
Objective: Prevent the intentional and/or unintentional introduc-
tion of invasive species and prevent new invasive species establish-
ing or spreading through early detection and rapid
Goal 5: Impact of existing invasive species
reduced through the implementation of in-
tegrated control measures.
Objective: Give effect to the obligations on landowners i.t.o. NEM-
BA Chapter 5; incorporate invasive species management into all
land use decisions.
Goal 6: Adaptive management is informed
by research, monitoring and evaluation.
Objective: Implement invasive species monitoring, evaluation and
research programmes to enhance invasive species management.
Page 21 of 24
| Original research
| Open access
http://abcjournal.org |
Appendix 2: CAPE Invasive Alien Animal Working
Group Terms of Reference (2018)
1. Preamble
A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was entered
into in September 2001 with government depart-
ments, municipalities, statutory bodies and accredited
non-governmental organisations that will carry out the
vision of C. A. P. E. This TOR is entered into under the
CAPE MOU and establishes the C. A. P. E. Invasive An-
imal Working Group (C. A. P. E. IAA WG), the Terms of
Reference (TOR) of which is elaborated here. Provision
is also made here for the future of this working group
after the expiry of the CAPE project as it fulfills a func-
tion that is not time bound.
2. Purpose
The C. A. P. E. IAA WG was established to enhance
cooperation and synergy amongst stakeholders and
implementing agents through strategic planning, mon-
itoring progress and developing case studies to inform
best practice of invasive alien animal species (IAAS)
management in the Greater CFR. Until the end of 2020
the scope of the WG includes the Greater CFR but will
expand to cover the Western Cape Province thereafter.
The C. A. P. E. IAA WG will endeavor to monitor the
impact of IAS control operations based on information
provided by implementing agents.
The business of the C. A. P. E IAA WG includes the co-
ordination of activities covering the following areas as
they relate to IAAS and IAAS management:
•Knowledge sharing;
•Research, monitoring and evaluation;
•Awareness and capacity-building;
•Information dissemination;
•Prevention;
•Early detection and rapid response;
•Policy and best practice;
•Funding;
•Prioritizing projects.
The C. A. P. E IAA WG provides a forum for the ex-
change of views on the means of implementing best
practice in the field of IAAS management for the pur-
pose of facilitating and improving IAAS management.
Specific collaborative activities shall be carried out in
accordance with the C. A. P. E. MOU and relevant
legislation.
The C. A. P. E IAA WG is not intended to replace, in-
hibit or duplicate activities of other organizations or
agreements.
3. Objectives
The C. A. P. E. IAA WG aims to achieve the following
objectives:
•Share expert IAAS knowledge amongst institutions to
improve implementation and alignment;
•Mobilise and/or lobby support for IAAS management
programmes;
•Identify and prioritise research requirements and
priority management interventions;
•Communicate research outcomes for implementa-
tion;
•Monitor implementation of IA strategic actions;
•Facilitate development and standardization of IAAS
Policy;
•Harmonize policy towards dealing with IAAS with
other provinces and working groups through rele-
vant forums.
4. Structure
The C. A. P. E IAA WG consists of stakeholder represen-
tatives from appropriate tertiary, conservation, institu-
tions and organs of state.
Membership of the C. A. P. E IAA WG will be issued to
appropriate stakeholders who must send and appoint
representatives for each meeting or activity of the WG.
There shall be a chairperson elected every two years by
the members.
The election shall take place via an electronic ballot.
Members will be given ten working days to cast their
votes. After his period the person receiving the greatest
number of votes will appointed chairperson.
The importance of consultation with other agencies
and organisations is recognised. Representatives from
specific academic institutions and conservation agen-
cies may be invited to participate in technical discus-
sions but will not become members of the C. A. P. E
IAA WG. They may, however, become members of a
working group established for a specific area of exper-
tise or project.
The participating institutions commit to implementing
decisions of the C. A. P. E IAA WG.
Page 22 of 24
| Original research
| Open access
http://abcjournal.org |
Meetings of the CAPE IAA WG
The chairperson shall be responsible for organising
meetings of the IAA WG and appointing meeting chairs
when required.
The IAA WG shall endeavor to meet at least twice a
year.
Minutes shall be prepared and provided to C. A. P.
E IAA WG members within two weeks following the
meeting. Secretarial support for these meetings is the
responsibility of the chairperson.
5. Exchange of Information
Information shall be exchanged during IAA WG meet-
ings by means of discussions, presentations, documenta-
tion attached to the minutes, or formalised and focused
workshops to address particular issues of concern. The
participants are responsible for disseminating informa-
tion to their organisations and local stakeholders.
6. Status
This TOR constitutes guiding principles to coordinate
C. A. P. E IAA WG activities between the participants.
Any collaborative activities identified for investigation
by the C. A. P. E IAA WG will be pursued in accordance
with the terms and provisions of the C. A. P. E. MOU.
7. Effective Date.
This updated and amended TOR for the C. A. P. E IAA
WG becomes effective on 1st of June 2018 and remains
in effect until April 2022, unless terminated or extended
by the by mutual written consent of the C. A. P. E IAA
WG participants to accommodate the termination of
the CAPE MOU and new priorities that may arise.
8. Denitions and Acronyms.
Definitions
Participants: Individuals representing their institutions
in sharing and participating in the activities of the
WG.
Partnership: A formal agreement between two or more
parties that have agreed to work together in the
pursuit of common goals.
Implementing agents: Government institutions imple-
menting Invasive Animal projects in the Greater
CFR.
Acronyms and abbreviations
C. A. P. E. IAA WG . . .CAPE Invasive Animal Working
Group
C. A. P. E. . . . . . . . . . .Cape Action Plan for People
and the Environment
CFR . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cape Floristic Region
CIB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .DSI-NRF/Centre of Excellence
Centre for Invasion Biology
Greater CFR. . . . . . . .Cape Floristic Region including
the rest of the Western Cape
Province
IAAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Invasive Animal Species
IAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Invasive Alien Species
MOU . . . . . . . . . . . . .Memorandum of Understanding
SANBI . . . . . . . . . . . .South African National Biodi-
versity Institute
TOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Terms of Reference
WG . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Working Group
PARTICIPANTS
Institution Signature Date
….…………………………..….……… ….……………………………………………….. ……………….
….…………………………..….……… ….……………………………………………….. ……………….
….…………………………..….……… ….……………………………………………….. ……………….
….…………………………..….……… ….……………………………………………….. ……………….
….…………………………..….……… ….……………………………………………….. ……………….
….…………………………..….……… ….……………………………………………….. ……………….
….…………………………..….……… ….……………………………………………….. ……………….
….…………………………..….……… ….……………………………………………….. ……………….
Page 23 of 24
| Original research
| Open access
http://abcjournal.org |
Page 24 of 24
Appendix 3: Institutional attendance at CAPE IAAWG meetings.
Institution codes: 1. CapeNature; 2. Centre for Invasion Biology; 3. City of Cape Town; 4. Dept. Environment Affairs (now Dept. Envi-
ronment, Forestry and Fisheries); 5. Department of Agriculture; 6. Eastern Cape Parks & Tourism Agency; 7. Intaka Island; 8. NCC
Environmental Services; 9. Nelson Mandela University; 10. Private; 11. Robben Island Museum; 12. South African Institute for Aquat-
ic Biodiversity; 13. South African National Biodiversity Institute; 14. South African National Parks; 15. SPCA; 16. University of Cape
Town; 17. University of the Western Cape; 18. Visiting Scientist; 19. Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa.