The Status of Biological Invasions and Their Management in South Africa in 2019 [FIRST ORDER DRAFT]

The Status of Biological Invasions and their Management in South Africa in 2019 [FIRST ORDER DRAFT]

1 Note to reader: We are inviting you to submit comments, corrections, and queries on this second 2 status report on biological invasions1. We have prepared a standard form for commenting that you 3 can fill in if you wish, but if you would prefer to send in your inputs in your own format, please indicate 4 the page and line numbers to which your comment refers. The first report was comprehensive, this 5 report is an update (see the supplementary material for a plan on when the next comprehensive 6 report will be produced). Many of the technical details (and data on which the report is based like the 7 list of alien species) are available in the supplementary appendices Please also consider commenting 8 on these. If you are in a position to provide additional information, we would be very grateful, and 9 will aim to ensure all contributors are appropriately acknowledged. If you do not wish to be named, 10 please let us know. We would like as many people and organisations to make inputs as possible, so 11 please pass the report on to anyone you think might be able to contribute. We will capture all 12 comments received during this commenting period and our responses to them in a database that will 13 be available on request once the report has been released.

14 Comments to be sent to: Monica Klaas ([email protected])

15 By: Thursday 17 February 2020

16 Form for commenting: Appendix 5

17 This is a “first order draft”. It outlines the format and sections of the intended report, and provides 18 some preliminary findings, but many of the estimates of indicator values will change as a result of 19 ongoing analysis, and because of inputs received during this review period. Therefore the results 20 should not be viewed as indicative. They are simply demonstrative of what the final report will look 21 like. Notes are added to the text to indicate where additional analyses are pending.

22 Thank you in advance for your comments, this report relies on the active participation of a wide range 23 of stakeholders, and we appreciate you taking the time to engage with us.

24 Yours sincerely,

26 Dr Tsungai Zengeya (on behalf of the second status report drafting team)

27 Kirstenbosch, Wednesday 17 December 2019

1 For reference, the first status report is available to download at https://www.sanbi.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/11/National-Status-Report-web-6MB.pdf.

28 Citing this publication 29 30 For citations in the scientific literature: Zengeya, T.A. & Wilson, J.R. (Eds.), 2019. The status of 31 biological invasions and their management in South Africa in 2019 [FIRST ORDER DRAFT]. South African 32 National Biodiversity Institute, Kirstenbosch and DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology, 33 Stellenbosch. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3582036 34 35 For citations in policy documents: SANBI and CIB 2019. The status of biological invasions and their 36 management in South Africa in 2019 [FIRST ORDER DRAFT]. South African National Biodiversity 37 Institute, Kirstenbosch and DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch. 38 http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3582036 39 40 ISBN: to be included in the final report 41 42 Lead editors: Tsungai A. Zengeya1, 2, John R. Wilson1, 3 43 44 Chapter lead authors: Katelyn T. Faulkner1, 2, Tendamudzimu Munyai1, Marthán Theart1, Brian W. 45 van Wilgen3, John R. Wilson1, 3, & Tsungai A. Zengeya1, 2 46 47 With contributions from: Xoliswa Ndeleni1, Anja Le Grange1, Ruqaya Adams1, Pieter Winter1, 48 Siyasanga Miza1, Lesley Henderson4, Oupa Chauke5, Bernard Ndou5, Khathutshelo Nelukalo5, Musa 49 Mlambo6, Nonkazimulo Mdidimba6, Trudy Paap7,… 50 51 1South African National Biodiversity Institute 52 2DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology, Department of Zoology and Entomology, University 53 of Pretoria 54 3DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology, Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch 55 University 56 4Plant Protection Research Institute, Agricultural Research Council 57 5Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries 58 6Albany Museum 59 7Department of Biochemistry, Genetics and Microbiology, Forestry and Agricultural Biotechnology 60 Institute, University of Pretoria 61

63 Contents

64 Preface by SANBI CEO ...... 5 65 List of acronyms...... 5 66 Glossary ...... 6 67 Executive summary ...... 10 68 Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 13 69 1.1 The importance of biological invasions to South Africa ...... 13 70 1.2 The mandate and purpose of the status report ...... 13 71 1.3 Process for the compilation of the second report ...... 15 72 1.4 Indicators used, updating the species list, and tracking change ...... 19 73 1.5 Aspects of biological invasions that are not covered ...... 20 74 Chapter 2: Pathways ...... 21 75 2.1. Introduction pathway prominence ...... 21 76 2.2. Introduction rates ...... 22 77 2.3. Within-country pathway prominence ...... 25 78 2.4. Within-country dispersal rates ...... 26 79 Chapter 3: Species ...... 27 80 3.1 Number and status of alien species ...... 27 81 3.2 Extent of alien species ...... 28 82 3.3 Abundance of alien species...... 29 83 3.4 Impact of alien species ...... 29 84 Chapter 4: Sites...... 32 85 4.1 Alien species richness ...... 32 86 4.2 Relative invasive abundance ...... 34 87 4.3 Impact of invasions ...... 35 88 Chapter 5: Control measures ...... 36 89 5.1 Input—money spent ...... 36 90 5.2 Input—planning coverage ...... 37 91 5.3 Output—pathways treated ...... 38 92 5.4 Output—species treated ...... 38 93 5.5 Output—sites treated ...... 39 94 5.6 Outcome—effectiveness of pathway treatments ...... 40 95 5.7 Outcome—effectiveness of species treatments ...... 40 96 5.8 Outcome—effectiveness of site treatments ...... 41 97 Chapter 6: Regulations ...... 44 98 6.1 Input—quality of the regulatory framework ...... 44 99 6.2 The regulation of pathways ...... 45 100 6.3 The listing and permitting of species ...... 45 101 6.4 The regulation of sites ...... 48 102 6.5 Compliance and enforcement ...... 50 103 Chapter 7: Gaps ...... 53 104 Acknowledgements ...... 56 105 References ...... 56 106 Link to supplementary material and appendices ...... 62 107 108 [Note: the following will be on separate pages in the actual report, but is compressed here to save 109 space for those printing]

110 Preface by SANBI CEO

111 [Note: a preface will be drafted and finalised by 3 June 2019. The preface will outline the purpose of 112 report, the scope, legal requirement, principal findings, and their implications.]

113 List of acronyms

114 [Note: this is largely as per the first report. It will be updated and any acronyms not used more than 115 a few times will be removed / any new ones added] 116 117 ADU – Animal Demography Unit (University of Cape Town) 118 ASRARP - Alien Species Risk Analysis Review Panel 119 A&IS – Alien and Invasive Species (as referred to in the regulations published under the auspices of 120 the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act). 121 CBD – Convention on Biological Diversity of the United Nations 122 BODATSA – Botanical Database of Southern Africa 123 BRAHMS – Botanical Research and Herbarium Management Software (see 124 http://newposa.sanbi.org/). 125 CARA - Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act 126 CAPRA - Corrective Action and Preventive Actions in Risk Assessment 127 CIB – Centre for Invasion Biology (the DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology) 128 CFR – Cape Floristic Region 129 CPS – Cape Piscatorial Society 130 DAFF – Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 131 DALRRD – Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development 132 DEA – Department of Environmental Affairs 133 DEFF – Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries 134 DOT – Department of Transport 135 DST – Department of Science and Technology 136 EICAT – Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa 137 EPPO – European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization 138 FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 139 GBIF – Global Biodiversity Information Facility 140 GDP – Gross Domestic Product 141 GEO BON - Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network 142 GRNP – Garden Route National Park 143 HiP – Hluhluwe iMfolozi Park 144 IAP – Invasive alien plant 145 IAS – Invasive alien species 146 IMO –International Maritime Organisation 147 IPPC - International Plant Protection Convention 148 ISP – Invasive Species Programme 149 IUCN – International Union for Conservation of Nature 150 KNP – Kruger National Park 151 MAR – Mean Annual Runoff 152 NEMA -National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) 153 NEM:BA – National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004) 154 NPPO – National Plant Protection Organization 155 NRF – National Research Foundation 156 NRM – Natural Resource Management (a division of the Department of Environmental Affairs)

157 PEI – Prince Edward Islands 158 QDGC – Quarter-Degree Grid Cell 159 SAIAB – South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity 160 SANBI – South African National Biodiversity Institute 161 SANParks – South African National Parks 162 SANRAL – South African National Roads Agency 163 SAPIA – Southern African Plant Invaders Atlas 164 SASRI – South African Sugarcane Research Institute 165 SARS – South African Revenue Service 166 SEICAT – Socio-Economic Impact Classification for Alien Taxa 167 SUSPECT – Species Under Surveillance - Possible Eradication or Containment Targets 168 UN – United Nations 169 USD – United States Dollars 170 WCTA - Western Cape Trout Association 171 WfW – Working for Water 172 WIMS – Working for Water information management system 173 ZAR – South African Rands

174 Glossary

175 [Note: this is as per the first report, this will be updated in subsequent drafts] 176 These definitions are based on those in Richardson et al. (2011), and Wilson et al. (2017b), with 177 consideration of definitions given in relevant South African legislation [specifically the National 178 Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act no. 10 of 2004), Alien and Invasive Species 179 (A&IS) Regulations, 2016]. 180 • Abundance (cf. distribution, extent): a measure of the number of individuals, coverage, or 181 biomass of an organism in a specified area. 182 • Alien species: a species that is present in a region outside its natural range as a result of human 183 action that has enabled it to overcome biogeographic barriers. 184 • Area: a defined spatial unit, for example a protected area (as defined by the National 185 Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003); or an administrative unit (with 186 national and provincial administrative boundaries as defined by the Constitution of the 187 Republic of South Africa, 1996). 188 • Assessment: a critical evaluation of information. 189 • Biological invasions (cf. introduction-naturalisation-invasion continuum): the phenomenon 190 of, and suite of processes that are involved in determining the transport of organisms to areas 191 outside their natural range by human activities and the fate of the organisms in their new 192 ranges. 193 • Biome: a large naturally occurring community of plants and animals that have common 194 characteristics in similar physical environments, e.g. desert or forest. 195 • Containment: the goal of preventing or reducing the spread of invasive species. 196 • Control: any action taken to prevent the recurrence, re-establishment, re-growth, 197 multiplication, propagation, regeneration or spreading of an alien species. 198 • Corridor: a dispersal route or a physical connection of suitable habitats linking previously 199 unconnected regions. 200 • Dispersal: movement of organisms within a defined area that is facilitated either intentionally 201 or unintentionally by humans. 202 • Distribution: the extent and abundance of a species over a given area. 203 • Dominance: the last stage of the invasion process, where an invasion begins to reach high 204 local abundance and starts to develop relatively stable margins in its new range.

205 • Environmental pests: organisms (usually referring to animals) that negatively impact 206 biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in natural ecosystems. They can be alien or 207 indigenous. 208 • Environmental weeds: plants that invade natural ecosystems, and that impact on biodiversity 209 and ecosystem functioning. They can be alien or indigenous. 210 • Eradication: the complete removal of all individuals and propagules of a population of an alien 211 species from a particular area to which there is a negligible likelihood of reinvasion. The 212 probability of reinvasion must have been explicitly assessed, and if it is negligible it can result 213 in a reallocation of management resources (i.e. ongoing control and monitoring is no longer 214 required). 215 • Eradograph: a graph of progress towards eradication. The trajectory of the graph is used to 216 indicate the relative need to invest in surveys to further delimit infested sites versus the need 217 to eliminate local populations. 218 • Established: see naturalised. 219 • Establishment: a process whereby alien species form self-sustaining populations over 220 multiple generations without direct intervention by people, or despite human intervention. 221 • Expansion (syn. spread): the unaided movement of alien organisms within a defined area. The 222 third stage of the introduction-naturalisation-invasion continuum, during which invasive 223 species increase in their ranges. 224 • Extent (cf. abundance, distribution): the broad-scale area over which an organism occurs. The 225 spatial scale over which extent is measured needs to be specified. The occupancy of areas at 226 a fine-spatial scale is often equivalent to the abundance. 227 • Extirpation (cf. eradication): the result of a control operation whereby all individuals in a 228 population are removed. Other populations might be close by or pathways of introduction 229 and dispersal are still operating such that the probability of re-invasion is probable or not 230 known. 231 • Impact reduction: the goal of reducing the negative impact of alien species while retaining 232 the positive benefits. 233 • Impact: the description or quantification of how an alien species affects the physical, chemical 234 and biological environment, it can include both negative and positive effects. 235 • Incursion: an isolated population of a pest, weed, or alien species, that usually has a limited 236 spatial extent and has been recently detected in an area. 237 • Indicator: a set of measurements that give specific information about the state of something. 238 • Indigenous species: see Native species. 239 • Introduced: see Introduction. 240 • Introduction dynamics: see Introduction. 241 • Introduction: movement of a species, intentionally or accidentally, owing to human activity, 242 to a region outside its native range. 243 • Introduction-naturalisation-invasion continuum: a conceptualization of the progression of 244 stages and phases in the status of an alien organism in a new environment which posits that 245 the organism must negotiate a series of barriers. There are four major invasion stages: pre- 246 introduction, incursion, expansion and dominance. 247 • Invasibility: the properties of a community, habitat or ecosystem that determine its inherent 248 vulnerability to invasion. 249 • Invasion: see Biological invasions. 250 • Invasion debt: the potential increase in the biological invasion problem that a given region 251 will face over a particular time frame in the absence of any strategic interventions (Rouget et 252 al., 2016). It is composed of the number of new species that will be introduced (introduction 253 debt), the number of species that will become invasive (species-based invasion debt); the 254 increase in area affected by invasions (area-based invasion debt); and the increase in the

255 negative impacts caused by introduced species (impact-based invasion debt) over some 256 specified time horizon and assuming current processes continue. 257 • Invasive alien species: see Invasive species. 258 • Invasive species: Alien species that sustain self-replacing populations over several life cycles, 259 produce reproductive offspring, often in very large numbers at considerable distances from 260 the parent and/or site of introduction, and have the potential to spread over long distances. 261 • Invasiveness: the features of an alien organism, such as their life-history traits and modes of 262 reproduction that define their capacity to invade, i.e. to overcome various barriers to 263 invasion. 264 • Listed alien species: all alien species that are regulated under the National Environmental 265 Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act no. 10 of 2004), Alien and Invasive Species (A&IS) 266 Regulations, 2016. 267 • Native species (syn. indigenous species): species that are found within their natural range 268 where they have evolved without human intervention (intentional or accidental). Also 269 includes species that have expanded their range as a result of human modification of the 270 environment that does not directly impact dispersal (e.g. species are still native if they 271 increase their range as a result of watered gardens, but are alien if they increase their range 272 as a result of spread along human-created corridors linking previously separate biogeographic 273 regions). 274 • Naturalised (syn. established): Alien species that sustain self-replacing populations for 275 several life cycles or over a given period of time without direct intervention by people, or 276 despite human intervention. 277 • Net present value: the present-day value of money when compared to its past value after 278 factoring in inflation. 279 • Pathways: a broadly defined term that refers to the combination of processes and 280 opportunities that result in the movement of alien species from one place to another. 281 • Permit: an official document issued in terms of Chapter 7 of National Environmental 282 Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act no. 10 of 2004). 283 • Pest (cf. environmental pest and weed): an organism that causes negative impacts. The 284 affected sector might be specified, so an agricultural pest will impact negatively on agricultural 285 production. Pests can be alien or native, and are usually taken to refer to animals, with pest 286 plants often rather referred to as weeds and pest fungi or microbes referred to as diseases. 287 • Pre-introduction: a stage in the invasion process where a species is not currently present in a 288 region of interest. 289 • Prohibited species: species that are not native to South Africa listed as prohibited under the 290 National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act no. 10 of 2004) Alien and 291 Invasive Species (A&IS) Regulations, 2016. These species are assumed to be absent from the 292 country and new introductions are prohibited. 293 • Propagule pressure: a concept that encompasses variation in the quantity, quality, 294 composition and rate of supply of alien organisms resulting from the transport conditions and 295 pathways between source and recipient regions. 296 • Port of entry: an official point of entry or departure from South Africa through which goods 297 and people may enter or leave a country, for example a border post, airport or harbour. 298 • Regulation: a law, rule or other order prescribed by authority, especially to regulate conduct. 299 • Risk assessment: the process of evaluating the likelihood and consequence of a given alien 300 taxon causing negative impacts. It forms part of risk analysis, a broader process that involves 301 identifying, assessing, managing, and communicating risks. 302 • Spread: see Expansion 303 • Status: the state, condition or stage of affairs at a particular time. 304 • Taxon (pl. taxa): a group of organisms that all share particular properties (usually evolutionary 305 history). The grouping can be below, at, or above the species level.

306 • Vectors: a broadly defined phenomenon involving dispersal mechanisms that can be both 307 non-human and human mediated. It is often used to refer to the actual mechanism by which 308 alien species are able to arrive at new areas. 309 • Weed (cf. pest, environmental weed): a plant that causes negative impacts. Weeds can either 310 be alien or native. 311

312 Executive summary1

313 Biological invasions are a major threat to South Africa’s water supply, exacerbate fires, threaten 314 sustainable agriculture, and are having on-going major negative impacts to South Africa’s unique and 315 globally important biodiversity. In the period since the first status report (January 2017–December 316 2019), several new invasive species have been recorded, several pathways are now better understood, 317 various control initiatives have been started, but the on-going lack of monitoring data with which to 318 assess the effectiveness of interventions means it is impossible to assess whether the problem is being 319 dealt with appropriately. However, a substantial increase in compliance and enforcement activities 320 (including the first prosecution) suggest that the regulations might be becoming effective in reducing 321 the impact of invasions on South African society. Specifically with regard to the high-level indicators:

Indicator Trend Notes (Confidence) Between 2010 and 2019 approximately 1 new unregulated species was A. Rate of introduced per year, an estimate which is much lower than that reported introduction of in the first status report (~ 7 species per year). However, as there is a time new ↘ (Low) delay between when a species is introduced and a formal published unregulated report of an introduction, the number of species introduced during the species current decade is likely underestimated. Few studies have formally measured impact, and this remains a major gap where detailed research is needed. Only around 10% of the alien species B. Number of recorded in this report have been assessed using the IUCN’s invasive species ― (NA) Environmental Impact Classification of Alien Taxa (EICAT) scheme, of that have major which only 10 are reported to cause major to severe impacts in South impacts Africa. These numbers will increase as more impact assessments are conducted.

C. Extent of area that suffers Not re-assessed yet major impacts from invasions An assessment of the effectiveness of control measures remains challenging in the absence of formal monitoring programs. Between 2017 and 2019 two additional studies on plants support earlier conclusions D. Level of that: 1) biological control can be highly effective; and 2) improvements success in both in monitoring and control efficiency will be needed if the goals of ― (Low) managing reducing alien plant invasions to maintenance levels are to be achieved. invasions One major area of success has been the demonstration from several on- going management initiatives, that it is feasible to extirpate alien fish species from certain water bodies in a manner that allows for the recovery of native species.

1This report is produced to fulfil SANBI’s mandate under the NEM:BA (Act 10 of 2004) and its A&IS Regulations of 2014 to submit a report on the status of invasive species and the effectiveness of measures to combat them to the Minister of Environment, Fisheries and Forestry every three years. This is the second such report and represents an update on the issues identified in the first report. The current intention is to produce a comprehensive report every 9 years and to work towards a dashboard of indicators that will be updated as information become available.

322 Key findings from the indicator chapters

323 Pathways:

324 • Overall the rate of introduction appears to have declined, but this is likely due to a time lag 325 between introductions and the publication of papers reporting the introductions. 326 • There has been little change to the prominence of the pathways of introduction and their 327 importance for the introduction of alien taxa. 328 • The movement of alien taxa between countries in Africa is of growing concern.

329 Species:

330 • There has been a slight increase in the number of invasive species in the country, with some 331 notable new invasive species being recorded (e.g. the Polyphagous Shot-Hole Borer). 332 • The process of documenting and tracking changes of the status of alien species has been 333 improved. 334 • Major information gaps remain however, particularly around spatial data (distribution and 335 abundance) and impact assessments of species thought to have major impacts in South Africa.

336 Sites: [Note: key findings on sites are pending]

337 Control measures:

338 • Planning coverage for areas has improved slightly, but still only a covers a small percentage of 339 the country. There has been little change to planning coverage for pathways and few species- 340 specific plans are in place. 341 • New species-specific interventions are in place and new biological control agents have been 342 released. Substantial areas have been cleared of invasive plants 343 • Limited data indicate that treatments by the DEFF NRM programmes have been ineffective in 344 most of the treated areas. The Hluhluwe-iMfolozi project, highlighted as a success story in the 345 first report, has suffered substantial setbacks and the gains made have largely been lost. 346 • The lack of monitoring data on control effectiveness means all conclusions are made with low 347 confidence.

348 Regulations:

349 • There have been significant increases in enforcement activities and the first criminal 350 conviction under the regulations was successfully prosecuted. The permitting process 351 appears to be functional.

352 • However, the quality of the regulatory framework has been down-graded to “partial” due to 353 a reassessment of the situation—a guiding policy is lacking, there are errors and 354 inconsistencies in the regulations, mechanisms to implement parts of the regulations are 355 missing, and there are few explicit mechanisms to facilitate inter-governmental collaboration. 356 • Conflict-generating species continue to pose a major challenge to the effective 357 implementation of the regulations and are ultimately detracting resources away from invasive 358 species that are not contested.

359 [Note: Actual values to be added as an additional column]

Aspect Indicator Trend Confidence 1. Introduction pathway prominence ― Med 2. Introduction rates ― Low Pathways 3. Within-country pathway prominence No data NA 4. Within-country dispersal rates No data NA 5. Number and status of alien species ↗ Low 6. Extent of alien species ― Low Species 7. Abundance of alien ― Low 8. Impact of alien species ― Med 9. Alien species richness Not reassessed Sites 10. Relative invasive abundance Not reassessed 11. Impact of invasions Not reassessed 12. Quality of regulatory framework ― Med–High 13. Money spent ↘ Low 14. Planning coverage ↗ Low–High 15. Pathways treated ― Low Interventions 16. Species treated ― Low 17. Sites treated ― Low 18. Effectiveness of pathway treatments ― Low 19. Effectiveness of species treatments ― Low 20. Effectiveness of site treatments ― Low 360

361 Chapter 1: Introduction1

362 • The second report is a short update to the first report; 363 • The process for the second report is similar to the first report; 364 • There have been minor edits to the indicator framework; and 365 • There have been significant developments in how data have been collected and curated. 366 This means that data are more traceable, trends can be more easily tracked in future 367 reports, but that some of the baselines produced in the first report will have to be revised.

368 1.1 The importance of biological invasions to South Africa

369 Biological invasions have had varied and significant impacts on all sectors of South African society. 370 They are a major threat to socio-economic sustainability, exacerbating droughts, floods, wild-fires, 371 and causing significant losses in agriculture, pastoralism, and forestry. Biological invasions account 372 for a quarter of all biodiversity loss in South Africa to date. The South African government spends over 373 1.3 billion rand per year on their management (see Section 5.1 Input—money spent). Given South 374 Africa’s rich and varied cultural and biological diversity, and the long history both of alien species 375 introductions and of attempts to regulate, manage, and study them, South Africa is a global exemplar 376 of the impacts of and potential responses to biological invasions (van Wilgen et al. 2020b).

377 1.2 The mandate and purpose of the status report

378 The mandate for the status report is provided by section 11 of the Alien and Invasive Species (A&IS) 379 Regulations of 2014 that were promulgated under the National Environmental Biodiversity Act 380 (NEM:BA) (Act 10 of 2004):

381 (1) The Institute [i.e. the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI)] or a body 382 designated by the Institute must, for the purpose of reporting as contemplated in section 11(1) 383 (a) (iii) of the Act, submit a report on the status of listed invasive species to the Minister within 384 three years of the date on which these regulations come into effect, and at least every three 385 years thereafter [the regulations came into effect on 1 October 2014]. 386 (2) A report contemplated in sub-regulation (1) must contain a summary and assessment of- 387 (a) the status of listed invasive species and other species that have been subjected to a 388 risk assessment; and 389 (b) the effectiveness of these regulations and control measures based inter alia on 390 information from: 391 (i) notifications received from owners of land regarding listed invasive species 392 occurring on their land; 393 (ii) permits issued for listed invasive species;

1Lead authors: John R. Wilson, Tsungai A. Zengeya; Contributing authors: tbc

394 (iii) Invasive Species Monitoring, Control and Eradication Plans1 received from 395 organs of state and management authorities of protected areas; and 396 (iv) emergency interventions and enforcement actions involving listed invasive 397 species issued by the Minister. 398 (3) In preparing a report contemplated in sub-regulation (1), the Institute must carry out the 399 research and monitoring necessary to identify the matters contemplated in sub-regulation (2). 400 More broadly, however, the status reports aim to strengthen the links between basic research, policy, 401 and management by detailing the current status and providing support to decision makers that is 402 policy relevant but not policy prescriptive (Fig. 1.1).

403

404 Figure 1.1 The National Status Report is a formal mechanism to increase the connectivity between 405 research, policy, and implementation. (A) In an ideal situation the implications of research feed into 406 policy, which in turn is implemented. Implementation is monitored and evaluated and adjusted 407 accordingly, i.e. management is adaptive. How and what is monitored and evaluated is informed by 408 research and vice versa. (B) In reality links between the steps are often incomplete or broken or stages 409 are missed out. Different people and organisations are involved in research, policy formulation, 410 management, and evaluations, and their specific goals and interests are often not closely aligned, nor

1the “Invasive Species Monitoring, Control and Eradication Plans” referred to in the regulations are intended to be drawn up for specific areas. For the purposes of this report these are referred to as area management plans. This is distinct from species management programmes which focus on controlling particular species often across the whole of South Africa.

411 do they always have the time to interact. The status report is one mechanism to increase 412 communication between different role players (based on Fig. 1.1 in the first report). 413 The first status report was released in 2018. After discussion with the Reference and Advisory 414 Committee (RAC, see below), it was decided that producing a comprehensive status report every three 415 years would be impractical, and that detailed evaluations should only be done every nine years. The 416 intention of this second report is therefore largely to provide an update to the first report, and adapt 417 the reporting so that it can become a continuous process over time (see supplementary material for 418 a discussion on the long-term strategy for these reports). Both the first and second reports are 419 structured in terms of different aspects of the problem—pathways of introduction and dispersal, alien 420 species, invaded sites, and the effectiveness of various attempts to address the issue in terms of the 421 inputs, outputs, and outcomes.

422 1.3 Process for the compilation of the second report

423 The process was broadly similar to the first report and consisted of eight phases: 1) appoint a status 424 report drafting team; 2) source information, identify and engage specialist contributors, and assign 425 values to indicators; 3) produce and review a first order draft; 4) produce and review a second order 426 draft; 5) edit, layout, design, and print; 6) submit for approval and communicate the findings; and 7) 427 reflect on the process (Fig 1.2).

428 1. Appoint status report drafting team: The SANBI-CIB drafting team is similar to that of the first status 429 report, but there has been a shift in emphasis from a team headed up by the CIB, to a team led by 430 SANBI with the CIB providing assistance and advice. A notable change was the inclusion of a legal 431 specialist (based at SANBI) on the drafting team.

432 Parallel to this, a reference and advisory committee (RAC) was established to provide oversight of the 433 process. The first meeting of the RAC was on 31 May 2019. At the request of the RAC, a zero-order 434 draft was produced and sent to the RAC on 1 July 2019, and subsequently approved. At this stage, 435 independent external reviewers were approached and asked if they would be available in mid-2020 436 to review the second order draft (step 4 below).

437

438 Figure 1.2 Process followed for the production of the Second National Status Report on Biological 439 Invasions.

440 2. Source information, identify and engage specialist contributors, and assign values to indicators: The 441 drafting team engaged with specialist contributors to obtain information that was not readily 442 accessible. Contributors were identified within academic institutions; research institutes and science 443 councils; and in national, provincial, and local government departments. Contributions from the 444 identified stakeholders were in the form of data provision, assistance in the conceptualisation of 445 chapters, data analysis, writing, and commenting on drafts. A workshop was held at the National 446 Symposium on Biological Invasions in 16 May 2019 in Tulbagh "Data requirements for the second 447 status report". Information was also incorporated from the national assessment on the status of 448 South Africa’s ecosystems and biodiversity (SANBI 2019) and an open-access book on biological 449 Invasions in South Africa (van Wilge006E et al. 2020a) (Fig. 1.3). The information contained in the 450 second report is based on data available up to the end of December 2019 (Box 1.1).

451 452 Figure 1.3 A recent book on biological invasions in South Africa that informed the second status report 453 (van Wilgen et al. 2020a), see Table S7.2 for a summary of the key findings of relevance to this report.

454 A suite of indicators was developed for the first status report, and subsequently published in an open- 455 access journal article (Wilson et al. 2018). This framework explicitly considers biological invasions in 456 terms of pathways, species (taxa), sites, and interventions (separated into inputs, outputs, and 457 outcomes). The second status report is structured around this indicator framework and refines and 458 updates the values in the first report. See Appendix 1 for details on sources of data, descriptions, levels 459 of confidence, and indicators that were informed by such data.

460 3. Production and review of first order draft: A proposed first order draft was completed in November 461 2019 and sent to the RAC for internal review. This was then discussed at a meeting of the RAC on 3 462 December, revised, and sent out for public review by experts and stakeholders for a period of about

463 8 weeks (18 December 2019 –13 February 2020). The request for review was submitted to a South 464 African list server on biological invasions ([email protected]); heads of relevant national and 465 provincial government departments; heads of relevant academic departments and institutions; and 466 professional societies and forums (including the Royal Society of South Africa; the Akademie vir 467 Wetenskap en Kuns; the Zoological, Entomological, and Botanical Societies; Birdlife South Africa; and 468 the Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa). A copy of the first order draft was attached to 469 the formal notice and it was also available for download. The inputs, and responses to them, were 470 documented and are available for scrutiny from SANBI on request.

471 4. Produce and review the second order draft: In May 2020, the second order draft of the report will 472 be produced and circulated to members of the RAC for review. It will also sent to the independent 473 experts identified in step 1.

474 5. Edit, layout, design, and print: A complete version of the report will be sent in July 2020 to the SANBI 475 Graphics team for editing, layout, design, and printing.

476 6. Submit for approval: The report will be submitted to the Research, Development, and Innovation 477 committee of the SANBI Board in October 2020 for endorsement before final submission (as 478 appropriate) to the full SANBI Board in November 2020. If approved, the SANBI Board Chair will submit 479 the report to the Minister of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries. At the same time (as per the 480 principle of collaborative research), a copy of the report will be submitted to the DEFF and the DALRRD 481 as the key receivers of the report. This will provide the departments with an opportunity to prepare 482 for response to the report from media or the public more generally. To maximise publicity and media 483 uptake of the report, the report is intended to be released to the public in early January 2021 in time 484 for the fresh news cycle of the year.

485 7. Communicate findings: This was an on-going process parallel to the other activities (Fig 1.2). 486 Preliminary findings were presented at a variety of local scientific forums such as the National 487 Symposium on Biological Invasions; Biodiversity Planning Forum; the DEFF research indaba; the South 488 African Association of Botanists’ Annual Meeting; the Congress of the Zoological Societies of southern 489 Africa; as well as international fora, e.g. the 15th International Conference on Ecology and 490 Management of Alien Plant invasions, Prague, Czech Republic. Feedback received was incorporated 491 into the report, or noted for future reports.

492 8. Reflection on process: After the public release of the report the status report team will convene a 493 meeting with key stakeholders (including the members of the RAC) to reflect on the process used to 494 compile the report and to identify areas of improvement for the next (and subsequent) reports.

495 1.4 Indicators used, updating the species list, and tracking change

496 This report is structured around the 20 indicators and 4 high-level indicators as outlined in Wilson et 497 al. (2018), and adheres broadly to the published indicator factsheets (available here) (Fig. 1.4). These 498 are very similar to those used in the first report (see supplementary material for details of the changes 499 made). The high-level indicators discussed in the executive summary with detail on scoring in the 500 supplementary material.

1. Introduction pathway prominence

2. Introduction rates PATHWAYS INTERVENTIONS 3. Within-country pathway prominence

4. Within-country dispersal rates

5. Number and status of alien species 18. 19. Effectiveness19. 12. Quality 20. Effectiveness20. 6. Extent of alien species Effectiveness 14. Planning 15. Pathways

SPECIES Species 16. OUTCOMES 13. Money 7. Abundance of alien species 17. OUTPUTS of regulatory framework regulatory of INPUTS Sites Sites of of

8. Impact of alien species of pathway treatments of of species treatments species treated coverage treated site site spent 9. Alien species richness treated treatments SITES 10. Relative invasive abundance

11. Impact of invasions

HIGH LEVEL HIGH LEVEL HIGH LEVEL HIGH LEVEL A. Rate of introduction of new B. Number of invasive species that C. Extent of area that suffers major D. Level of success in managing unregulated species have major impacts impacts from invasions invasions 501 502 Figure 1.4 Indicators used in the second status report (based on Wilson et al. 2018).

503 A key aim of the second report was to improve the curation of the data: in particular by adhering to 504 the FAIR data principles (Wilkinson et al. 2016); ensuring the data are tidy (Wickham 2014); and clearly 505 stating why each taxon was included, where the data came from, and what level of confidence is 506 associated with each record (see supplementary material for more details). There is now also an 507 explicit method for flagging species that are native to some parts of South Africa and alien to others. 508 It is intended in future to list all alien taxa present in the country (i.e. including those known only from 509 captivity or cultivation), but this has not been done systematically for this second report. Most of the 510 indicators refer to species, and the regulations refer to species lists. However, in both cases this is not 511 consistently applied. For sub-specific taxa that vary in their invasiveness or impacts and taxa that 512 cannot be separated in practice at the species-level, it makes sense to manage and regulate at that 513 level (Datta et al. in preparation). Therefore the species list is, as per the NEM:BA A&IS Regulations, 514 largely based on entries at the species level, but not entirely. As a result of these changes, the species 515 list is now too big to be included in the printed report, but is available on-line (Appendix 2). A workflow

516 has also been developed to add new species and or edit species enrichment information as they are 517 recorded (Appendix 4).

518 Another key aim of this second report was to start to document and track changes in indicator values. 519 The choice of the most appropriate scheme to use in future is still to be decided, but the second report 520 follows the scheme outlined in Table S1.1. Notably, the baselines proposed in the first report need to 521 be revised in some instances (e.g. due to errors in the original values). This means that it is not always 522 appropriate to compare values in the first and second report, but in some cases the second report 523 needs to recalculate the values that should have been in the first report. This has not been done 524 consistently yet, i.e. “genuine” changes are not clearly separated from changes due to errors or 525 omissions in the first status report.

526 1.5 Aspects of biological invasions that are not covered

527 Given the report is an update, the aspects not covered in the second report are largely the same as 528 those not covered in the first report (see supplementary material for details). The degree to which 529 knowledge and information gaps (identified as needing attention in the first report) have been 530 addressed is discussed in Chapter 7.

531 Box 1.1 Is this the 2019, 2020, or 2021 Report?

532 The A&IS Regulations require a report every three years, but it takes time to compile, revise, and 533 produce these reports. Therefore a cut-off date is needed, after which no new data are considered. 534 In the first report, this cut-off was 31 December 2016. The report itself was finalised and submitted 535 to the (then) Department of Environmental Affairs during 2017 (i.e. three years from the promulgation 536 of the A&IS Regulations in 2014, as required). However, the report was only made publicly available 537 in October 2018. Therefore, while the report is based on data in 2016, the title indicates that it is the 538 status in 2017, and the citation is for 2018 (SANBI and CIB, 2018). To correct this (and make things 539 more transparent), this report is entitled “The status of biological invasions and their management in 540 South Africa in 2019”, as it reports on the status of data collected up to the end of 2019, although it is 541 due to be finalised in 2020 and released in 2021.

542

543 Chapter 2: Pathways1

544 • The rate of introduction of alien species appears to have declined, but this is likely due to a 545 time lag between introductions and the publication of papers reporting the introductions. 546 • There has been little change to the prominence of the pathways of introduction and their 547 importance for the introduction of alien taxa. 548 • The movement of alien taxa between countries in Africa is of growing concern.

549 Many pathways of introduction are prominent in South Africa, and while the prominence of some 550 introduction pathways has increased, there has been little change to the prominence of most 551 pathways (Table S2.6). It is, therefore, not surprising that alien organisms have been intentionally and 552 accidentally introduced through numerous pathways of introduction, and while new alien taxa have 553 been recently introduced through some pathways (including for biological control, and through hull 554 fouling and the release of ballast water), the number of taxa that have been introduced through most 555 pathways has not changed (Table S2.6). However, in comparison to the last full decade, the overall 556 rate of introduction appears to have declined and there has been minimal change or a decrease in the 557 rate of introduction for all pathways, except biological control, for which rate of introduction has 558 increased (though as this is a highly regulated pathway, it does not contribute to the high-level 559 indicator for pathways). As in the first status report within-country pathway prominence and within- 560 country dispersal rates could not be assessed. However, alien and native species are dispersing within 561 the country through many pathways, and the within-country dispersal of plant species for ornamental 562 purposes and through natural processes appears to be important, at least for South Africa’s national 563 parks. Of particular concern is the movement of alien species within Africa and the consequences the 564 proposed free trade zone within Africa could have on these movements.

565 2.1. Introduction pathway prominence

566 While the introduction pathway prominence of some pathways has increased (five pathways) or 567 decreased (one pathway) since the first status report, in most cases pathway prominence has not 568 changed (35 of the 44 pathways; see Figure 2.1). Live plant imports have increased by ~ US$ 10 million 569 since 2016, i.e. there has been an increase in the prominence of the horticulture pathway and other 570 pathways that involve the importation of plants (Figure 2.1). The number of fishing boats in South 571 African waters has decreased (by ~ 500) and, therefore, so too has the prominence of the pathway 572 related to fishing equipment (Figure 2.1).

1 Lead authors: Katleyn T. Faulkner, John R. Wilson; Contributing authors: tbc

573 There has been some significant research on pathways of introduction since the first report. Recent 574 research has shown that hundreds of invertebrate taxa are sold in the pet trade (see Nelufule 2018; 575 Shivambu 2018) and that hundreds of medicinal plants, many as viable propagules, have been 576 imported into South Africa (Byrne, Williams & Wojtasik 2017; Faulkner et al. 2020). Such research has 577 facilitated more robust assessments for some pathways and has meant that introduction pathway 578 prominence for some pathways could be estimated for the first time (Figure 2.1). The reported 579 increase in prominence of the pet trade as an introduction pathway is therefore likely due to improved 580 data rather than to an increase per se in the prominence of this pathway (i.e. a revised baseline should 581 be used). The types of changes made to the data since the first report are shown in Table S2.2 and 582 how these changes have influenced the indicator is shown in Figure S2.1.

583 2.2. Introduction rates

584 Alien taxa have been intentionally and accidentally introduced to South Africa, with introductions 585 occurring through a wide range of pathways (Figure 2.1). Most alien taxa in South Africa are plants 586 that were introduced for horticulture, while many of the accidentally introduced taxa were introduced 587 through shipping (Figure 2.1). The number of taxa that have been introduced through some pathways 588 has changed since the first status report, however, not all of these changes are genuine [note: 589 potentially to be analysed using a revised baseline in future version of this report]. For example, some 590 changes have been made based on data that were collected before 2017, but that were not included 591 in the first report (see Table S2.3 and Table S2.4 for information on the changes made to the data and 592 Table S2.5 for how these changes have influenced the indicator). There has, however, been a genuine 593 increase in the number of introductions for biological control, and accidental introductions through 594 hull fouling and the release of ballast water (Figure 2.1). The introduction pathway of most alien taxa 595 to South Africa is, however, not known. What is clearer is that while many of the introductions are 596 believed to have been due to inter-continental human-mediated dispersal, an increasing number of 597 invasive species are showing intra-African dispersal (Box 2.1).

598 599 Figure 2.1 Current status of the pathways of introduction and changes to the pathways that have been 600 recorded since the first status report. IR: introduction rates for the pathways (i.e. number of taxa 601 introduced over all time); IR since 1st report: changes to introduction rates since the first status report 602 ( increase; ▬ no change; NA new pathway subcategory); Change in IR: changes to introduction rates 603 in the last full decade in comparison to that of the previous decade (NK: not known;  increase;  604 decrease; ▬ minimal change;  no introductions), with no new introductions specified; IPP: 605 introduction pathway prominence (NK: not known; PNP: pathway not present; Min: minimal; Mod: 606 moderate; Maj: major), IPP since 1st report: changes to introduction pathway prominence since the 607 first status report ( increase;  decrease; ▬ no change;  first estimate; NA new pathway 608 subcategory). [Note: these results will change as more data are collected] 609

610 Box 2.1 Movement of alien species within Africa 611 The introduction of alien species to Africa has increased over time, at least for pests of forestry and 612 agriculture (Graziosi 2019; Sileshi, Gebeyehu & Mafongoya 2019). Recently, within a year, three alien 613 pests of agriculture [Raoiella indica (Red Palm Mite), Tuta absoluta (Tomato Leaf Miner), and 614 Spodoptera frugiperda (Fall Armyworm)] dispersed, either naturally or with the help of humans, into 615 South Africa from other African countries where they had previously been introduced (Faulkner et al. 616 2020). However, South Africa also acts as an entry point for alien species that disperse into other 617 African countries (Faulkner et al. 2017), and most forestry pests that have been introduced to Africa 618 were first recorded in South Africa (Graziosi 2019). The increase in the movement of alien species 619 between South Africa and other African countries (Faulkner et al. 2017) is likely due to a recent 620 increase in trade between these regions (Ahwireng-Obeng & McGowan 1998). If the African 621 Continental Free Trade Area (AfCTFA) is established the movement of alien species between African 622 countries is likely to increase further. This is because imported goods will only be inspected for alien 623 species at the first point of entry, and as most African countries have limited capacity to respond to 624 biosecurity threats (Early et al. 2016). It will be extremely difficult to prevent the dispersal of alien 625 species within the continent once introduced (Faulkner et al. 2017), and there could be conflicts of 626 interest if some countries could benefit from the introduction of a species that could be harmful in 627 other countries (Faulkner et al., In review). A co-ordinated regional response to alien species 628 introductions is required to better manage the introduction and dispersal of alien species in Africa 629 (Faulkner et al. 2017; Graziosi 2019; Sileshi, Gebeyehu & Mafongoya 2019).

630 For most pathways there has been minimal change to the rate at which alien taxa have been 631 introduced in this decade (2010–2019) in comparison to the previous decade (Figure 2.1). For the 632 biological control of alien plants there has been an increase in funding, research, and implementation 633 (Zachariades et al. 2017), and this has likely caused an increase in the rate at which taxa have been 634 introduced for biological control (Figure 2.1). There were fewer introductions for hunting in the 635 current decade in comparison to the previous decade, with increasing anti-hunting sentiment possibly 636 playing a role (Taylor, Lindsey & Davies-Mostert 2015). There has been a decline in the rate at which 637 organisms have been introduced as contaminants of imported animals, through hull fouling, and the 638 release of ballast water, with these changes possibly due to a declines, since the previous decade, in 639 live animal imports and in the number of ships visiting South African ports. However, the time 640 between introduction and detection is likely to be much longer for accidental than deliberate 641 introductions, and so these patterns might be misleading. Over the current decade, 30 new alien taxa 642 were introduced to South Africa, fewer than the 70 taxa introduced in the previous decade (Figure

643 2.2). Only 11 unregulated taxa were introduced to South Africa between 2010 and 2019, an average 644 of 1.1 taxa per year. 100 80 60 Number of Number tax introduced 40 20 0

1950- 1960- 1970- 1980- 1990- 2000- 2010- 1959 1969 1979 1989 1999 2009 2019 Time period 645 A 15 10 Number of taxa of Number yea per introduced 5 0

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

646 B Year 647 Figure 2.2 How the recorded introduction rates of new alien taxa to South Africa have varied: (A) over 648 the last seven decades; and (B) over the last decade. Due to the time lag between the introduction of 649 a species and when it is reported as present, these data are incomplete. 650

651 2.3. Within-country pathway prominence

652 As in the first status report, data for within-country pathway prominence were not available for most 653 pathways of introduction, and so the indicator could not be populated (Table S2.6). However, South 654 Africa has extensive transport networks and a vast number of people and a high amount of goods are 655 transported along these networks. As an example, in the 2018/2019 financial year there were over 656 135 000 domestic flight arrivals at South African airports (Airports Company South Africa 2019). The 657 number of domestic flights and the number of passengers travelling on these flights has remained 658 relatively consistent and these numbers are similar to those reported in the first status report (see 659 Appendix 3). Alien taxa are also being transported intentionally within the country. For example: many 660 alien species are available for sale online or at pet shops, including the introduced crayfish Cherax 661 quadricarinatus (Nunes et al. 2017); naturalised bamboo species are being cultivated for uses related 662 to the green economy (Canavan et al. 2019); and invasive plants are being sold and used for medicinal

663 purposes (Byrne, Williams & Wojtasik 2017). It is not clear whether these processes have increased or 664 decreased since the first report.

665 2.4. Within-country dispersal rates

666 Data for within-country dispersal rates have not been collated for the entire country, and so the 667 indicator could not be populated (Table S2.6). However, as in the first status report, data collected 668 from the literature indicates that alien and native taxa are being intentionally and accidentally 669 transported around the country, and that these taxa are dispersing within the country through many 670 pathways, with taxa dispersing through at least 18 of the 44 pathways of dispersal (Appendix 3). 671 Furthermore, recent research on the pathways of dispersal for alien plant species in South African 672 National Parks has shown that of the 137 alien transformer plant species selected for the study, most 673 were intentionally introduced as ornamental plants or were dispersed by rivers and animals (Table 674 2.1). Many of these plant species dispersed through multiple pathways (Foxcroft et al. 2019), which is 675 likely the case for many species dispersing within South Africa. For example, Tarebia granifera, a 676 freshwater gastropod from South-East Asia, is dispersing rapidly within the country both through 677 natural dispersal (e.g. on aquatic weeds and by attaching to the feathers of birds) and as a stowaway 678 on boats and trailers (Jones et al. 2017). However, it is unclear how the within-country dispersal 679 pathways have changed since the first report.

680 Table 2.1 The pathways through which 137 transformer alien plant species have dispersed into and 681 within South African National Parks. Data were obtained from Foxcroft et al. (2019). Pathway of dispersal Percentage of species Ornamental plants 78 Rivers 63 Animal dispersed 48 Roads, paths, trails and tracks ~40 Agriculture ~30 Contaminated construction equipment, materials or soils ~30 Clothing < 10 Food or produce < 10 682

683 Chapter 3: Species1

684 • There has been a slight increase in the number of invasive species in the country, with some 685 notable new invasive species being recorded (e.g. the Polyphagous Shot-Hole Borer). 686 • The process of documenting and tracking changes of the status of alien species has been 687 substantially improved. 688 • Major information gaps remain however, particularly around spatial data (distribution and 689 abundance) and impact assessments of species thought to have major impacts in South Africa.

690 [Note: to add a short synthetic summary once all available material has been assembled]

691 3.1 Number and status of alien species

692 The issue of quantifying the number and status of alien species that are known to be present in South 693 Africa remains a major challenge. For the majority of alien species found in South Africa, there are no 694 studies documenting their introduction status (Appendix 2). Evidence-based assessments of 695 introduction status are needed to support calls for management interventions. For example, the A&IS 696 Regulations require the Minister to develop and maintain a national list of invasive species that are 697 known to occur in South Africa. Currently 556 taxa are listed under these regulations but there are 698 many other alien species that are known to occur in the country but their introduction status has not 699 been assessed. The alien species list in Appendix 2 represents a step towards a national registry of 700 alien species in the country. It is meant to provide a platform where current state of knowledge on 701 the number and status of alien species can be captured, reviewed and updated.

702 The second status report provided updates to the species list and a summary of the types of changes 703 to the data since the first report are shown in Table S3.1. The first status report listed 2033 species as 704 present in the country but in the second status report the number of alien species has been 705 disaggregated into four categories of based on evidence of occurrence (Table S3.2). These four 706 categories are: 1) absent; 2) present; 3) doubtful; and 4) not evaluated. There has also been an attempt 707 to identify extra-limital (native to at least a part of South Africa) and cryptogenic (unknown 708 biogeographic origin) species. As a result, the number of species that are reported as present in the 709 country, based on some evidence of occurrence, is lower in this report than in the first report. 710 However, the occurrence status of many species have not been evaluated, and it is highly likely that,

1 Lead authors: Tsungai A. Zengeya, John R. Wilson ; Contributing authors: tbc

711 due to reports of new species, there has been a rise in the number of alien species recorded in South 712 Africa during the period 2017–2019.

713 The status of alien species that are regarded as present in the country was then further assessed and 714 classified into three categories: 1) present as alien but not naturalised; 2) naturalised but not invasive; 715 and 3) invasive (Figure S3.1). The number of species that are known to be present as alien but have 716 not yet naturalised has also decreased between the two assessments because either the species have 717 changed status between 2016 and 2019 (not present as alien to present but naturalised, or recorded 718 as present previously but now considered as absent).

719 The number of species that are known to have naturalised but are not invasive increased because 720 either new species were added to the list that were not present as alien in 2016 or species that were 721 present as alien but not naturalised in 2016 were reported as naturalised by December 2019. The 722 number of alien species that are known to be invasive increased because several species that were 723 previously reported as naturalised became invasive and some that were not previously reported as 724 present were reported as invasive, for example the Polyphagous Shot Hole Borer (PSHB), Euwallacea 725 fornicatus (Box 3.1). There were several deletions from the list because some species are no longer 726 present (e.g. due to a loss in suitable habitat, e.g. Mabin et al. 2015) and some species, that have never 727 occurred in South Africa, were wrongly identified as present in the first report.

728 [Note: next version of the report will attempt to report on changes to the revised baseline over time 729 rather than confounding genuine changes from changes due to corrections in errors]

730 3.2 Extent of alien species

731 There have been a few updates on the extent of alien species based on recent publications for some 732 plant (SAPIA 2019), crayfish (Nunes et al. 2017a, b, c) and fish species (Khosa et al. 2018, Marr et al. 733 2018). Several plant species have expanded their range, for example Acanthospermum austral (Eight- 734 seeded prostrate starbu) and Convolvulus arvensis (Field bindweed). For some species the observed 735 increase in range might be the result of under reporting prior to 2016 (e.g. Pennisetum clandestinum 736 Kikuyu grass) or as occurrence data needed to be reinterpreted [e.g. there was a taxonomic revision 737 such that Azolla cristata (= A. microphylla, A. mexicana)]. There are a few plant species whose ranges 738 have probably decreased due to biological control (e.g. Azolla filiculoides and Cylindropuntia fulgida 739 var. mamillata). Such decreases were not considered in the first report, and so it cannot be inferred 740 that such declines happened in the period 2017–2019.

741 [Note: We still need to consult other distribution data sources to check for any changes in the extent 742 of alien species, and to have a clear method of dealing with such reductions in extents]

743 3.3 Abundance of alien species

744 Two main data sources on alien plant species abundance were used in the first report: Versfeld et al. 745 (1998), and Kotzé et al. (2010). A major limitation was the low degree of confidence associated with 746 estimates derived from the two surveys. This was largely because the data are either crude and out 747 of date (Versfeld et al. 1998), or data had partial coverage that did not include large proportions of 748 the country, and the methodology on which the survey was based was not adequately documented 749 (Kotzé et al. 2010). A recent paper by Kotzé et al. (2019) provides an explanation of the sampling 750 method used in surveys by Kotzé et al. (2010), but confidence in the estimates remains low because 751 there are still some concerns with the methodology used in the survey. For example, Kotzé et al. (2019) 752 provide no results, and no estimates of distribution or abundance for the three species studied, so it 753 is difficult to assess if the method works. In addition, Kotzé et al. (2019) propose that the methods 754 outlined in the survey could be used to establish a robust monitoring programme for alien and invasive 755 species in the country. However, there are concerns as to whether this is feasible given that there has 756 been no cost-benefit analysis of using this method as a national-scale monitoring programme and as 757 there is currently low confidence in the estimates from such a survey.

758 3.4 Impact of alien species

759 The issue of quantifying the impacts of alien species on biodiversity remains a major challenge, both 760 globally and in South Africa. For most species, there is almost no documented evidence of impacts and 761 available evidence is based on different assessment methods, which makes it difficult to compare 762 impacts across taxa and regions (Zengeya et al. 2020). The first report found that most of what is 763 known is based on expert opinion, and consequently the level of confidence in the estimates of the 764 magnitude of these impacts was low (SANBI and CIB 2018). This is largely because most expert opinion 765 assessments are based on observed and perceived impacts rather than published evidence to gauge 766 impacts.

767 There has been a global effort to develop and use standardised impact scoring schemes such as the 768 Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT; Blackburn et al. 2014; Hawkins et al. 2015) 769 and the Socio-Economic Impact Classification of Alien Taxa (SEICAT; Bacher et al. 2018), that provide 770 a consistent method for rating impacts across different mechanisms and taxa. The impact scoring

771 schemes are based on published evidence and aim to make assessments comparable by providing a 772 clearly defined protocol to identify impact mechanisms and their magnitudes, and to minimise 773 assessor bias. Therefore, in the second report there has been a shift from expert assessment of impact 774 towards formal EICAT and SEICAT assessments. These include global ECIAT assessments for grasses 775 (Visser et al. 2017; Nkuna et al. 2018; Canavan et al. 2019), amphibians (Kumschick et al. 2017), birds 776 (Evans et al. 2016), mammals (Hagen and Kumschick 2018), fish (Marr et al. 2017), gastropods (Kesner 777 and Kumschick 2018), and some other invertebrates (Nelufule 2018) (Table S3.4). In South Africa, 778 national-level EICAT assessments have been done for some alien grasses (Visser et al. 2017) and fishes 779 (Marr et al. 2017). The SEICAT scheme has so far only been applied to a limited range of taxa, including 780 gastropods and some mammals alien to South Africa (Hagen & Kumschick 2018; Kesner & Kumschick 781 2018), as well as alien amphibians globally (Bacher et al. 2018) (Table S3.5).

782 Some recent studies have also used data from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Mace et al. 783 2008) to assess threats from a combination of invasions on particular native species, and alien species 784 were frequently included as a significant extinction risk for several native species of fish, amphibians, 785 and plants (SANBI 2019, Zengeya et al. 2020).

786 [Note: The first status report made several recommendations on how to improve our knowledge of 787 the impact of biological invasions in South Africa. One of the recommendations was that all species 788 that were identified by expert opinion studies as causing major or severe impacts on biodiversity 789 should be revaluated using a formal assessment such as EICAT. This analysis is underway, and it is 790 hoped that preliminary results can be incorporated in the final version of this report].

791 Box 3.1 Polyphagous Shot Hole Borer and Fusarium Dieback in South Africa

792 The Polyphagous Shot Hole Borer (PSHB), Euwallacea fornicatus1 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: 793 Scolytinae) looks set to become the most damaging biological invasion in South Africa’s urban 794 environments. The PSHB is an ambrosia beetle from South East Asia that bores into tree trunks and 795 branches laying its eggs inside woody tissue. The beetle carries three fungal symbionts, one of which 796 is the pathogen Fusarium euwallaceae. In suitable hosts, the fungus establishes in the tree, becoming 797 a food source for the beetles and their larvae. PSHB’s sibling mating system means new adult female 798 beetles emerge already fertilised, ready to spread and establish galleries in new trees. In susceptible 799 hosts the fungus causes Fusarium dieback, which leads to branches dying and tree death. The PSHB

1PSHB in South Africa has also been referred to as E. whitfordiodendrus

800 was first detected in the KwaZulu-Natal National Botanical Gardens in Pietermaritzburg in 2017 (Paap 801 et al. 2018), however, it quickly became clear that the beetle was already well established in the 802 country, predominately in urban areas including Johannesburg, Bloemfontein, Cape Town (Somerset 803 West), Durban, Nelspruit, George, and Knysna. While it is not known precisely how it was introduced 804 to South Africa, it was probably introduced through wood packaging material and dunnage that had 805 not been appropriately treated for pests—a common pathway for the introduction of invasive alien 806 insect pests globally. Now it is here, it has spread rapidly through the movement of infested wood 807 (including firewood). PSHB has killed thousands of trees already and threatens millions more, including 808 street and garden trees like maples (Acer species), Liquidambar (Liquidambar styraciflua), Plane Trees 809 (Platanus species), and oaks (Quercus species); agriculturally important trees like Pecan Nut (Carya 810 illinoinensis) and Avocado (Persea americana); and native species like coral trees (Erythrina species). 811 While there are many claims of ‘miracle’ treatments, the only effective option currently available is to 812 contain the spread of PSHB by quarantining affected areas, very carefully removing infected 813 reproductive host trees (e.g. by chipping to less than 2cm), and disposing of the wood at dedicated 814 sites. Selling infested dead wood for firewood is tempting but would simply help disperse PSHB to new 815 sites. Detection, control, and enforcement efforts are placing a massive burden on municipalities. The 816 situation requires a consolidated strategy and action plan, with input from research, engagement with 817 stakeholders, and guidance from national government departments with a strong focus on effective 818 communication and awareness campaigns. As of November 2019 it had not yet been listed under the 819 NEM:BA A&IS Regulations, but an emergency listing has been proposed.

820 For more details visit: www.fabinet.up.ac.za/pshb. If you suspect a tree is infested with PSHB 821 (particularly if your town is not yet recorded as affected, or it is on a new host plant), send photographs 822 and details to [email protected]; or for those in the Western Cape fill in the online report form 823 at www.capetowninvasives.co.za ; and those in Johannesburg contact [email protected] or 824 Whatsapp 0828030748.

825 [Note: the status of the proposal national management programme and how the programme is to be 826 monitored needs to be confirmed]

827

828 Chapter 4: Sites1

829 There are no substantial changes in indicators values for the status of sites in South Africa, except for 830 planning coverage that has increased because of additional management plans that been submitted. 831 However, management plans generally do not meet all the criteria to be scored as “adequate”. 832 Significant work in South Africa’s National Parks is highlighted as is the role of invasive plants in 833 exacerbating the Knysna fires of 2018.

834 [Note: to add key points]

835 4.1 Alien species richness

836 [Note: the current analysis is restricted to invasive species and excludes alien species in other 837 categories of invasion (alien but not naturalized, and naturalized but not invasive)]

838 The invasive species richness in South Africa was calculated using data available at provincial or biome 839 scales and at the resolution of a quarter degree grid cell (qdgc).

840 Invasive species richness at a provincial scale was highest in the relatively humid coastal provinces 841 (see Table S4.1). Nationally, the Western Cape has the highest invasive species richness, followed by 842 KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape. It is lower in the arid interior provinces. The richness for invasive 843 terrestrial and freshwater plant species was highest in KwaZulu-Natal, followed by the Western Cape 844 and the Eastern Cape. These results are broken down by taxonomic grouping in the supplementary 845 material. At the biome scale, three of the largest biomes in South Africa (the Savanna, Grassland, and 846 Fynbos) (SANBI, 2019) have the greatest invasive species richness (see Table S4.2), and the greatest 847 species richness of NEM:BA A&IS Listed Species—Savanna (335), Grassland (304), and Fynbos (288).

848 Invasive plant and bird species richness per qdgc is high around major urban centres (see Figure 4.1). 849 The province with the highest invasive species richness was Gauteng, followed by KwaZulu-Natal 850 (Figure 4.2). In terms of biomes, the Indian Ocean Coastal Belt had the highest species richness per 851 qdgc for invasive species. As was the case in the first status report, the species richness of invasive 852 birds and terrestrial and freshwater plants was also high around major urban centres (Figure 4.1). 853 Similarly, Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal and the Indian Ocean Coastal Belt had the highest species for 854 both birds and plants (Figure 4.2).

1Lead authors: Tendamudzimu Munyai, Brian van Wilgen; Contributing authors: tbc

855 A

856 B

857 C

858 D

859 E

860 F

861 Figure 4.1 Invasive species richness at a quarter degree grid cell (qdgc) resolution for: (A, D) 576 862 invasive species from all taxa; (B, E) 527 invasive terrestrial and freshwater plants; and (C, F) six 863 invasive bird species. (A–C) show national maps, (D–F) show the distributions of species richness per 864 qdgc in different provinces and biomes (the lines of the boxes show the median, upper and lower 865 quartiles, the circles represent outliers).

866 [Note: this analysis will be redone to focus on how things have changed over time rather than 867 presenting the results as per the first status report; and source of the data need to be confirmed and 868 acknowledged]

869 4.2 Relative invasive abundance

870 [Note: Still need to ascertain if there are enough data, and if methods are viable, to assign values to 871 this indicator]

872 4.3 Impact of invasions

873 [Note: an update on the first report is still to be done based on additional literature sources that have 874 been identified (see supplementary material)]

875 Chapter 5: Control measures1

876 • Planning coverage for areas has improved slightly, but still only a covers a small percentage of 877 the country. There has been little change to planning coverage for pathways and few species- 878 specific plans are in place. 879 • New species-specific interventions are in place and new biological control agents have been 880 released. Substantial areas have been cleared of invasive plants 881 • Limited data indicate that treatments by the DEFF NRM programmes have been ineffective in 882 most of the treated areas. The Hluhluwe-iMfolozi project, highlighted as a success story in the 883 first report, has suffered substantial setbacks and the gains made have largely been lost. 884 • The lack of monitoring data on control effectiveness means all conclusions are made with low 885 confidence.

886 As for the first report, the effectiveness of control measures cannot be reliably assessed as the 887 required monitoring data are largely absent, and assessments rely heavily on a limited number of 888 research projects or published reviews. There has, however, been a notable intervention by an 889 international NGO to strengthen alien plant control around a key ecosystem service (the Cape Town 890 Water Fund); and a case-study of effective control highlighted in the first report (Chromolaena 891 odorata control in Hluhluwe-iMfolozi) is now reported to be a failure as there was a substantial 892 cessation in control follow ups.

893 [Note: there is considerable overlap between this chapter and chapter 6. Chapter 5 aims to look at 894 the effectiveness of control measures and Chapter 6 at the effectiveness of regulations. In reality 895 the two aspects are closely linked, e.g. the monitoring of compliance and enforcement is arguable 896 cross-cutting although is discussed in this chapter. Therefore, the final report might consist of a 897 combined chapter.]

898 5.1 Input—money spent

899 As was the case with the first status report, it is not possible to quantify how much money is spent on 900 the management of biological invasions in South Africa across all government agencies, NGOs, and the 901 private sector. The only reliable estimate for annual government spending is for the DEFF’s Natural 902 Resource Management programmes. Annual expenditure is significantly lower than that reported in 903 the first status report (Fig. 5.1), but this is because the DEFF does not differentiate in its records

1 Lead authors: Brian van Wilgen, Katelyn T. Faulkner; Contributing authors: tbc

904 between money spent on biological invasions as opposed to money spent on other programs, meaning 905 that the figures supplied by DEFF are not comparable over time.

906

907 Figure 5.1 The amount of money invested (ZAR unadjusted for inflation) by the Working for Water 908 programme on alien plant control in South Africa.

909 5.2 Input—planning coverage

910 There has been little change to the number of pathways of introduction with management plans in 911 place. Legislation to manage the ballast water released by ships was drafted in 2013, and the 912 International Maritime Organisation’s Ballast Water Management Convention entered into force in 913 September 2017. However, although South Africa is a party to this convention, and so is required to 914 manage ballast water, the legislation still has not been enacted, and although ballast water 915 management plans have been drafted for some South African ports, they appear not to have been 916 implemented (Calitz, 2012). In order to manage the species that are transported on the hulls of ships, 917 the Transnet Ports Authority plans to introduce in-water hull cleaning, however, it appear that this 918 has not yet been put into practice yet.

919 Very few species have dedicated management plans in place. Those listed in the first status report for 920 Parthenium hysterophorus (Parthenium Weed), Chromolaena odorata (Triffid Weed), and for species 921 in the genera Acacia and Prosopis, and in the family Cactaceae are yet to been formally approved. A 922 detailed plan for the eradication of House Mice, Mus musculus from Marion Island has recently been 923 developed (Preston et al. 2019).

924 An additional 25 area management plans have been submitted since the first status report, increasing 925 the proportion of areas covered by management plans to 4.5% of the country but the adequacy of 926 these management plans still needs improvement (see section 6.3, Chapter 6).

927 [Note: these results may change as more data are collected]

928 5.3 Output—pathways treated

929 Since the first report there has been no change in the number of pathways requiring management 930 that are being managed. [Note: this may change as more data are collected.]

931 5.4 Output—species treated

932 A number of new species-specific control interventions have been reported (Table 5.1), and a number 933 of new biological control agents have been released in South Africa (Table 5.2). Two important 934 planning activities to substantially strengthen attempts to control invasive alien trees in the water 935 catchment areas around Cape Town are profiled in Boxes S5.1 and S5.2.

936 Table 5.1. Invasive alien species for which management interventions were initiated in the period 937 2017–2019, or where information not incorporated in the first report was obtained. See 938 supplementary material for definitions of the legal listing categories of the NEM:BA A&IS Regulations.

Scientific Vernacular Legal Notes on management Source Name Name category Micropterus Spotted Context- The species was successfully extirpated from one van der punctulatus Bass specific stretch of river. Walt et al. 2019 Oncorhynchus Rainbow Not The attempt at extirpation from one stretch of Shelton et mykiss Trout regulated river was not successful. al. 2017 Cyprinus Common Context- The attempt at extirpation from one wetland was Davies et carpio Carp specific not successful. al. 2019 Clarias Sharptooth Not The attempt at extirpation from one dam was not Davies et gariepinus Catfish regulated successful. al. 2019 Procambarus Red Swamp Prohibited The attempt at extirpation from one dam was not Nunes et clarkii Crayfish successful. al. 2017 Carcinus European 1b A management trial found that nation-wide Mabin et maenas Shore Crab eradication was not feasible. As the benefits of al. 2017 management are unclear and the likelihood of spread and impact appear low currently, it was recommended that no further control is needed at this stage. Corvus House 1a Attempts to extirpate the species from two cities Davies et splendens Crow have made good progress, but extirpation has not al. 2019 yet been achieved in either case. The species is now present in two more coastal cities where management projects have not yet been initiated. As the likelihood of recolonisation has not been assessed, it would seem eradication is not a feasible goal. Anas Mallard 2 Localised removals of individuals is taking place in Davies et platyrhynchos some areas. Management goals are not tightly al. 2019 defined, so that level of success cannot be assessed.

Scientific Vernacular Legal Notes on management Source Name Name category Salvinia Kariba 1b Update on effectiveness of biological control Martin et molesta weed (complete or substantial control was achieved at al. 2018 different sites) Australian Wattles 1b (A. Models based on data from Table Mountain Cheney et Acacia saligna, A. National Park clearly demonstrate that the goal al. 2019 species cyclops. A of achieving long-term control will not be longifolia); achieved unless the efficiency of control projects 2 (A. is improved. mearnsii) 939

940 Table 5.2. Biological control agents released to control invasive plant species in South Africa during 941 2017–2019 or that were not reported in the first report (Ref?)

Scientific Vernacular name Scientific name Family or sub-family Feeding guild Year name of of target of agent of agent released target

Acacia Various (wattles) Dasineura pilifera Diptera: Flower galler 2016 baileyana & Cecidomyiidae A. decurrens [also attacks A. dealbata, A. podalyriifolia] Anredera Madeira vine Plectonycha Coleoptera: Leaf feeder 2016 cordifolia correntina Chrysomelidae Egeria densa Dense water Hydrellia Diptera: Ephydridae Leaf miner 2019 weed egerieae Lantana Lantana Puccinia Pucciniales: Leaf- and 2018 camara lantanae Pucciniaceae stem-rust pathogen Paraserianthes Australian albizia Uromycladium Pucciniales: Gall former 2016 lophantha woodii Pileolariaceae Tithonia Mexican Physonota Coleoptera: Leaf feeder 2018 diversifolia sunflower maculiventris Chrysomelidae: Cassidinae Tradescantia White-flowered Neolema Coleoptera: Shoot-tip and 2019 fluminensis wandering Jew abbreviata Chrysomelidae: leaf feeder Criocerinae 942

943 5.5 Output—sites treated

944 A number of new site-specific control interventions have been identified (Table 5.2). 945 Table 5.2. Invaded sites for which management interventions have been initiated and assessed 2017– 946 2019 or where information from earlier years has been obtained.

Site Purpose Management notes Source All South African Assessment of alien plant Data quality found to be poor. This, combined Loftus National Parks data, and its usefulness for with multiple goals and onerous reporting 2013 supporting decision- requirements hampered the ability to make making informed management decisions.

Site Purpose Management notes Source Table Mountain Assessment of impact of Low-quality data used in management led to Cheney National Park data accuracy on poorly-informed management decisions and et al. efficiency of alien plant increased costs. Improving data quality would 2018 control lead to cost-savings and more effective management. Berg River, Assessment of medium- Native vegetation was on a “positive recovery Ruanza Western Cape term vegetation recovery trajectory” following removal of eucalypts, et al. after removal of but the site is at risk of re-invasion. 2018 Eucalyptus camaldulensis Paardevlei and Extirpation of four species The operations were both successful. Davies et Die Oog wetland, of alien fish from the al. 2019 Cape Town wetlands Lourens River, Extirpation of three The extirpation was successful. Davies et Western Cape species of alien fish from al. 2019 an off-stream dam 947

948 5.6 Outcome—effectiveness of pathway treatments

949 The effectiveness of management can be estimated for the first time for several pathways. Alien 950 species listed in the regulations are being sold in nurseries (Cronin et al. 2017) and as part of the 951 medicinal plant trade (Byrne et al. 2017), and undocumented bamboo species have been imported for 952 a number of purposes related to the green economy [e.g. for biofuel and mine rehabilitation (Canavan 953 et al. 2019)]. Therefore, for four pathways for which management effectiveness could be estimated, 954 management appears to be ineffective. Additionally, further research into the pet trade has 955 highlighted that prohibited and regulated species are being sold (Nunes et al. 2017; Nelefule, 2018), 956 which confirms the assessment in the first report that this pathway is ineffectively managed. [Note: 957 these results may change as more data are collected, and need to be linked to the results on permits 958 in Chapter 6].

959 5.7 Outcome—effectiveness of species treatments

960 As there are few species-specific management plans in place, essentially the only information available 961 on the effectiveness of species treatments is on eradication targets. No alien species has been formally 962 declared as eradicated during the past three years (van Wilgen et al. 2020). There are 42 alien plant 963 species listed as category 1a in South Africa’s A&IS Regulations, i.e. are nation-wide eradication 964 targets. However, only around a third of these species are still the focus of on-going eradication efforts 965 as many are suspected to be inappropriate targets for eradication (see Supplementary Material). The 966 mismatch between legal status and feasibility of eradication highlights the need to set eradication as 967 the management goal only once a formal detailed assessment of eradication feasibility has been 968 conducted. Such assessments require investment in delimitation and pilot control measures. It is also 969 clear that there is a substantial invasion debt in the country—many alien plants have only naturalised

970 or invaded a few sites, and there are likely to be many that are still to be detected—a significant 971 number of these new detections are likely to be suitable targets for eradication. [Note: a closer link 972 to the discussion in Chapter 6 is needed]. Suitable monitoring data are not routinely collected so it is 973 hard to judge whether these eradication campaigns are making appropriate progress or what, if any, 974 remedial measures are needed.

975 5.8 Outcome—effectiveness of site treatments

976 Limited information on the effectiveness of control operations was supplied by the DEFF NRMP. The 977 information available was based on a sample of 1130 management units (individual areas on which 978 alien plant clearing contracts were awarded), drawn from 68 projects across all nine provinces. The 979 sample covered approximately 217 000 ha, or about 5% of all management units in the country. Initial 980 densities were recorded on each management unit, which was then subjected to initial clearing and a 981 varying number of follow-up clearings (Fig. 5.2). Approximately 30% of the management units had an 982 initial clearing, but no follow-up controls. A further ~ 40% received one to four follow-up treatments, 983 and the rest had more (up to 15 in some cases). The records showed that alien plant cover decreased 984 on 43% of the management units, remained unchanged on 26% of the units, and increased on 31% of 985 the units.

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5% Proportion of management units sampled

0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Number of times treated 986

987 Figure 5.2. Proportion of 1130 management units subjected to different numbers of follow-up 988 treatments. [Note: to do split down into whether cover increase decreased or did not change]

989 It is difficult to draw robust conclusions from this, as no species-specific information is available. In 990 addition, the assessment is based on data records and not on assessments in the field. It appears that 991 the treatments are moderately effective in less than half of the areas treated, and ineffective in the 992 rest. In addition, the area covered by the management units is only a proportion of the area under 993 management (for example a protected area or catchment), so no information on areas not covered 994 by management units is available.

995 Box 5.1 The control of Chromolaena odorata in the Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park (HiP) in KwaZulu-Natal, 996 a success story with an unhappy ending

997 In the first status report, the control of Chromolaena odorata in the 90 000 ha Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park 998 (HiP) in KwaZulu-Natal was included as an example of a successful control attempt that illustrated the 999 value of adhering to best management practice. Infestations were first noticed in 1978, and increased 1000 to cover almost half of the HiP (40 000 ha) in 2003. After a substantial investment in control (ZAR 103 1001 million in funding and 2000 person-years of effort), invasions were reduced to acceptably low levels 1002 by 2011. It was noted at the time that a number of clear factors contributed to this success. They 1003 included ongoing direction from a diverse project steering committee (including managers, 1004 researchers, the private sector and community representatives), a rapid response team, a focus on 1005 areas of low infestation, a very flexible management approach, regular monitoring and generous 1006 funding. In addition, te Beest et al. (2017) reported that “the team was only paid following completion 1007 of a contract and after a thorough inspection of the quality of the work by the Project Manager”. It 1008 was noted that these features of the HiP project were often in marked contrast to those associated 1009 with most other cases of management that had been recorded, and in all likelihood accounted for the 1010 differences in success.

1011 However, these gains have been reversed due to a number of complicating factors. One of the project 1012 workers was killed by an elephant, and this led to a directive from the Department of Labour to the 1013 effect that teams would not be allowed to work in the field unless accompanied by an armed guard. 1014 Additional armed guards were not available (the staff component of conservation agencies had been 1015 markedly reduced), and it was not possible within the rules of the Extended Public Works Programs 1016 to train and adequately pay new armed guards. Alternative sources of funding had to be sought, and 1017 new guards had to be trained. This led to a two-year absence of funding, during which C. odorata 1018 populations expanded. The implementing agency’s inability to spend funding allocated to clearing also 1019 resulted in the funds being re-directed to alternative projects. In addition, areas cleared of C. odorata 1020 became invaded by Parthenium hysterophorus, a more recent arrival. Overall, therefore, the gains 1021 have been reversed, and additional funding, which is unlikely to materialise under current economic

1022 conditions, would be needed to bring the situation under control. This experience illustrates the 1023 complexity of alien species control operations, the need for more flexible approaches to be able to 1024 deal with them, and the speed with which invasions can rebound if maintenance management is not 1025 implemented.

1026

1027 Chapter 6: Regulations1

1028 • There have been significant increases in enforcement activities and the first criminal 1029 conviction under the regulations was successfully prosecuted. The permitting process 1030 appears to be functional. 1031 • However, the quality of the regulatory framework has been down-graded to “partial” due to 1032 a reassessment of the situation—a guiding policy is lacking, there are errors and 1033 inconsistencies in the regulations, mechanisms to implement parts of the regulations are 1034 missing, and there are few explicit mechanisms to facilitate inter-governmental collaboration. 1035 • Conflict-generating species continue to pose a major challenge to the effective 1036 implementation of the regulations and are ultimately detracting resources away from invasive 1037 species that are not contested.

1038 [Note: to add a short synthetic summary once all available material has been assembled]

1039 [Note: there is considerable overlap between this chapter and chapter 5. Chapter 5 aims to look at 1040 the effectiveness of control measures and Chapter 6 at the effectiveness of regulations. In reality 1041 the two aspects are closely linked, e.g. the monitoring of compliance and enforcement is arguable 1042 cross-cutting although is discussed in this chapter. Therefore, the final report might consist of a 1043 combined chapter.]

1044 6.1 Input—quality of the regulatory framework

1045 There are various aspects of the regulations (for instance faultless liability imposed on landowners 1046 and owners of state) that are problematic and there is still no guiding policy governing biological 1047 invasions in South Africa. Similarly, while few risk analyses have been completed on listed species, 1048 almost half of those that have been competed recommend a different listing to the current situation. 1049 As a result, this report concludes that the quality of the regulatory framework is “Partial” with 1050 medium-high confidence (it was considered “Substantial” in the first report). This is not due to any 1051 changes since the first report (the regulations have not changed), but due to a reinterpretation of the 1052 situation (Table S6.7). This is largely because there is lack of a guiding policy, there are errors and 1053 inconsistencies in the regulations, mechanisms to implement parts of the regulations are missing, and 1054 there are few explicit mechanisms to facilitate inter-governmental collaboration. Notably, while 1055 revisions to the regulations were proposed in 2018 to address some of these issues, the revisions have

1 Lead authors: Marthán Theart, John R. Wilson; Contributing authors: tbc

1056 not been promulgated due to an on-going challenge around a few species that are contested by a very 1057 small, but very vocal lobby group.

1058 6.2 The regulation of pathways

1059 The NEM:BA and the A&IS Regulations do not specifically regulate pathways, rather pathways through 1060 which alien or listed invasive species are introduced or spread are regulated by listing certain 1061 restricted activities in relation to those species that are prohibited, controlled in terms of a permitting 1062 system or generally authorised subject to certain conditions (so-called “exempted” activities). The 1063 relevant restricted activities listed in section 1 of NEM:BA include the importing into the Republic, and 1064 conveying, moving or otherwise translocating. The list of restricted activities in section of NEM:BA is 1065 supplemented by an additional list of restricted activities set out in regulation 6 of the A&IS 1066 Regulations, the most relevant of which includes the spreading or allowing to spread of an alien or 1067 listed invasive species and the introduction of a specimen of an alien or listed invasive species to off- 1068 shore islands.

1069 NEM:BA and the A&IS Regulations only identify activities – those pathways that are “unnatural” and 1070 “deliberate”; they do not identify “natural” or “inadvertent” pathways through which invasive species 1071 are introduced into and spread throughout South Africa. The proposed 2018 amendments to the A&IS 1072 Regulations include a new regulation that would prohibit the importation of an alien species into the 1073 Republic through ports of entry other than 11 listed ports of entry. The insertion of such a regulation 1074 would improve the quality of the A&IS Regulations in so far as they deal with the management of 1075 pathways.

1076 There are, however, other regulations that focus explicitly on pathways. Agricultural produce is 1077 regulated in terms of phytosanitary procedures, and an Act focussing on the management of ships’ 1078 ballast water is being developed, but it has not yet been introduced to Parliament for processing.1

1079 [Note: potential to increase the discussion of pathway regulation through DALRRD].

1080 6.3 The listing and permitting of species

1081 NEM:BA, the A&IS Regulations, and the A&IS Lists together provide for a system in terms of which the 1082 Minister of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (Minister) publishes a list of invasive species. The 1083 listed species are categorised into: species that must be combatted or eradicated; species that must 1084 be controlled; species for which a permit is required to carry out a restricted activity within a specified

1The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments came into force on 8 September 2017. The Draft Ballast Water Management Bill, 2017 purports to give effect to that Convention.

1085 area; species for which restricted activities may not be carried out and species in terms of which 1086 restricted activities are generally authorised; and species which are not present in the Republic and 1087 which may not be imported (this prohibited category was removed from the 2018 proposed amended 1088 regulations).

1089 In the first report, it was noted that the process followed by the Minister in listing species was unclear 1090 and that there was no evidence that the risk of each species on the national list of invasive species 1091 was properly assessed (see also Kumschick et al. 2020). The first status report also highlighted some 1092 listing errors in the national list of invasive species (see section 7.2, Chapter 7, SANBI and CIB 2018). 1093 The DEFF requested that SANBI constitute a scientific advisory panel dealing with issues pertaining to 1094 the risk posed by alien species. The Alien Species Risk Analysis Review Panel (ASRARP) was then 1095 formed and tasked with reviewing risk analyses underpinning the listing of species under national 1096 legislation (as well as risk analyses attached to import applications) to ensure they are scientifically 1097 robust and take into account the best available evidence (see Kumschick et al. 2020).

1098 In an effort to ensure the evidence underpinning the regulations is transparent, consistent, and in line 1099 with international best practice on risk analysis (as per the CBD), Kumschick et al. (2018) in 1100 collaboration with ASRARP developed and tested a risk analysis framework tailored to South Africa. 1101 ASRARP has reviewed and approved 20 risk analyses (as of October 2019) that were conducted as per 1102 the published guidelines (Table S6.3). These have not yet been made publicly available. Notably, the 1103 recommended listing for 9 of the 20 risk analyses does not agree with the current listing of species 1104 A&IS Regulations. This is because of: uncertainty as to whether the species is present [e.g. Mycocastor 1105 coypus (Coypu) and Sasa ramosa (Dwarf Yellow-striped Bamboo)]; field evaluations have found the 1106 species to be unsuitable targets for eradication because they are either widespread or are in people’s 1107 gardens [e.g. Melaleuca hypericifolia (Red-flowering Tea Tree), Paspalum quadrifarium (Tussock 1108 Paspalum), and Sagittaria platyphylla (Delta Arrowhead)]; the species is native [e.g. Penaeus indicus 1109 (Indian Prawn)]; and conflict of interest species where the likelihood that permits will be effective in 1110 limiting future impacts is low [e.g. Psittacula krameri (Red-ringed Parakeet), and Pycnonotus cafer 1111 (Red-vented Bulbul)]. One species that is currently unlisted was also recommended to be listed 1112 [Sphaeropteris cooperi (Australian Tree Fern)].

1113 As of October 2019, DEFF was in the process of establishing an inter-departmental decision-making 1114 panel consisting of members from national and provincial government departments responsible for 1115 the implementation NEM:BA’s provisions relating to biological invasions and the A&IS Regulations. 1116 ASRARP’s recommendations can potentially be tabled before such a panel for consideration.

1117 In addition, 128 risk assessments were completed between January 2017 and March 2018. Most of 1118 these concerned alien plant species (104) and were based on the modified Australian Weed Risk 1119 Assessment Protocol (Gordon et al. 2010). The remainder were done for species of birds, mammals, 1120 reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates and used different methods that have not been standardised 1121 and subjected to quality control. These are also yet to be made publicly available.

1122 The process for publishing proposed amendments to the lists of invasive species under the A&IS 1123 Regulations was illuminated in the court papers in the matter between Fly-fishers Association of 1124 Southern Africa v Minister of Environmental Affairs and others (Box 6.1). Evaluation of risk posed by 1125 some of the listed species or candidates for listing were conducted as part of the process.1 While these 1126 evaluations included information required by the NEM:BA A&IS Regulations, it is not clear how the 1127 likelihood and consequences of an invasion was determined (so are not obviously a risk assessment in 1128 the sense of the CBD’s definition), nor are aspects of risk management clearly outlined (so combined 1129 they are not obviously a risk analysis as contemplated in the CBD’s definition). This notwithstanding, 1130 these evaluations of risk were reviewed by international experts, and represent a significant advance 1131 in transparency. Evaluations were provided for eleven taxa—four out of the 39 new taxa proposed for 1132 listing and an additional seven taxa which were already listed [species already listed indicated by an 1133 asterisk: Achatina fulica (Giant African Snail), *Cestrum nocturnum (Night jessamine), *Cestrum 1134 diurnum (Day Jasmine), *Cestrum fasciculatum (Early jessamine), *Foudia madagascariensis 1135 (Madagascar Red Fody), *Morelia spilota (Diamond Phyton), *Morus alba (White Mulberry), Morus 1136 nigra (Black Mulberry), Oncorhynchus mykiss (Rainbow Trout), *Oreochromis niloticus (Nile tilapia) 1137 Pacifastacus leniusculus (Signal Crayfish), and Salmo trutta (Brown Trout)]. The evaluations provide 1138 similar regulatory recommendations to those that were formally proposed although the scope of 1139 exemptions differed in some cases and no recommendation was provided for P. leniusculus.

1140 Between January 2017 and August 2019, 794 permits were issued for conducting restricted activities 1141 involving listed invasive species (Table S6.1). The majority of the permits were issued for freshwater 1142 fish and mammal species such as O. niloticus, Kobus leche leche (Lechwe), Ctenopharyngodon idella 1143 (Grass Carp) and Dama dama (Fallow Deer). A few permit applications were refused, three for Cherax 1144 tenuimanus (Hairy maroon) and three for O. niloticus. 436 permits were granted for moving listed 1145 invasive species within the Republic, of which only 1 permit involved the exportation of a listed 1146 invasive species from the Republic (Table S6.2). 46 permits that were granted since the first status

1 Available at https://www.environment.gov.za/extensiononpubliccommenting, last viewed on 30 October 2019

1147 report involved the importation of listed invasive species into the Republic. No permit applications for 1148 pathway-related activities involving listed invasive species were refused.

1149 Box 6.1 The listing of Oncorhynchus mykiss (Rainbow Trout) and Salmo trutta (Brown Trout) as 1150 invasive species in terms of NEM:BA

1151 In February 2018, the Minister of Environmental Affairs (as the cabinet position was then) published 1152 a notice of intention to amend the list of invasive species, which had been in effect from 2016. In the 1153 notice, the Minister invited the public to submit comments on her intention within 30 days of the date 1154 of the notice (which period was extended). One of the proposed changes was to list Oncorhynchus 1155 mykiss (Rainbow Trout) and Salmo trutta (Brown Trout) as category 2 invasive species, the implication 1156 being that a permit would be required for conducting a restricted activity in relation to those species. 1157 The proposed amendment however exempted all persons from that requirement for two activities: 1158 having in possession or exercising physical control over any specimen of a listed invasive species, and 1159 catch and release of a specimen of a listed invasive fresh-water fish. Nonetheless, the proposal was 1160 contentious (see for instance S Coan “Trout safe for now” The Witness, 6 August 2014). The Federation 1161 of South African Fly Fishers (FOSAF) challenged the legal validity of the notice of intention to amend 1162 the invasive species list on procedural grounds. They requested the Court to, inter alia, declare that 1163 the notice was unlawful and that it be set aside on review. As of October 2020, the litigation had not 1164 yet been finalised.

1165 The litigation focussed on the public participation process that was followed by the Minister in 1166 publishing the proposed amendments and is therefore not directly relevant to the second status 1167 report. However, court papers illuminate the approach taken by the Department of Environmental 1168 Affairs (DEA) (as it was then) to the listing of invasive species. Most importantly, they revealed that 1169 DEA conducted evaluations of the risk posed by species proposed to be added to the list as well as 1170 those proposed to be removed from the list. These evaluation of risk, as well as a socio-economic 1171 impact assessment relating to some of the proposed amendments, were published on DEA’s website 1172 (https://www.environment.gov.za/extensiononpubliccommenting) during the public participation 1173 process.

1174 6.4 The regulation of sites

1175 A total of 25 area management plans have been submitted to the Minister since the first status report, 1176 covering an area of approximately 648 294 hectares (Table S6.4). Most of these refer to areas covered 1177 by the area management plans of the Maloti Drakensberg Conservation Area (312 105 hectares), 1178 Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality (250 000 hectares) and uMdoni Local Municipality (23800

1179 hectares). There were only three area management plans submitted by private landowners, two of 1180 which were submitted pursuant to the issuing of pre-directives on the relevant landowners. The area 1181 management plans submitted since the first status report cover roughly 0.5% of the country.

1182 The area management plans were assessed using the requirements for adequate planning that were 1183 outlined in the first status report (see section 7.4, Chapter 7, SANBI and CIB 2018). The majority (84%) 1184 of the plans were assessed as partially adequate. Three plans were found to be adequate and one was 1185 inadequate. Most area management plans identified the alien plant species that were present, 1186 detailed general measures that can be taken for their control and described infested sites. However, 1187 few of the plans linked the measures to a specific timeframe and budget, and reviewed the efficacy of 1188 previous control and eradication measures.

1189 [Note: still to access data on how many protected areas have developed and submitted management 1190 plans and status reports on invasive species.]

1191 In relation to private land, a person who is the owner of land on which a listed invasive species occurs 1192 has a duty of care in relation to those species. He or she is required to notify the Minister of the 1193 occurrence of such invasive species; to take steps to control and eradicate the listed invasive species 1194 and to prevent it from spreading; and to take all the steps required to prevent or minimise harm 1195 caused by the invasive species to biodiversity. In terms of regulation 13 of the A&IS Regulations, all 1196 competent authorities are obligated to establish and maintain registers of notifications received from 1197 landowners and directives served on landowners for non-compliance with NEM:BA and the A&IS 1198 Regulations and to provide the DEFF and the SANBI with copies of those registers. The SANBI has not 1199 been provided with any copies of such registers by competent authorities. It is therefore unclear if any 1200 notices were received from landowners since the first status report.

1201 Lukey and Hall (2020) raise a concern about faultless liability in NEM:BA and the A&IS Regulations. 1202 They argue that liability for the breach of the duty of care on landowners to take certain steps in 1203 relation to managing invasive species on their land can sometimes be faultless. The liability is faultless 1204 when the presence of invasive species on their land is not of their own making; i.e. when the species 1205 spread to the property by means other than the deliberate actions of the landowner. They further 1206 point out that faultless liability provisions are often seen as being unfair or unjust, and are vulnerable 1207 to constitutional challenge. Enforcement agencies are usually loathe to enforce such provisions.

1208 The Legislature seeks to address the problem of fairness and justness in NEM:BA by making some 1209 proposed changes to the Act. The proposed amendments are: 1) remove the provisions requiring 1210 landowners to notify the Minister of the presence of listed invasive species on his or her property; 2)

1211 the general duty to take steps to “control and eradicate the listed invasive species and to prevent it 1212 from spreading” is circumscribed to taking steps to “control or eradicate the listed invasive species as 1213 prescribed by the Minister [in regulations]” (own emphasis); and 3) to insert a provision requiring the 1214 Minister to “provide for education and awareness of listed invasive species”. It is envisaged that 1215 education and awareness may improve the perception of fairness of the law as it has the potential to 1216 apprise landowners of their duties in relation to invasive species on their property and to raise 1217 awareness of the dangers invasive species pose to biodiversity.

1218 6.5 Compliance and enforcement

1219 Substantial progress has been made on many fronts, particularly with regard to implementing and 1220 enforcing the regulations. However, for the purposes of this report, little information was available on 1221 monitoring the effectiveness of the NEM:BA and the NEM:BA A&IS Regulations and Lists.

1222 There has been significant increases in enforcement activities and the first criminal conviction under 1223 the A&IS Regulations was successfully prosecuted. The number of notifications (pre-compliance 1224 notices, compliance notices and warning letters) and directives (predictive and directive) that were 1225 issued for activities with listed alien and invasive species were mainly for failure to control category 1226 1b listed invasive species and failure by a landowner to notify the Minister of a category 1a listed 1227 invasive species occurring their land (Figure S6.5). The type of properties served with notices and 1228 directives for restricted activities with listed alien and invasive animal species were mainly private 1229 landowners and nurseries (Table S6.6). Enforcement action was also taken against some organs of 1230 state, such as municipalities, national departments, and management authorities of protected area.

1231 Six non-compliance cases were handed over to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for criminal 1232 prosecution. The NPA has secured one criminal conviction (Box 6.2), while the other five cases are still 1233 pending. As highlighted in the first status report, is still not clear if compliance and enforcement 1234 actions are done in accordance with an overarching strategy focusing on priority species, pathways, 1235 and sites (section 6.7). In addition there still no evidence that any emergency interventions were 1236 implemented since the first status report. There is also no evidence of a competent authority utilising 1237 its powers in terms of section 73(4) of NEM:BA to implement a directive and to recover all costs 1238 reasonably incurred in implementing the directive from the person on whom a directive was served, 1239 but failed to comply therewith.

1240 It is noteworthy that neither NEM:BA nor the A&IS Regulations make provision for the imposition of 1241 administrative fines or penalties on those who have contravened or failed to comply with the 1242 provisions of NEM:BA dealing with the management of alien and invasive species or the A&IS

1243 Regulations. Administrative penalties are monetary penalties that are imposed on a person for 1244 contravening a provisions of an Act by a competent authority. The imposition of an administrative 1245 penalty does not require a conviction in a criminal court, but merely a preceding fair administrative 1246 proceeding. They have been effectively employed in the UK and by the Competition Tribunal in South 1247 Africa (Fourie, 2009; Hugo, 2014).

1248 Box 6.2 The first criminal conviction for a contravention of the alien and invasive species provisions 1249 of NEM:BA: S v Granada Home Builders CC (Pine Town Magistrates’ Court, case number 1250 601/02/2017)

1251 In the matter of S v Granada Home Builders CC, Granada Home Builders CC (Granada) was held 1252 criminally liable for not fulfilling its duty of care relating to invasive species on its land. In May 2016, 1253 the then Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) received a request to issue a directive to Granada 1254 to clear certain listed invasive plant species (e.g. Seringa, Bug Weed, and Caster Oil) which were 1255 growing on its property. The requester was concerned that the invasive plant species posed a fire risk 1256 to neighbouring properties. Granada, like all owners of land, has a duty in terms of section 73(2) to 1257 notify the Minister of the presence of listed invasive species on its property, to take steps to control 1258 and eradicate those species and to prevent them from spreading, and to take all required steps to 1259 prevent or minimise harm to biodiversity. Granada did not fulfil this duty of care.

1260 DEA’s environmental management inspectorate served a directive on the sole member of Granada in 1261 terms of section 73(2) of NEMBA, directing Granada to clear the invasive species on its property. 1262 Granada did not comply with the directive and, as a result, DEA instituted criminal proceedings against 1263 Granada for conducting a restricted activity involving listed invasive species without permits and 1264 failing to comply with a directive. Granada pleaded guilty to both counts and was sentenced by the 1265 Pine Town Magistrates’ Court to the payment of a fine of R50 000 or two years imprisonment. The 1266 sentence was suspended for two years on the condition that the necessary steps are taken to control 1267 and eradicate the relevant listed invasive species on its property. Granada has met the conditions of 1268 its sentence. It has spent R350 000 on environmental reports and the removal of the relevant listed 1269 invasive species from its property.

1270 Regulation 10 of the A&IS Regulations provides that “a proposal on any research and biological control 1271 relating to any aspect of the invasiveness or potential invasiveness of an alien species or a listed 1272 invasive species or the prevention, eradication or control of such invasive or potentially invasive 1273 species must be lodged with [SANBI] or a body designated by [SANBI]…” where such research or 1274 biological control is wholly of partially state-funded. Copies of the findings of such research must be

1275 provided to SANBI and the Minister. Since the first status report, 12 permits have been issued for 1276 activities involving research on listed invasive species.

1277 [Note: how many research proposals and research findings have been submitted to the SANBI or DEFF 1278 since the first status report are to be ascertained]

1279 In the first status report, it was stated that access is required to several databases to compile the 1280 report and that those databases, despite being administered by one organ of state, are often 1281 dispersed and difficult to access. This remains the case.

1282

1283 Chapter 7: Gaps1

1284 In the first status report gaps affecting both the ability to report on biological invasions and on the 1285 effectiveness of control measures were identified and solutions were proposed. The progress to fill 1286 these gaps is outlined in Table S7.1. This information together with key issues highlighted by the recent 1287 comprehensive overview of biological invasions in South Africa (van Wilgen et al. 2020a, summarised 1288 in Table S7.2) was combined, and the following gaps are highlighted.

1289 [Note: the process for reaching these priorities to be included]

1290 • There is limited information on pathways of dispersal. Limited, collated information on the 1291 pathways of dispersal still precludes an assessment of the relative prominence of the within- 1292 country dispersal pathways. Data on within-country dispersal is limited to extralimital species 1293 of amphibians (Measey et al. 2017)and fish (Picker & Griffiths 2011). Plans are in place to start 1294 data collection for other extralimital species. 1295 • There is still a need for reliable spatial data (distribution and abundance) of alien species. 1296 There are data on the extent of terrestrial and freshwater plants and for birds but not for 1297 other taxa. There is support for various atlassing projects, but ensuring the long-term 1298 sustainability of these is a priority. Much more still needs to be done to integrate these 1299 datasets and citizen science platforms. Some exploratory work has been initiated on remote 1300 sensing, and some general guidelines are available on the types of data that need to be 1301 collected (e.g. Cheney et al. 2018). But there are still very few reliable data sources. In 1302 addition, this report includes few data on the relative abundance (cover, biomass or 1303 population size) of alien species at specific sites. A process to source and interpret data from 1304 provincial conservation departments is noted as a priority for future reports. 1305 • Quantifying the impacts of alien species on biodiversity remains a major challenge. Data 1306 presented in this report represent a shift from expert assessments of impact towards 1307 assessments based on published data (e.g. through EICAT and SEICAT). This process still needs 1308 to be completed and aligned with the developing international frameworks in the area. A few 1309 studies have indicated impact, but this remains a major gap where detailed research is 1310 needed. In addition, there is limited information on the combined impact of co-occurring alien 1311 species within a particular site on the delivery of selected ecosystem services, or on 1312 biodiversity. There are a few studies on impacts on water resources at a catchment scale, and

1 Lead authors: Tsungai Zengeya, John R. Wilson, Brian van Wilgen, Katelyn Faulkner, Tendamudzimu Munyai, Marthán Theart

1313 on rangeland productivity and biodiversity at a biome scale. These are coarse estimates, as 1314 many assumptions had to be made due to a lack of impact studies at a species scale. More 1315 research is required to translate the species-level impact into ecosystem-level impacts, and 1316 protocols need to be developed that will allow for joint consideration of environmental and 1317 socio-economic impacts when making decisions. There are insufficient data to express the 1318 effects of reductions in ecosystem services in economic or social terms (De Lange & Van 1319 Wilgen, 2010). There is a need for a conceptual link with the EICAT and SEICAT scheme for 1320 species. Reductions in ecosystem services should be placed in the context of how critical those 1321 services are in particular areas. 1322 • Need for formal programs to monitor the effectiveness of regulatory and management 1323 measures. The absence of clear goals and monitoring of progress has not been addressed to 1324 date. There has been no research on indicator performance yet, and proposals to apply the 1325 indicators to particular sites are still in the initiation phase. Similarly there are several research 1326 projects designed to assess the impact of particular policies, but these are mostly still in the 1327 early stages. 1328 • No comprehensive policy or strategy on biological invasions in South Africa. Lukey and Hall 1329 (2020) suggest that the failure by the South African government to produce a comprehensive 1330 overarching policy on biological invasions in South Africa is one of the main reasons why the 1331 past efforts in controlling biological invasions in South Africa have had little effect. They 1332 recommend that government prioritise the development of a comprehensive, evidence-based 1333 policy on biological invasions that would clarify the government’s policy position, guide 1334 decision-makers when implementing legislation, and assist the legislature when making and 1335 amending the laws dealing the biological invasions, on how to best give effect to that policy. 1336 Such a policy would also inform how to improve the indicators against which the regulations 1337 are measured, and more broadly provide a vision as to what the goal is (Wilson et al. 2020). 1338 An additional consequences of there being no comprehensive policy or strategy on addressing 1339 biological invasions in South Africa is that there is no or little intergovernmental coordination 1340 among environmental authorities and other organs of state responsible for biological 1341 invasions, such as the national departments DALRRD, Water and Sanitation (DWS), and Health 1342 (DoH), and provincial conservation departments. These organs of state are responsible for the 1343 administration of various Acts that deal with the management of alien and invasive species, 1344 such as the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983; Agricultural Pests Act, 1983; 1345 Animal Diseases Act, 1984 and the Animal Health Act, 2002. There is, however, little evidence 1346 that these organs of state have taken steps to ensure that the legislation they administer are

1347 aligned and that monitoring and enforcement actions are streamlined to ensure better 1348 results. At a narrow level this poses a challenge for reporting on the status of biological 1349 invasions, but ultimately it likely affects the effectiveness of interventions.

1350 [Note: we would be very grateful for comments and suggestions on how to fill these gaps, or which 1351 other gaps should be considered as priorities]

1352 Acknowledgements

1353 [Note: To be included in the final version when all contributions have been received]

1354 References

1355 [Note: the reference list should be complete but has not been consistently formatted. In it intended 1356 to include web-links (e.g. dois) to all reference documents, this has been done in part. The links to 1357 the book on biological invasion in South Africa are not as of 17 Dec 2019 active, but should become 1358 active in Jan 2020]

1359 Alien and Invasive Species Lists. 2016. (Government Notice 864 in Government Gazette 40166 of 29 July 2016) 1360 https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/gazetted_notices/nemba10of2004_alienandinva 1361 sive_specieslists2016_0.pdf 1362 Alien and Invasive Species Regulations. 2014. (Government Notice R598 in Government Gazette 37885 of 1 1363 August 2014) 1364 https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/legislations/nemba10of2004_alienandinvasive_s 1365 peciesregulations.pdf 1366 Bacher, S., Blackburn, T.M., Essl, F., Piero Genovesi, P., Heikkilä, J., Jeschke, J.M., … Kumschick, S. (2018). Socio‐ 1367 economic impact classification of alien taxa (SEICAT). Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 159-168. 1368 https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/2041-210X.12844 1369 Blackburn, T.M., Essl, F., Evans, T., Hulme, P.E., Jeschke, J.M., Kühn, I., … Bacher, S. (2014). A unified 1370 classification of alien species based on the magnitude of their environmental impacts. PLoS Biology, 1371 12, e1001850. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001850 1372 Burness, A. (2019). An Investigation of the International Traditional Medicine Trade as an Introduction 1373 Pathway for Alien Plants into South Africa. MSc Thesis. University of Witwatersrand. 1374 http://opus.sanbi.org/handle/20.500.12143/6815?mode=full 1375 Byrne, M.J., Williams, V.L. & Wojtasik, E.M. (2017). The viability of propagules of alien plant species sold for 1376 traditional medicine in South Africa. South African Journal of Botany, 109, 281-287. 1377 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajb.2017.01.206 1378 Calitz, F. (2012). The Status of Ballast Water Management in the Ports of South Africa. MBA Thesis. Graduate 1379 School of Business and Leadership, University of KwaZulu-Natal. pp. 100 http://ukzn- 1380 dspace.ukzn.ac.za/handle/10413/11129 1381 Canavan, S., Kumschick, S., Le Roux, J.J., Richardson, D.M., Wilson, J.R.U. (2019). Does origin determine 1382 environmental impacts? Not for bamboos. Plants People Planet, 1, 119-128. 1383 https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.5 1384 Canavan, S., Richardson, D.M., Le Roux, J.J. & Wilson, J.R.U. (2019). Alien Bamboos in South Africa: a Socio- 1385 Historical Perspective. Human Ecology, 47, 121-133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-018-0041-8 1386 CBD. (2014). Pathways of introduction of invasive species, their prioritization and management, 1387 https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-18/official/sbstta-18-09-add1-en.pdf 1388 Cheney, C., Esler, K.J., Foxcroft, L.C., & van Wilgen, N.J. (2019). Scenarios for the management of invasive 1389 Acacia species in a protected area: Implications of clearing efficacy. Journal of Environmental 1390 Management, 238, 274-282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.02.112 1391 Cheney, C., Esler, K.J., Foxcroft, L.C., van Wilgen, N.J., McGeoch, M.A. (2018). The impact of data precision on 1392 the effectiveness of alien plant control programmes: a case study from a protected area. Biological 1393 Invasions, 20, 3227-3241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-018-1770-8 1394 Coan, S. (2014). Trout safe for now The Witness, 6 August 2014. 1395 Copp, G.H. (2013). The Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit (FISK) for non-native freshwater fishes: A summary of 1396 current applications. Risk Analysis, 33, 1394-1396. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12095 1397 Cronin, K., Kaplan, H., Gaertner, M., Irlich, U.M. & Hoffman, M.T. (2017). Aliens in the nursery: assessing the 1398 awareness and attitudes of nursery managers to invasive species regulations. Biological Invasions, 19, 1399 925-937. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1363-3 1400 Davies, S.J., Jordaan, M., Karsten, M., Terblanche, J.S., Turnur, A.A., van Wilgen, N.J., …Measy, J. (2020) 1401 Experience and lessons from alien and invasive animal control projects carried out in South Africa. In:

1402 van Wilgen, B.W., Measey, G.J., Richardson, D.M., Wilson, J.R., Zengeya, T. (Eds), Biological invasions 1403 in South Africa (pp. xxx-yyy). Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_22 1404 Department of Environmental Affairs. (2018). National Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report, 1405 2017-18. https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/reports/necereport2017-18.pdf 1406 Department of Environmental Affairs. (2018). National Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Report, 1407 2018-19 1408 Department of Environmental Affairs. (30 September 2015). Guidelines for monitoring, control and eradication 1409 plans as required by section 76 of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 1410 (Act No. 10 of 2004) (NEMBA) for species listed as invasive in terms of section 70 of this Act. 1411 https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/legislations/nemba_invasivespecies_controlguid 1412 eline.pdf 1413 Essl, F., Dullinger, S., Rabitsch, W., Hulme, P.E., Pyšek, P., Wilson, J.R.U. & Richardson, D.M. (2015). Historical 1414 legacies accumulate to shape future biodiversity in an era of rapid global change. Diversity and 1415 Distributions, 21, 534-547. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12312 1416 Evans, T., Kumschick, S., & Blackburn, T.M. (2016). Application of the Environmental Impact Classification for 1417 Alien Taxa (EICAT) to a global assessment of alien bird impacts. Diversity and Distribution, 22, 919- 1418 931. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12464 1419 Faulkner, K.T., Robertson, M.P., Rouget, M., & Wilson, J.R.U. (2017). Prioritising surveillance for alien 1420 organisms transported as stowaways on ships travelling to South Africa. Plos One, 12, e0173340. 1421 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173340 1422 Faulkner, K.T., Spear, D., Robertson, M.P., Rouget, M., & Wilson, J.R.U. (2015). An assessment of the 1423 information content of South African alien species databases. Bothalia: African Biodiversity and 1424 Conservation, 45, a1103. https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v45i1.1103 1425 Federation of Southern African Fly Fishers v Minister of Environmental Affairs (Case number 62486/18, High 1426 Court of the Republic of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria): Notice of motion, founding affidavit 1427 and answering affidavit 1428 Gordon, D.R., Mitterdorfer, B., Pheloung, P.C., Ansari, S., Buddenhagen, C., Chimera, C., … Williams, P.A. 1429 (2010). Guidance for addressing the Australian Weed Risk Assessment questions. Plant Protection 1430 Quarterly, 25, 56-74. http://www.ibot.cas.cz/personal/pysek/pdf/Gordon_et_al.- 1431 Guidance_Australian_WRA_PlantProtectionQuarterly2010.pdf 1432 Greve, M., Eric, C., von der Meden, O., & Janion-Scheepers, C. (2020). Biological invasions in South Africa’s 1433 offshore sub-Antarctic territories. In: van Wilgen, B.W., Measey, G.J., Richardson, D.M., Wilson, J.R., 1434 Zengeya, T. (Eds), Biological invasions in South Africa (pp. xxx-yyy). Springer, Berlin. 1435 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_8 1436 Groom, Q., Desmet, P., Reyserhove, L., Adriaens, T., Oldoni, D., Vanderhoeven, S., … Simpson, A. (2019). 1437 Improving Darwin Core for research and management of alien species. Biodiversity Information 1438 Science and Standards, 3, e38084. https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.3.38084 1439 Hagen, B.L. & Kumschick, S. (2018). The relevance of using various scoring schemes revealed by an impact 1440 assessment of feral mammals. NeoBiota, 38, 37–75. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.38.23509 1441 Harrower, C.A., Scalera, R., Pagad, S., Schönrogge, K. & Roy, H.E. (2018). Guidance for Interpretation of CBD 1442 Categories on Introduction Pathways. http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/519129/ 1443 Hawkins, C.L., Bacher, S., Essl, F., Hulme, P.E., Jeschke, J.M., Kühn, I., … Blackburn, T.M. (2015) Framework and 1444 guidelines for implementing the proposed IUCN Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa 1445 (EICAT). Diversity and Distributions, 21, 1360-1363. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12379 1446 Jones, R.W., Hill, J.M., Coetzee, J.A., Avery, T.S., Weyl, O., & Hill, M.P. (2017). The abundance of an invasive 1447 freshwater snail Tarebia granifera (Lamarck, 1822) in the Nseleni River, South Africa. African Journal 1448 of Aquatic Science, 42, 75-81. https://doi.org/10.2989/16085914.2017.1298984 1449 Holmes, P.M., Esler, K.J., Gaertner, M., Geerts, S., Hall, S.A., Nsikani, M.M., … Ruwanza, S. (2020). Biological 1450 invasions and ecological restoration in South Africa. In: van Wilgen, B.W., Measey, G.J., Richardson, 1451 D.M., Wilson, J.R., Zengeya, T. (Eds), Biological invasions in South Africa (pp. xxx-yyy). Springer, Berlin. 1452 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_23 1453 Humair, F., Humair, L., Kuhn, F., & Kueffer, C. (2015). E-commerce trade in invasive plants. Conservation 1454 biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 00, 1-8. 1455 https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12579 1456 International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, 1457 2004.http://library.arcticportal.org/1913/1/International%20Convention%20for%20the%20Control% 1458 20and%20Management%20of%20Ships%27%20Ballast%20Water%20and%20Sediments.pdf

1459 Janion-Scheepers, C., & Griffiths, C.L. (2020). Alien terrestrial invertebrates in South Africa. In: van Wilgen, 1460 B.W., Measey, G.J., Richardson, D.M., Wilson, J.R., Zengeya, T. (Eds), Biological invasions in South 1461 Africa (pp. xxx-yyy). Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_7 1462 Kesner, D., & Kumschick, S. (2018). Gastropods alien to South Africa cause severe environmental harm in their 1463 global alien ranges across habitats. Ecology and Evolution, 8, 8273-8285. 1464 https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4385 1465 Kotze, J.D.F., Beukes, H.D., & Seifert, T. (2019). Essential environmental variables to include in a stratified 1466 sampling design for a national-level invasive alien tree survey. iForest – Biogeosciences and Forestry, 1467 12, 418-426. https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor2767-012 1468 Kotze, J.D.F., Beukes, B.H., Newby, T.S., & Van den Berg, E.C. (2010). National invasive alien plant survey. 1469 Council, Institute for Soil, Climate and Water, Report No. GW/A/2010/21, 1–17. Agricultural Research 1470 Council - Institute for Soil, Climate and Water, Pretoria. 1471 https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f34e/fd52f169944531b0ab71e60da9a682326001.pdf 1472 Kumschick, S., Vimercati, G., de Villiers, F.A., Mokhatla, M.M., Davies, S.J., Thorp, C.J., Rebelo, A.D., Measey, 1473 G.J. (2017). Impact assessment with different scoring tools: How well do alien amphibian assessments 1474 match? Neobiota, 33, 53-66. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.33.10376 1475 Kumschick, S., Foxcroft, L.C., & Wilson, J.R. (2020). Analysing the risks posed by biological invasions to South 1476 Africa. In: van Wilgen, B.W., Measey, G.J., Richardson, D.M., Wilson, J.R., Zengeya, T. (Eds), Biological 1477 invasions in South Africa (pp. xxx-yyy). Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394- 1478 3_20 1479 Kumschick, S., Wilson, J.R., & Foxcroft, L.C. (2018). Framework and Guidelines for Conducting Risk Analyses for 1480 Alien Species. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints201811.0551.v1 1481 Le Maitre, D.C., Blignaut, J.N., Clulow, A., Dzikiti, S., Everson, C.S., Görgens, A.H.M. & Gush, M.B (2019). 1482 Impacts of Plant Invasions on Terrestrial Water Flows in South Africa. In: van Wilgen, B.W., Measey, 1483 G.J., Richardson, D.M., Wilson, J.R., Zengeya, T. (Eds), Biological invasions in South Africa (pp. xxx-yyy). 1484 Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_15 1485 Loftus, W.J. (2013). Strategic adaptive management and the efficiency of invasive alien plant management in 1486 South African National Parks. MSc thesis, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University. 1487 Lukey, P., & Hall, J. (2020). Biological Invasion Policy and Legislation Development and Implementation in 1488 South Africa In: van Wilgen, B.W., Measey, G.J., Richardson, D.M., Wilson, J.R., Zengeya, T. (Eds), 1489 Biological invasions in South Africa (pp. xxx-yyy). Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030- 1490 32394-3_18 1491 Mabin, C.A., Wilson, J.R.U., Le Roux, J.J., & Robinson, T.B. (2017). Reassessing the invasion of South African 1492 waters by the European shore-crab Carcinus maenas. African Journal of Marine Science, 39, 259-267. 1493 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2989/1814232X.2017.1363818 1494 Mace, G.M., Collar, N.J., Gaston, K.J., Hilton-Taylor, C., Akçakaya, H.R., Leader-Williams, N., Milner-Gulland, E.J. 1495 & Stuart, S.N. (2008) Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN’s system for classifying threatened 1496 species. Conservation Biology, 22, 1424–1442. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01044.x 1497 Marr, S.M., Ellender, B.R., Woodford, D.J., Alexander, M.E., Wasserman, R.J., Ivey,P., Zengeya, T.A., & Weyl, 1498 O.L.F. (2017). Evaluating invasion risk for freshwater fishes in South Africa. Bothalia, 47, a2177. 1499 https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v47i2.2177 1500 Martin, G.D., Coetzee, J.A., Weyl, P.S.R., Parkinson, M.C., & Hill, M.P. (2018). Biological control of Salvinia 1501 molesta in South Africa revisited. Biological Control, 125, 74-80. 1502 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2018.06.011 1503 Martin, G.D. (2019). Addressing geographical bias: A review of Robinia pseudocacia (black locust) in the 1504 Southern Hemisphere. South African Journal of Botany, 125, 481 -492. 1505 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajb.2019.08.014 1506 Martin, G.D., & Coetzee, J.A. (2011) Pet stores, aquarists and the internet trade as modes of introduction and 1507 spread of invasive macrophytes in South Africa. Water SA, 37, 371–380. 1508 https://doi.org/10.4314/wsa.v37i3.68488 1509 McGeoch, M.A., Genovesi, P., Bellingham, P.J., Costello, M.J., McGrannachan, C., & Sheppard, A. (2016). 1510 Prioritizing species, pathways, and sites to achieve conservation targets for biological invasion. 1511 Biological Invasions, 18, 299-314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-015-1013-1 1512 Measey, G.J., Hui, C., & Somers, M. (2020a) Terrestrial vertebrate invasions in South Africa. In: van Wilgen, 1513 B.W., Measey, G.J., Richardson, D.M., Wilson, J.R., Zengeya, T. (Eds), Biological invasions in South 1514 Africa (pp. xxx-yyy). Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_5

1515 Measey, J., Davies, S.J., Vimercati, G., Rebelo, A., Schmidt, W., & Turner, A. (2017). Invasive amphibians in 1516 southern Africa: a review of invasion pathways. Bothalia: African Biodiversity and Conservation, 47, 1517 a2117. https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v47i2.2117 1518 Mkunyana, Y.P., Mazvimavi, D., Dzikiti, S., & Ntshidi, Z. (2019) A comparative assessment of water use by 1519 Acacia longifolia invasions occuring on hillslope and riparian zones in the Cape Aghulas region of 1520 South Africa. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 112, 255-264. 1521 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2018.10.002 1522 Mostert, E., Gaertner, M., Holmes, P.M., Rebelo, A.G., & Richardson,D.M. (2017). Impacts of invasive alien 1523 trees on threatened lowland vegetation types in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. South African 1524 Journal of Botany, 108, 209-222.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajb.2016.10.014 1525 National Environmental Management Act, 2004 (Act 107 of 1998) https://cer.org.za/wp- 1526 content/uploads/2014/02/NEMA-107-of-1998.pdf 1527 National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act 10 of 2004) 1528 https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/legislations/nema_amendment_act10.pdf 1529 Nelufule, T. (2018). An assessment of alien terrestrial invertebrate species in the pet trade in South Africa. MSc 1530 Thesis, University of Pretoria. 1531 Nkuna, V.K. (2018). Risk analysis of alien grasses occurring in South Africa. MSc Thesis, Stellenbosch University. 1532 Nsikana, M.M., Novoa, A., van Wilgen, B. W., Keet, J., & Gaertner, M. (2017). Acacia saligna's soil legacy effects 1533 persists up to 10 years after clearing: Implication for ecological restoration. Australian Ecology, 42: 1534 880-889. https://doi.org/10.1111/aec.12515 1535 Nunes, A.L., Hoffman, A.C., Zengeya, T.A., Measey, G.J., & Weyl, O.L.F. (2017). Red swamp crayfish, 1536 Procambarus clarkii, found in South Africa 22 years after attempted eradication. Aquatic 1537 Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 27, 1334–1340. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2741 1538 Nunes, A.L., Zengeya, T.A., Measey, G.J. & Weyl, O.L.F. (2017) Freshwater crayfish invasions in South Africa : 1539 past , present and potential future. African Journal of Aquatic Science, 42, 309-323. 1540 https://doi.org/10.2989/16085914.2017.1405788 1541 O’Connor, T., & van Wilgen, B.W. (2020). The impact of invasive alien plants on rangelands in South Africa. In: 1542 van Wilgen, B.W., Measey, G.J., Richardson, D.M., Wilson, J.R., Zengeya, T. (Eds), Biological invasions 1543 in South Africa (pp. xxx-yyy). Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_16 1544 Parkes, J.P. (2019). Timing aerial baiting for rodent eradications on cool temperate islands: mice on Marion 1545 Island. In: Veitch, C.R., Clout, M.N., Martin, A.R., Russell, J.C., & West, J.C. (Eds), Island invasives: 1546 scaling up to meet the challenge (pp. 36–39). Occasional Paper SSC no. 62. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 1547 Peters, K., & Robinson, T.B. (2017) First record of the marine alien amphipod Caprella mutica (Schurin, 1935) in 1548 South Africa. BioInvasions Records, 6, 61-66. https://doi.org/10.3391/bir.2017.6.1.10 1549 Picker, M.D. & Griffiths, C.L. (2011) Alien and Invasive Animals: A South African Perspective. Struik Nature, 1550 Cape Town. 1551 Potgieter, L.J., Douwes, E., Gaertner, M., Measy, G.J., Paap, T., & Richardson, D.M. (2020). Biological invasions 1552 in South Africa’s urban ecosystems: Patterns, processes, impacts and management. In: van Wilgen, 1553 B.W., Measey, G.J., Richardson, D.M., Wilson, J.R., Zengeya, T. (Eds), Biological invasions in South 1554 Africa (pp. xxx-yyy). Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_11 1555 Preston, G.R., Dilley, B.J., Cooper, J Beaumont, J, Chauke, L.F., Chown, S.L., … Ryan, P.G. (2019). South Africa 1556 works towards eradicating introduced house mice from sub-Antarctic Marion Island: the largest island 1557 yet attempted for mice. In: Veitch, C.R., Clout, M.N., Martin, A.R., Russell, J.C., & West, J.C. (Eds), 1558 Island invasives: scaling up to meet the challenge (pp. 36-39). Occasional Paper SSC no. 62. Gland, 1559 Switzerland: IUCN. 1560 https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/docs/SAworkstowardseradicatinghousemicefro 1561 mMarionIsland2019.pdf 1562 Preston, I.R., Le Maitre, D.C., Blignaut, J.N., Louw, L., & Palmer, P.G. (2018). Impact of invasive alien plants on 1563 water provision in selected catchments. Water SA, 44, 719-729. https://doi.org/10.4314/wsa.v44i4.20 1564 Pyšek, P., Jarošík, V., & Pergl, J. (2011). Alien plants introduced by different pathways differ in invasion success: 1565 unintentional introductions as a threat to natural areas. PLoS ONE, 6, e24890. 1566 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024890 1567 Qongqo, A. (2018). Introduction Pathways of Phytopathogenic Fungi and Their Potential Role in Limiting Plant 1568 Invasions: The Case of Banksia Spp. (Proteaceae) in the Cape Floristic Region. Cape Peninsula 1569 University of Technology. 1570 Regulations relating to qualification criteria, training and identification of, and forms to be used by 1571 environmental management inspectors and environmental mineral resource inspectors, 2017

1572 (Government Notice R480 in Government Gazette 40879 of 31 May 2017). 1573 http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/saf167445.pdf 1574 Richardson, D.M., Foxcroft, L.C., Latombe, G., Le Maitre, D.C., Rouget, M., & Wilson, J.R.U (2020b) The 1575 biogeography of South African terrestrial plant invasions. In: van Wilgen, B.W., Measey, G.J., 1576 Richardson, D.M., Wilson, J.R., Zengeya, T. (Eds), Biological invasions in South Africa (pp. xxx-yyy). 1577 Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_3 1578 Robinson, T.B., Peters, K., & Brooker, B. (2019). Coastal invasions: The South African context. In: van Wilgen, 1579 B.W., Measey, G.J., Richardson, D.M., Wilson, J.R., Zengeya, T. (Eds), Biological invasions in South 1580 Africa (pp. xxx-yyy). Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_9 1581 Ruwanza, S., Gaertner, M., Esler, K.J., & Richardson, D.M. (2018). Medium-term vegetation recovery after 1582 removal of invasive Eucalyptus camaldulensis stands along a South African river. South African Journal 1583 of Botany, 119, 63-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajb.2018.08.002 1584 Saccaggi, D.L., & Pieterse, W. (2013). Intercepting aliens: insects and mites on budwood imported to South 1585 Africa. Journal of Economic Entomology, 106, 1179-1189. https://doi.org/10.1603/EC12465 1586 South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI). 2019. National Biodiversity Assessment 2018: The status 1587 of South Africa’s ecosystems and biodiversity. Synthesis Report. Synthesis Report. South African 1588 National Biodiversity Institute, an entity of the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries, 1589 Pretoria. pp. 1-214. http://biodiversityadvisor.sanbi.org/planning-and-assessment/national- 1590 biodiversity-assessment-nba-2018/ 1591 SANBI, CIB (2018) The status of biological invasions and their management in South Africa in 2017. South 1592 African National Biodiversity Institute, Kirstenbosch and DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion 1593 Biology, Stellenbosch. https://www.sanbi.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/National-Status-Report- 1594 web-6MB.pdf 1595 Shelton, J., Weyl, O.L.F., Van Der Walt, J., Marr, S., Impson, D., Maciejewski, K., Tye, D., Dallas, H., & Esler, K. 1596 (2017). Effect of an intensive mechanical removal effort on a population of non-native rainbow trout 1597 Oncorhynchus mykiss in a South African headwater stream. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and 1598 Freshwater Ecosystems, 27, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2752 1599 Shivambu, T.C. (2018). Risk Assessment of Tarantula Species in the Pet Trade in South Africa. University of 1600 Pretoria. 1601 Spencer, R., & Cross, R. (2004). Devising a plant labelling system that satisfies everyone! ISHS Acta 1602 Horticulturae, 634, 221-225. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2004.634.27 1603 Stafford, L., Shemie, D., Kroeger, T., Baker, T., & Apse, C. (2018). The greater Cape Town Water Fund. Assessing 1604 the return on investment for ecological infrastructure restoration: Business case. The Nature 1605 Conservancy, Cape Town. https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/GCTWF- 1606 Business-Case_2018-11-14_Web.pdf 1607 Stafford, W., Birch, C., Etter, H., Blanchard, R., Mudavanhu, S.,Angelstam, P.,Blignaut, J., Ferreira, L., & Marais, 1608 C. (2017) The economics of landscape restoration: Benefits of controlling bush encroachment and 1609 invasive plant species in South Africa and Namibia. Ecosystem Services 27: 193-202. 1610 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.021 1611 Stafford, W., & Blignaut, J. (2017). Reducing landscape restoration costs: Feasibility of generating electricity 1612 from invasive alien plant biomass on the Agulhas Plain, South Africa. Ecosystem Services, 27, 224-231. 1613 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.04.008 1614 Sutherland, W.J., & Burgman, M.A. (2015). Policy advice: Use experts wisely. Nature, 526, 317-318. 1615 https://doi.org/10.1038/526317a 1616 Te Beest, M., Howison, O., Howison, R.A., Dew, A., Poswa, M.M., Janse van Rensburg, S., & Terblanche, C. 1617 (2017). Successful control of the invasive shrub Chromolaena odorata in Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park. In 1618 Cromsigt, J.P.G.M., Archibald, S., & Owen-Smith, N. (Eds). Conserving Africa’s mega-diversity in the 1619 Anthropocene: The Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park story (pp. 358–382). Cambridge University Press, 1620 Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139382793.020 1621 Tsiamis, K., Cardoso, A.C., & Gervasini, E. (2017). The European Alien Species Information Network on the 1622 Convention on Biological Diversity pathways categorization. NeoBiota, 32, 21-29. 1623 https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.32.9429 1624 van der Walt, J.A., Marr, S.M., Wheeler, M.J., Impson, N.D., Garrow, C., Weyl, O.L.F. (2019). Successful 1625 mechanical eradication of spotted bass (Micropterus punctulatus (Rafinesque, 1819)) from a South 1626 African river Aquatic Conservation. Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 1627 https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3035

1628 Van Rensburg, J., van Wilgen, B.W., & Richardson, D.M. (2018). Reconstructing the spread of invasive alien 1629 plants on privately-owned land in the Cape Floristic Region: Vergelegen Wine Estate as a case study. 1630 South African Geographical Journal, 100, 180-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/03736245.2017.1340187 1631 van Wilgen, B.W., Measey, G.J., Richardson, D.M., Wilson, J.R., & Zengeya, T. (2020a). Biological invasions in 1632 South Africa. Invading Nature, Springer Series in Invasion Ecology vol. 14. Springer, Berlin. 1633 van Wilgen, B.W., Measey, G.J., Richardson, D.M., Wilson, J.R., & Zengeya, T. (2020b) Overview of biological 1634 invasions in South Africa. In: van Wilgen, B.W., Measey, G.J., Richardson, D.M., Wilson, J.R., Zengeya, 1635 T. (Eds), Biological invasions in South Africa (pp. xxx-yyy). Springer, Berlin. 1636 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_1 1637 van Wilgen, B.W., Wilson, J.R., Wannenburgh, A., & Foxcroft, L.C. (2020c). The extent and effectiveness of alien 1638 plant control projects in South Africa. In: van Wilgen, B.W., Measey, G.J., Richardson, D.M., Wilson, 1639 J.R., Zengeya, T. (Eds), Biological invasions in South Africa (pp. xxx-yyy). Springer, Berlin. 1640 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_21 1641 van Wilgen, B.W., & Wilson, J.R. (Eds) (2018). The status of biological invasions and their management in South 1642 Africa in 2017. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Kirstenbosch and DST-NRF Centre of 1643 Excellence for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch. 1644 van Wilgen, N.J., van Wilgen, B.W., & Midgley, G.F. (2020d). Biological Invasions as a Component of South 1645 Africa’s Global Change Research Effort. In: van Wilgen, B.W., Measey, G.J., Richardson, D.M., Wilson, 1646 J.R., Zengeya, T. (Eds), Biological invasions in South Africa (pp. xxx-yyy). Springer, Berlin. 1647 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_29 1648 Versfeld, D.B., Le Maitre, D.C., & Chapman, R.A. (1998). Alien Invading Plants and Water Resources in South 1649 Africa : A Preliminary Assessment. WRC Report no. TT 99/98, Water Research Commission, Pretoria. 1650 http://www.wrc.org.za/wp-content/uploads/mdocs/TT-99-98.pdf 1651 Wickham, H. (2014). Tidy Data. Journal of Statistical Software, 59, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v059.i10 1652 Wilkinson, M.D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I.J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Mons, B. (2016). 1653 Comment: The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship Scientific 1654 Data, 3, 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18 1655 Wilson, J.R., Panetta, F.D., & Lindgren, C. (2017). Detecting and responding to alien plant incursions. 1656 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316155318 1657 Wilson, J.R., Measey, J., Richardson, D.M., van Wilgen, B.W. & Zengeya, T.A. (2020). Potential futures of 1658 biological invasions in South Africa. In: van Wilgen, B.W., Measey, G.J., Richardson, D.M., Wilson, J.R., 1659 Zengeya, T. (Eds), Biological invasions in South Africa (pp. xxx-yyy). Springer, Berlin. 1660 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_31 1661 Wilson, J.R.U., Faulkner, K.T., Rahlao, S.J., Richardson, D.M., Zengeya, T.A., & van Wilgen, B.W. (2018). 1662 Indicators for monitoring biological invasions at a national level. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55, 2612- 1663 2620. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13251 1664 Wojtasik, E.M. (2013). Richness and Diversity of Alien Ethnomedicinal Plant Taxa Used and Sold for Traditional 1665 Medicine in South Africa. University of Witwatersrand. 1666 Woodford, D.J., Ivey, P., Jordaan, M.S., Kimberg, P.K., Zengeya, T., & Weyl, O.L.F. (2017). Optimising invasive 1667 fish management in the context of invasive species legislation in South Africa. Bothalia, 47, 9. 1668 https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v47i2.2138 1669 Yapi, T.S., O'Farrell, P.J., Dziba, L.E., & Esler, K.J. (2018). Alien tree invasion into a South African montane 1670 grassland ecosystem: impact of Acacia species on rangeland condition and livestock carrying capacity. 1671 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 14, 105-116. 1672 https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2018.1450291 1673 Zengeya, T., Ivey, P., Woodford, D.J., Weyl, O.L.F., Novoa, A., Shackleton, R., Richardson, D.M., & van Wilgen, 1674 B.W. (2017) Managing conflict-generating invasive species in South Africa: Challenges and trade-offs. 1675 Bothalia, 47, a2160. https://doi.org/10.4102/abc.v47i2.2160 1676 Zengeya, T.A., Kumschick, S., Weyl, O.L.F., van Wilgen, B.W. (2020). An Evaluation of the Impacts of Alien 1677 Species on Biodiversity in South Africa Using Different Assessment Methods. In: van Wilgen, B.W., 1678 Measey, G.J., Richardson, D.M., Wilson, J.R., Zengeya, T. (Eds), Biological invasions in South Africa (pp. 1679 xxx-yyy). Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3_17 1680

1681

1682 Link to supplementary material and appendices

1683 All the supplementary material and appendices are available at 1684 https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14K00DGe2k7xRKuV4H23JhIZSh9pEnAUb

1685 This link will not be permanent, but the files housed there might be updated either during this 1686 review process or later in the report process.

1687 A link to a permanent copy of the files as of 18 December 2019 are available on the links below.

1688 Supplementary material: additional information chapter by chapter on the methods used; discussion 1689 points; and tables and figures. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3581996

1690 Appendix 1: List of data sources used in the second report. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3582008

1691 Appendix 2: The species list for the second status report. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3582016

1692 Appendix 3: Data on the status of pathways. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3582022

1693 Appendix 4: Species list change tracker. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3582028

1694 Appendix 5: Template for comments. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3582032